Maester Steven, do you think there’s a reason that Essos lacks a comparable institution of higher education to the citadel given how they are comparatively far more developed than the seven kingdoms? And if so how do you think it would develop? I’d imagine that it would be much more a centralized place of learning for the children of magisters and other free city notables than the lifelong monastic commitment of the citadel. Probably with atlesst one existing in every major free city.

I’ve discussed this before here, but given their level of technology and literacy, Essos must have more of an education system than is shown in the text.

There’s a couple possibilities:

Greco/Roman slave-tutoring: this fits the Free City’s social structure, even if that social structure isn’t super well-suited to their level of technology but w/e. Well-educated slaves tutoring the elite philosophy, rhetoric, and the rest of the trivium and quadrivium is certainly a long-lasting “successful” model of education, so there you have it.
Local Academies: This is more likely in Braavos and Braavos-centric cities that don’t have slavery. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Essosi academies are A. more focused on Valyrian “humanism” as opposed to the Citadel’s relentless focus on empiricism, and B. more focused on applied sciences needed for finance, commerce, and high-end manufacturing than the Citadel’s trade-school-approach to feudal administration.

Is the Wildlings being so under developed significantly due to culture, ie refusing to organize into larger polities and shunning wargs who could be useful in many ways such as hunting better? After all the Thenns have managed to have a sophisticated civilization despite living in the same environment and there was even hardhome. If say hardhome was never destroyed and both it and the thenns managed to expand to a greater degree and open up trade with northerners could they have managed to create a society capable of matching other planetos ones politically and technologically?

Man, people are really, really interested in economic development of a region that’s really not suited to economic development.

No, wildling underdevelopment is mostly not due to culture, but the fact that A. most wildlings lack very important technologies like agriculture and metal-working, and B. Beyond-the-Wall is an incredibly harsh natural environment that doesn’t allow for much in the way of surplus food – this forces most people to spend their time on acquiring the necessities of survival, makes specialization difficult if not impossible, etc.

Of the wildlings, really only the Thenns have managed to maintain the level of technology (bronze-working, subsistence agriculture) that the First Men had back in the Dawn Age, and I’m pretty sure that’s only because the Valley of the Thenns provides enough of a protection from winter storms to allow for crops to be planted and harvested.

Maester Steven, I can’t find anything on the borders of the Valyrian Freehold. They don’t seem to have ever spread east of the Bone Mountains, but there’s also nothing stating the Sarnorians or Qartheen were under their control. So, what are your thoughts on the extent of their territory?

Good question!

The Valyrian empire did not extend into the lands of the Sarnori: “the confederation of cities later called the Kingdom of Sarnor survived the Valyrian expansion thanks to the great plain that separated one from the other.” Indeed, the Valyrians tended to look west rather than east (”once the Ghiscari wars had ended, the dragonlords of Valyria turned their gaze to the west…With the destruction of the Rhoynar, Valyria soon achieved complete domination of the western half of Essos, from the narrow sea to Slaver’s Bay, and from the Summer Sea to the Shivering Sea.”) for conquest.

The Lands of Ice and Fire are also helpful here:

Essaria (now known as Vaes Khadokh) was a Valyrian colony due east of Qohor, connected to the Free Cities by the Valyrian roads that connected the Freehold to its trading partners – to the port city of Saath in the north and Sarnath of the Tall Towers in the east. So we can conclude with a high degree of confidence that Valyria’s eastern border was somewhere around Essaria (perhaps at the banks of that enormous river?) and that at some point Valyria managed to work out a treaty allowing them to extend their roads into the Kingdom of Sarnor for the purposes of trade.

Further to the south, we can look to the extent of Ghiscari territory to guess at how far east Valyria extended once old Ghis was conquered. Krazaaj Has, Vaes Mejhah, Vaes Efe, were all Ghiscari colonies, but Yinishar and Adakhakileki were not. So I’d say the furthest east Valyria got through its conquest of Old Ghis is Vaes Efe.

Poor Lorath always seemed to get too much of a bad rap in my opinion. Does the city have any redeeming qualities in your opinion?

Hey. Same anon that asked about Lorath before. I was reading through the WOIAF and it just kind of struck me that the fisherfolk and farmers overthrowing the Boashi is much more noteworthy than it gets in the text. Has there ever been another successful smallfolk revolution in Planetos? I get the feeling that Lorath is kind of like Haiti, the site of a momentously important people’s history that gets overshadowed by its poverty, probably caused by its satellite status to Braavosi capital

I always think of Lorath as akin to one of the post-industrial cities of the Northeast – not even one of the former greats in decline, but a scrappy woulda-been-a-contenda that never quite got its shot. It’s got some economic base – cod, whaling, sealskins and walrus tusks, velvet, trading for furs, ivory, and obsidian – but it’s kind of second-tier and it can’t exercise dominion over its own hinterland.

In terms of stuff that I find interesting about Lorath – the cult of Boash is an interesting ascetic egalitarian faith and I’m kind of sad it’s not around any more, the three princes is an interesting political system but it’s not around any more, but most of all the whole thing about the mazemakers and their connection to the Deep Ones.

OTHO, Qarlon the Great is pretty boring and doesn’t add anything, and there isn’t much else.

So we know about the Reach’s golden ‘hands,’ and I’d be incredibly surprised if the Kingdom of the Rock’s currency wasn’t based around golden ‘lions,’ but do you have any suggestions for the names and metallic content of the Seven Kingdoms’ pre-Conquest currencies? I think I remember the North being a primarily silver-based economy, but ‘silver direwolves’ just doesn’t strike me as a good money name.

Let’s see:

The Reach: as stated, “golden hands.” Notably smaller and thinner than your post-Targaryen dragons.

The Rock: agreed, definitely gold and definitely “lions.”

The Stormlands: I wouldn’t be surprised if the stag as a coin predated the Conquest, given the Durrandon’s once-mighty empire. Perhaps they were once minted in gold, but had to be downgraded to silver as the Durrandon empire waned?

The North: silver wolves sounds good; when in doubt, simplify.

Riverlands: a wild mix of coinage, suggesting the political instability of the realm. I like the idea of the pious Teagues introducing the Star, tho.

The Vale: silver falcons are too close to the sigil to be avoided, I think.

Dorne: Golden suns I think would be almost mandatory.

Iron Islands: “he decreed that gold and silver coin should in future have no value, and ordained that the people should use iron money only…which in weight was over a pound and a quarter, and in value not quite a penny.” And according to legend, dipped in vinigar to make the coins brittle and thus even less useful….

In the minority of a king, are the titles of Regent and Protector of the Realm different? Can they be given to different people? Also, does the king, as a minor, have the right to dismiss his regent and appoint a new one?

The King as a minor cannot dismiss his regent, because formally speaking he hasn’t been invested in royal authority yet – he is legally speaking a ward of his Regent, who holds that authority in trust.

So, Regent and Protector of the Realm: not quite the same thing, although they often go together, and they don’t have to happen during a minority. For example, Aemond was Regent when Aegon II was injured, and none of the Regents on the Regency Council of Aegon III were Protectors (not even Unwin Peake). Likewise, Daemon Targaryen was Rhaenyra’s Protector while she was Queen regnant, and Baelor Breakspear was named Protector by Daeron II.

So how we we understand the meaning of all these royal titles?

Here is how I understand it:

King of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men is a recognition that the King is monarch of three nations (in the sense of peoples), both in the sense of glorifying the union of the whole of Westeros but also a promise to respect the customs and folkways of these different peoples.
Lord of the Seven Kingdoms is a statement of feudal authority – the king as ultimate liege lord, whose right to rule in part flows from his acclamation and oath-taking by his vassals.
Protector of the Realm is a military title, recognizing the king as the supreme authority in warmaking – he’s the one who gets to declare war and make peace, he’s the one who calls the banners and who sits atop the chain of command in cases of dispute, and lesser military authorities like the Wardens Cardinal get their authority through him. But as I’ve said before, there’s also a recognition of reciprocal obligation to a social contract: because the King is the warmaking authority, he’s also the one responsible for the defense of the realm against foreign invasion and domestic rebellion.That’s why it’s the King’s Peace and the King’s Justice – he’s the one tasked with maintaining law and order in the face of everything from rebellious vassals to bandits and outlaws to common criminals.

And this is why I think we see the two titles sometimes separated. Daemon’s Protectorate was a recognition that he was the commander-in-chief of Rhaenrya’s armies; Baelor’s Protectorate was a statement from Daeron II that Baelor was being eased into becoming King, but also a way to counteract the king’s lack of skill by endowing supreme military authority on someone whose martial abilities were unquestionable. Whereas a Regent represents more the civilian side of power – the Small Council and the royal bureaucracy, the judicial and lawmaking sides of Kingship.