#unfortunately the prince lives between sun tzu and clausewitz so---------

[lemonhemlock]

Sansa says to Tyrion: “You’re afraid of her.” And Tyrion replies: “Every good ruler needs to inspire a bit of fear.”

Is that true? Should every good ruler do that?

Should Sansa be afraid of her and was her behavior towards Daenerys smart?

I feel like it was, Sansa's stance against kneeling to Daenerys was not just about defiance; it was a strategic move reflecting her commitment to Northern independence and sovereignty. Sansa's refusal to kneel to Daenerys wasn't about provoking her for the sake of it. It was a calculated decision to assert Northern autonomy and ensure that any alliance with Daenerys was on equal terms. Kneeling would have symbolized submission, potentially compromising the North's ability to negotiate from a position of strength. Sansa understood the risks but believed that standing firm was crucial for preserving Northern identity and security.

What an interesting question! Unfortunately, I was taught only one seminar class on Machiavelli during my one History of the Middle Ages course,* so I'll not insist on the discourse on whether he was writing satire, was being deceitful, opportunistic (my teaching assistant at the time certainly thought he was!) or was genuinely writing a <mirror for princes> in the hopes of Italian unification as he may have seen tyrants as an effective political typology who could achieve that goal. Others more well-read than me can comment much more in-depth on this topic.

*I know this is the Renaissance, it was an expansive course, alright. :)

The question should at least begin with a discussion around Machiavelli IMO because he is very obviously the most famous source for the quote and the majority of the population familiar with this quandary have most likely heard it in association with him. But it's very telling that the idea of being feared is the one D&D latched on to, no? This reminds me of that Twitter meme of red flag books you see in men's houses after going on a couple of dates and the list contained titles like The Prince, American Psycho, Atlas Shrugged, How to Win Friends and Influence People etc.

Even so, even if you take the text at face value, that's not exactly what the man says, is it? He is pondering several options. In fact, let me whip out my copy of The Prince I bought way back in the cretaceous period for Year 1.

Even if you believe he is being genuine here and not just sucking up to (or trying to placate) Lorenzo di Medici, he is saying that love & fear > fear > fear and hatred. So, whatever you do, make sure you are not hated. And what is a sure-fire way to getting hated? Taking people's stuff! "Above all, a man must refrain from seizing the property of others, because a man is quicker to forget the death of his father than the loss of his patrimony"! And how does Dany answer Sansa's question of "what do dragons eat"? What does she say? "Whatever they like." Does whatever they like perchance include the assets of the Northerners, like cattle and sheep? Hmmm.....

In any case, Machiavelli was an ardent Republican, so why is he giving advice to princes? There is a contradiction that lies at the heart of this question and in how fandom perceives some elements of ASOIAF as well. Authoritarian rulers and tyrants can be very effective. It doesn't mean we should accept or normalize authoritarian rule. These two things are not in contradiction. Machiavelli doesn't have to believe, in his heart of hearts, that tyrants are preferable; he can simply write about how to make them efficient. And, again, I'm leaving the conversation about his true intentions to others who have genuinely studied the issue, because it is still under debate.

How I'm redirecting this back to ASOIAF is by pointing out that a lot of critiques of Westerosi rulers are hesitant to characterize any kind of imperious or strongman ruler as efficient, even when the text doesn't point to any material issue that might undermine their rule. Tywin Lannister and Walder Frey are examples of this. To my knowledge, there is no real contestation of their rule by their bannermen or smallfolk and they are not exactly the warmest individuals. Yes, they die, because they are the playthings of the author and he is killing them to make a thematic point. Not because they were overthrown by their underlings or in a peasant revolt. Tywin is killed by his own son in an act of personal revenge that has nothing to do with politics. Walder Frey is killed similarly by Arya in the show (in the books he is still alive). But, that doesn't mean that, in the real world, rulers like Stalin don't exist and are not successful and always pay for their crimes.

I would thus advance the proposition that GRRM does think that tyrants might be effective, but not that they should be endorsed and definitely the endgame of the series will not involve another tyrant on the throne, because he has power over these characters and he can eliminate whomever he wants from the narrative if he doesn't believe they fit the profile for the type of ruler he is looking for.

Ping-pong-ing back to the show, the question is ultimately a misunderstanding of the themes by D&D. They conflate being effective with being a "good" ruler. And it is important to define that efficiency in the first place! Machiavelli talks a lot about how to maintain your seat as a prince once you've got it. And the discussion on love vs fear happens in the context of how to prevent oneself from acquiring the ire of the population / one's subalterns and prevent being ousted. But would that truly be the trait GRRM is looking for in his ideal model of a king? A good king being one who efficiently held onto the crown? What about policy? What exactly is Dany's policy for Westeros? She has none in the show. In the books she has none as well, but at least she hasn't reached Westeros there yet, so there may be time for her to formulate something.

Regardless, the population shouldn't be afraid of its rulers, who serve for them. The only reason one should feel fear in relation to one's rulers is because they are judicious applicators of the law and would mete punishment accordingly if one has committed a crime. This is very much an idealistic manifestation of the relationship between the two, but it is not an entirely new concept. Even in the context of the divine right of kings,* there existed paternalistic notions of benevolence (noblesse oblige being one such manifestation), the idea that the upper classes have social responsibilities to care and protect the vulnerable and those less fortunate. So the idea of the elites being indebted in a way (or more like having a duty towards) the populace has always permeated political thinking. Of course, in the case of unjust rulers, philosophers like Thomas Aquinas also condoned tyrannicide (legally permitted in Ancient Greece, too). So, I would so as far as to say that there is basis enough to argue that a "good" ruler is one who cares for their people and doesn't abuse them or incite negative associations such as fear - and that it's probably what GRRM also has in mind when writing these godforsaken books.

*although I suppose I should mention that the idea that God granted monarchs authority to rule predates the coinage of that term, which is essentially absolutist in phrasing, because we are LARP-ing medieval times here and that predates the absolutist monarchy, contrary to what viral posts will have you believe (no, I will never shut up about this).

As for the second part of your question, yes, I would say that in the context of the show, Sansa refusing to kneel to Dany would be consistent with the goal D&D gave her, namely Northern independence. So it wasn't about antagonizing Daenerys the person or playing mind games, it was about achieving her political objective and implementing her own policies, as Sansa was one of the only characters shown to care about the logistics of survival, ensuring the needs of her population and caring for them as best as she could. Had she failed, Daenerys would have kept asking for her armies and money in order to fight in her world domination tour - a loss of resources that Sansa wanted to prevent.

Please bear in mind, though, that a lot of this is coloured by the weird decision to have Cersei be the final villain to defeat, whereas it's much more likely that in the books the battle against the wights is going to be the final, major battle. It's likely that the dynamics in the books will be different - not saying that Dany and Sansa are going to be bffs, but Jon, for instance, could have a much greater political involvement, one would hope, instead of being reduced to moodily repeating 3 lines. Also, Dany's public perception might very well change if she, IDK, murders her alleged nephew Aegon VI or engages in other endearing brouhaha.