Aragorn's Tax Policy & lack of Genocidal Policy

On Martin's weird hatred for Tolkien

Okay, to be honest I didn’t actually want to write this article. The trouble is that Martin’s whiny comment about tax policies and Orc genocide are making the rounds over on twitter, I myself was asked to weigh in, and did so several times, so from now on when asked I’ll just refer people to this article and save myself some trouble and time.

Truth is, this lack of proper knowledge or willingness to go on offense in defence of Tolkien bugs me. Because not only did Tolkien FULLY lay out Aragorn’s tax policy, but he also made it clear what happened to the Orcs. What follows is what I posted on twtitter (with some minor changes).

Tolkien did elaborate on this detail and lays it out, quite frankly but what Martin is doing here is intellectual dishonesty and clout-chasing.

It was mentioned that he ruled lightly, in a letter Tolkien admits to being of the view the King should reign rather than to dominate his realm. So that in mind, Aragorn having access to Mordor's vast mineral wealth, and resources and given he made the roads safe for commerce would thus have had weatlh aplenty, and we know he rebuilt the great fortresses of Gondor, those of Arnor along with the cities of Arnor.

We also know that he generally left his subjects to live their lives in peace. This would mean he ruled with a light hand, where laws are concerned, and so he was wealthy like Augustus was after the conquest of Egypt (an apt comparison I should think). He likely had to fend off Harad, and also divide some of the treasure with Rohan. But still it is unlikely that he would have had a heavy tax policy given how much his subjects loved him, and how frugal he could be, and how much wealth he had on hand.

In contrast, we don't know the tax policies of Bobby B, we have statements that there are those who wished to raise it, and others lighten up the burden on the peasants.

We have reference to peasants being poor, but also to there being little in the way of suffering in the realm, during Bobby B's rule. So we keep getting contrasting statements, which confuse more than they clarify throughout Game of Thrones (the novel).

Whereas Tolkien paints a picture of a realm united, content, brimming with trade and with agriculture and many years without famine or plague. One comparable to the Augustan Period of Ancient Rome, or to King Arthur's Logres Kingdom of Arthurian myth.

So you see folks? Aragorn basically marched in, found a generally empty area, claimed the mineral wealth, shared it with Rohan, and also used it to rebuild Arnor & Gondor. This guaranteed peace and prosperity throughout the three kingdoms. What is more is that with this newfound safety, trade blossomed, the economy boomed and there was little need to tax.

This is consistent with Tolkien’s outlook about taxes and government, he felt that the King should reign and not rule. That is to say you can rebrand laws into a new law-code sure, but no regulation, and no new taxation. And with the wealth won from the War of the One Ring, there would have been no need for taxes on Aragorn’s part, as he could live large if he wanted without oppressing his people. That said, as a frugal man, he was unlikely to cost much or to run up a huge debt or anything or to cost much, in terms of household expenses. Likely if there was an exchequer it was used more for others than for Aragorn Elessar.

Now as to the wildly foolish accusation of ‘Orc Genocide’ the Nihilist Martin throws out, in his weird attempt to deconstruct Aragorn. There was no such event. It is outright STATED that after Sauron dies, the Orcs and the Uruk-Hai went bonkers, attacked one another or just simply dropped dead.

As instruments of the will of Sauron (or Saruman with respect to his Orcs), they could not survive without the metaphysical will of the Dark Lord duo keeping them together. As beings corrupted and who’s essence depended on the very essence of say Sauron they could not really keep it together on a biological level or sentient level without him or Saruman and the latter when his power broke, could not keep his own hordes in control or together. So no there was no Orc nursery to be slaughtered, no Orcish genocide, as Martin would have loved there to be.

Or as I put it to someone on twitter (a very pleasant, and smart chap who speaks from what I can tell better English than myself and knows Spanish); If they're a breed of Orc they fell apart, or were driven mad when Saruman & Sauron fell.

They just went mad or instantly died to my knowledge. Aragorn is a merciful character, but the thing about the Orcs is that they could not survive without Sauron as they were attached to his will in some metaphysical manner. They were products of his will.

What Martin proposed happened, was simply him wishing to subvert and deconstruct Aragorn, as he despises the character. Aragorn went looking for Orcs to negotiate with them according to Tolkien's notes and Appendices, and instead found a barren land.

Aragorn had to make sure Sauron was gone. Buuuut yeah nobody there except the crickets. Funny thing is that Tolkien was troubled by this ending, and felt bad for the Orcs, and likely longed to rewrite LOTR to bring in good Orcs.

End Quote

There you have it folks, this was Aragorn’s ‘Tax Policy’ and ‘Genocide Policy’, both of them pretty much non-existent due to gained wealth and also enemies just dropping dead or going bonkers.

Also to add to this, Aragorn goes as a dowry a sizeable fortune, since he did after all marry Elrond’s beloved daughter Arwen. So there is that to consider, with Arwen also being the heiress to Galadriel so she would have likely brouht with her a pretty good dowry courtesy of granny.

As to Martin’s own universe, I have one question to ask; what is Robert Baratheon or Joffrey’s Tax Policies?

Seriously I don’t know. Robert’s is complained about by the likes of Cersei, and the rest of the Small Council as being far too low, but is implied in the Hound’s journey north to be too high, with Joffrey maybe raising it(?) it is raised, but then is it lowered back down? It seems the peasants are well off in Game of Thrones. But then in the next book they are stated to be impossibly broke, but then in the last book with Kings’ Landing it is shown they’re pretty content with Tommen as King and that they’ve little to complain about.

So which is it? Is the tax too high? Too low? Does Ned enforce the same tax-policy as ordered by Robert? What about Robb, did he cut up all taxes or raise them? If he raised them is this why he’s so unpopular in some circles (those who don’t care about his marital nonsense)?

Sorry but I really don’t understand what the tax policy is, nor do I fully understand the laws of Westeros. They aren’t clear, whereas in Lord of the Rings and Hour of the Dragon, we have line after line, after line about the laws of the Shire, the laws of Gondor, of Rohan, of Aquilonia, of Nemedia and so on.

It is bizarre that Howard didn’t put in, in as much writing about the law courts of the Hyborian Kingdoms, but that we can guess at, pick up on implications and even deduce more about them than those of Westeros. Same goes for Valusia and the Thurian Age Empires and Kingdoms.