Dany Didn't Sack Astapor

[butterbumps!]

In the technical definition it was a sack because she stole gold and food from the masters. But by the traditional meaning it was a relatively light beat down.

So, basically, if we're going by a definition stating that "performing a military victory and gaining some form of material profit from it" = "a sack" then every single person in the book who has ever led some form of a military group has done this, including, but not limited to, rangers who take spoils off dead wildlings after battle beyond the wall, and as such, what the hell does it matter who "sacked" what if we're going to turn this into such a broad definition?

"Sack," to me, is what the Ironborn do, what Quentyn witnesses, what Ramsay did to WInterfell, the indiscriminate slaughter Tywin's known for. It strikes me as a fairly alarmist and unnecessary way of describing what actually happened at Astapor.

[Fat Trell]

That's not what the OP was saying at all.

I was not addressing the OP, more the arguments throughout the thread.

[Jasta11]

I'm not sure I follow. Isn't a sack about pillaging and destroying the city? And notably absent from this is the destruction of Astapor, until the Astapori and all those sellswords do actually sack it? Comparing Dany's liberation of Astapor with Quentyn's account of the later destruction, I kind of think Dany's falls outside the "sack" definition while Quentyn's account assuredly fits.

Hm, King's Landing was still standing and mostly intact after Tywin had his way with it, and it's still called a sack. Rome was sacked several times, but it was never fully destroyed, and you could find plenty of historical examples. Sacking a city means conquering it by force and looting it afterwards. Which definitely happens.

[Winter's Knight]

So, basically, if we're going by a definition stating that "performing a military victory and gaining some form of material profit from it" = "a sack" then every single person in the book who has ever led some form of a military group has done this, including, but not limited to, rangers who take spoils off dead wildlings after battle beyond the wall, and as such, what the hell does it matter who "sacked" what if we're going to turn this into such a broad definition?

"Sack," to me, is what the Ironborn do, what Quentyn witnesses, what Ramsay did to WInterfell, the indiscriminate slaughter Tywin's known for. It strikes me as a fairly alarmist and unnecessary way of describing what actually happened at Astapor.

Like calling it, oh I don't know, "genocide" yeah?

I think we can safely say that there is a certain segment of fandom that views Dany the same way the Tea Party views Obama.

[WingZero]

We can always start calling it by its true name - The Genocide of Astapor

Much more apt of Dany in general

Not a sack?? So Danny was carrying food, water and shelter(tents, firewood, furniture, clothes etc) for 8 thousand unsullied + thousands of freedmen in her pocket??

People need to be realistic with logistics, if you dont sack the cities that you conquer, where will you get your resources from? From The Kingdom you do not have?

[butterbumps!]

Hm, King's Landing was still standing and mostly intact after Tywin had his way with it, and it's still called a sack. Rome was sacked several times, but it was never fully destroyed, and you could find plenty of historical examples. Sacking a city means conquering it by force and looting it afterwards. Which definitely happens.

Of course every single piece of architecture doesn't have to crumble to be called a sacking. But don't you think there's a connotation of intensity in terms of looting and destruction when something is referred to as a "sack?"

My point is really that what Dany does in Astapor is pretty piddly in terms of conquest. She's pretty explicitly trying to not damage it or seeking a reaving mission, because she's looking to turn rule back over to them and needs them to sustain themselves (meaning, she's not razing and burning or robbing them blind).

I kind of get the reason why Parwan sought to create this thread, in that it does often seem like the most alarmist terminology for Dany's actions is thrown around in order to support further vitriol toward her. I'm not suggesting that you're doing that or anything. I just think "sack" might be a little much to describe this, and I'm a bit skeptical of the impulse to classify this as such. Especially when you look at what she did versus Astapor in DwD.

Like calling it, oh I don't know, "genocide" yeah?

I think we can safely say that there is a certain segment of fandom that views Dany the same way the Tea Party views Obama.

sigh. yea.

Ironically, she may have had more "success" had she sacked these places more thoroughly.

[Table8]

Semantics.

She did what she did. Feel free to find another word for it, though I suspect it will be one that will white wash. How about "liberate"?

[Jasta11]

Of course every single piece of architecture doesn't have to crumble to be called a sacking. But don't you think there's a connotation of intensity in terms of looting and destruction when something is referred to as a "sack?"

My point is really that what Dany does in Astapor is pretty piddly in terms of conquest. She's pretty explicitly trying to not damage it or seeking a reaving mission, because she's looking to turn rule back over to them and needs them to sustain themselves (meaning, she's not razing and burning or robbing them blind).

I kind of get the reason why Parwan sought to create this thread, in that it does often seem like the most alarmist terminology for Dany's actions is thrown around in order to support further vitriol toward her. I'm not suggesting that you're doing that or anything. I just think "sack" might be a little much to describe this, and I'm a bit skeptical of the impulse to classify this as such. Especially when you look at what she did versus Astapor in DwD.

sigh. yea.

Ironically, she may have had more "success" had she sacked these places more thoroughly.

I just don't get why people are offended. ''Sack'' is just the description of an action, not some wild accusation like, say, ''genodice''. A city was taken by force, and there was lots of killing and looting afterwards, with the former directed by the conqueror. That's a sack, plain and simple. Again, whenever you think it was justified is another debate entirely.

If people don't like negative connotations towards actions that ended up with many people dying, well, tough luck I guess? What shall we have to call it, the Glorious, Pure-Hearted Liberation of Astapor, if you turn your eyes and don't notice the corpses?

[Alayne's Shadow.]

Plus a classicide, including the slaughter of children

I don't recall these children.

[butterbumps!]

I just don't get why people are offended. ''Sack'' is just the description of an action, not some wild accusation like, say, ''genodice''. A city was taken by force, and there was lots of killing and looting afterwards, with the former directed by the conqueror. That's a sack, plain and simple. Again, whenever you think it was justified is another debate entirely.

If people don't like negative connotations towards actions that ended up with many people dying, well, tough luck I guess? What shall we have to call it, the Glorious, Pure-Hearted Liberation of Astapor, if you turn your eyes and don't notice the corpses?

I'm not offended by it, but honestly, "sack" to me is a bit more loaded than I think the way Astapor was handled. I'm not like worked up over this or anything. I'm coming from the angle that a good old fashioned sacking might have actually served her better.

If this is purely about technicalities-- city taken by force with resources taken-- well, isn't that exactly what every single military commander does? So is every stronghold that is taken and resources confiscated truly a "sack?" Like, would we use that word for Jon Con's return battle to Westeros? And for the reasons I stated above-- that she was turning the city back over to them and wasn't looking to leave the city unable to sustain itself through the taking of plunder-- this was honestly a pretty light conquest.

Truthfully, I get the sense that "sack" is used in order to render the Astapor thing more nefarious than it was-- it does have a somewhat alarmist connotation.

[LordStoneheart]

Truthfully, I get the sense that "sack" is used in order to render the Astapor thing more nefarious than it was-- it does have a somewhat alarmist connotation.

I wonder if there's a medium in this. Because I totally understand what the OP and you in the recent posts are getting at. I don't know if we can ever successfully separate the word "sack" from it, but it should not be as negative as hearing something like "Sack of King's Landing" or "Winterfell."

[new djinn]

She cuddled Astapor harshly, relocated the Masters to a sublevel of the city, reinvested the resources into movable assets.

[Jasta11]

I'm not offended by it, but honestly, "sack" to me is a bit more loaded than I think the way Astapor was handled. I'm not like worked up over this or anything. I'm coming from the angle that a good old fashioned sacking might have actually served her better.

If this is purely about technicalities-- city taken by force with resources taken-- well, isn't that exactly what every single military commander does? So is every stronghold that is taken and resources confiscated truly a "sack?" Like, would we use that word for Jon Con's return battle to Westeros? And for the reasons I stated above-- that she was turning the city back over to them and wasn't looking to leave the city unable to sustain itself through the taking of plunder-- this was honestly a pretty light conquest.

Truthfully, I get the sense that "sack" is used in order to render the Astapor thing more nefarious than it was-- it does have a somewhat alarmist connotation.

It's not like Dany is the only one to do it or anything. Nobody has said that. Winterfell, King's Landing, the Saltpans, Maidenpool, and probably a few other places I forget have been sacked, to varying degrees of violence. JonCon's conquest of his family's hold is not really a sack as he ordered all non-combatants spared if I recall correctly. Whereas Dany ordered the deaths of a good part of Astapor's population and seemingly did little to stop the newly freed slaves for inflicting (very much understandable) violence on their former masters, as well as the random pillaging that comes with every conquest ever.

And anyway, my understanding is that a ''sack'' refer more to looting + violence than anything else. Which Dany and her follower definitely did. Yet again, whenever you think it's justified is one thing, but objectively it's a sack.

I also don't really get the association with the Sack of King's Landing or of Winterfell. Using the word ''sack'' for both of them doesn't automatically mean you think the two acts are on equal moral grounds at all. Tyrion murdered both Tywin and Shae, but one of these acts was unquestionably worse than the other, for example. From a modern perspective anyway.

[butterbumps!]

It's not like Dany is the only one to do it or anything. Nobody has said that. Winterfell, King's Landing, the Saltpans, Maidenpool, and probably a few other places I forget have been sacked, to varying degrees of violence. JonCon's conquest of his family's hold is not really a sack as he ordered all non-combatants spared if I recall correctly. Whereas Dany ordered the deaths of a good part of Astapor's population and seemingly did little to stop the newly freed slaves for inflicting (very much understandable) violence on their former masters, as well as the random pillaging that comes with every conquest ever.

And anyway, my understanding is that a ''sack'' refer more to looting + violence than anything else. Which Dany and her follower definitely did. Yet again, whenever you think it's justified is one thing, but objectively it's a sack.

I also don't really get the association with the Sack of King's Landing or of Winterfell. Using the word ''sack'' for both of them doesn't automatically mean you think the two acts are on equal moral grounds at all. Tyrion murdered both Tywin and Shae, but one of these acts was unquestionably worse than the other, for example. From a modern perspective anyway.

Hang on-- I'm not making distinctions about whether this was justified or not. I'm referring to how low-intensity of a conquest this was, as compared with incidents I'd probably refer to as a "sack." Even the "looting" is pretty tame. Casks of wine?

I actually don't think it's clear that Dany ordered a good part of the population killed; there's that whole debate about how far from the plaza Dany commanded these people killed (and logic tells us a whole lot were not killed, because the former slaves enslaved their former masters).

A "sack" tends to connote something more violent and total than what happens at Astapor. A "sacked" city is one you leave crippled; it's about draining enemy resources for your gain and wanton brutality. That's somewhat opposite of what Dany was doing there. I'd probably use "conquest" as the neutral term, and "sack" to denote a particular character of said "conquest."

[Parwan]

The Bittersteel, No. OP is talking about readers calling Astapor a sack.

Yes, this is the central point, and most people are missing it. I'm glad some people understand. In the OP, I started by talking about threads, wikis, etc. I was clearly talking about readers, not masters. Also, I am clearly talking about a city. The rulers of a city are not the city. If you think that taking some weapons from the former rulers of Astapor constitutes theft, then you would also probably say that disarming a criminal is theft.

There is another point that I made in a later post. Thieves have little or no standing to complain about thievery. Saying that Dany stole the master's property is iffy at best. It is an very poor argument when applied to the freeing of slaves. It is absolutely absurd when applied to the slaves of Astapor. In my posts a gave a technical (remember, we are concerned with technical matters here) but acceptable defense of Dany's actions. No one has replied to this. Let me make it clearer.

The Slave System in SB: We are not talking about Ivan Ivanovich, his lands and his serfs; we are not even talking about a Simon Legree character with a whip and a tendency to sell people down the river. The system Martin presents to us is incredibly predatory, far beyond what Ivan and Simon do. It depends on a huge amount of enslavement of freeborn individuals. As I pointed out, this is not only clear, it is glorified. Dany gets instructions to sack small cities. Not surprising. The whole damn system is built on the continuous rape of others--other people, other cities, other entire cultures. All this blather about stealing from the slavers and equating it with sacking a city is just that, blather. Probably all of the slaves in the city, and certainly the Unsullied, have been robbed of everything they had and just about everything they could have hoped for. So, they get some weapons, Dany takes some wine, and this is sacking a city? Sorry, but that is ridiculous.

She may have not ordered a sack, but a sack took place. Whether it happened before or after she left is largely irrelevant.

...

No, it is not irrelevant. Incompetence or even negligence is not the same as theft. There are good reasons for criticizing Dany. The so called "Sack of Astapor" is not one of them.

Err,

Seems like Daenerys definitely looted some wine cellars. She took at least a "tun" from the Astapori cellars.

Then there's also this line outside Meereen as Dany is visiting the camps, just before the Titan's Bastard tries to assassinate her;

Indicating that not only did former slaves take weapons from armories, but that Daenerys herself also took weapons from Astapor that she later armed additional slaves (likely the Yunkish ones that are liberated without many weapons).

So yeah, this was unquestionably a sack.

The taking of weapons from a defeated enemy is evidence of a sack? That is not true in any military campaign. It is completely without merit when we are talking about providing for the defense of people whose lives have been damn near destroyed.

Taking a city, 1. looting it, 2. unleashing the lower class on the upper one, and

3. allowing your soldiers to kill anything in sight save women and small children is not a sack? News to me. The Unsullied are certainly more disciplined than any other army but the freed slaves sure as hell weren't.

4.You can be sure there were killings, looting and raping aplenty, just like there was in Meereen. Whenever you think it was justified or not is a whole other subject, but there's absolutely no denying it wasn't a sack.

1. There is no evidence that the city was looted. 2. There is no evidence that this happened during the so called "Sack of Astapor." That is what I'm talking about in this thread. You can criticize the young queen for marching away after her conquest. That is not the same as saying she unleashed the lower class on the upper one.

3. It is hardly clear that your description is accurate. There are debates about what did or did not happen beyond the plaza. I don't think the matter is settled. I can provide links, and may do so if this thread continues much longer. The Unsullied are disciplined, and they gained control of the city. That makes the "unleashing" you talk about unlikely. At any rate, the comment is (not surprisingly) irrelevant to the subject of this thread. Killing is not sacking.

4. There is no way of being sure of this. Indeed, it isn't very likely. See Butterbumps' comment below.

Exactly, this idea of a technical sack is a false dichotomy. Whether you take gold,food, water, whatever, she massacred the Masters, took their stuff and moved on. Currency and baubles are worth less than stuff if you are the one making the rules up. Its a sack.

I didn't say it was a technical sack. I don't see has that constitutes a false dichotomy anyway. I am definitely not stating that Dany has done nothing wrong or even that she is a good ruler. I am saying that stating charges clearly and backing them up is important. That is a technical (but by no means trivial) point.

I'm not sure that there was any gold taken. Does someone have a text quote for that?

All of this stuff about food, water, etc.--what is that supposed to mean? Are the posters talking about this business asserting that all the food and water in Astapor belonged to the masters? Dany's forces took some food and water with them. That is evidence of a sack? That is even evidence of theft? Is that a serious argument?

1. Dany stole things from the masters she ordered to kill. Yunkai has nothing to do with this as this is about Astapor.

2. Again, this is about Astapor not all of slavers bay or anything that came after. Anything anyone did who weren't Unsullied was acting as a third independent party not part of Dany's group. Are you suggesting that freeing slaves during the civil war wasn't right because it would have destroyed the south's economy?

3. All it says is to loot and pillage. By the simplest definition then pretty much every siege in history was a sack because surely a few things were taken. But if by sack you mean what most people mean like leaving a city in ruins after a mass robbery then what Dany did in Astapor was hardly it.

4. To the slavers it was a sack but to anybody with reasonable morality it was a liberation.

I agree with most of this. Again, I'll say that the idea of stealing from the masters is iffy at best. Dany presented herself as a Dothraki. The whole deal was, at best, an illicit transition, involving "goods" that could not properly be said to "belong" to anyone but those people who had been abused, castrated, and treated as goods. Thus, the idea of "theft" is highly questionable. The only exception was the dragon. That, I'd say, did belong to Dany. Dothraki are warriors. They take things. The rulers of Astapor know this. They depend upon it. In practical terms, there is a war going on. The masters became overconfident because their side had always won up to this point. Didn't happen this time. You (actually your agents) have defeated your enemy many times and taken his stuff. Someone defeats you. Not a sack, just tough luck, fortunes of war.

So, basically, if we're going by a definition stating that "performing a military victory and gaining some form of material profit from it" = "a sack" then every single person in the book who has ever led some form of a military group has done this, including, but not limited to, rangers who take spoils off dead wildlings after battle beyond the wall, and as such, what the hell does it matter who "sacked" what if we're going to turn this into such a broad definition?

...

Thanks, butterbumps. I can depend on you to get the point.

More later.

[Jasta11]

Hang on-- I'm not making distinctions about whether this was justified or not. I'm referring to how low-intensity of a conquest this was, as compared with incidents I'd probably refer to as a "sack." Even the "looting" is pretty tame. Casks of wine?

I actually don't think it's clear that Dany ordered a good part of the population killed; there's that whole debate about how far from the plaza Dany commanded these people killed (and logic tells us a whole lot were not killed, because the former slaves enslaved their former masters).

A "sack" tends to connote something more violent and total than what happens at Astapor. A "sacked" city is one you leave crippled; it's about draining enemy resources for your gain and wanton brutality. That's somewhat opposite of what Dany was doing there. I'd probably use "conquest" as the neutral term, and "sack" to denote a particular character of said "conquest."

Casks of wines, weapons, food (those slaves and Unsullied need to eat), what, do we need the exact details of Dany cackling like Dick Dasardly while pilfering their treasury of every valuable? There was looting, as there is every single time a city is conquered (as she says herself when Meereen is captured and riots erupt), and Dany seized supplies she needed, unless one thinks she left all that food lying around out of the goodness of her heart while her ''children'' starved. It might have been looting for a benevolent purpose, but it still is.

I'm not beating the thrice-dead horse of how many people Dany directly killed/wanted killed. But that's not really the point anyway. The population of King's Landing did not seem to significantly decrease following Tywin's little adventure, and it's still a sack.

Call it a lower intensity sack if you will. I believe it's splitting hairs a hundred times over at this point myself. Dany is a better person than Tywin or Ramsay, and her conquests are less violent. That doesn't mean they are non-violent or that she doesn't sack cities when she loots and kills a part of one's population after taking it by force.

I mean, what, do people prefer we refer to it by ''the massacre of Astapor''? Because that one unquestionably happened unless the Unsullied are ridiculously lousy at their job.

[butterbumps!]

Casks of wines, weapons, food (those slaves and Unsullied need to eat), what, do we need the exact details of Dany cackling like Dick Dasardly while pilfering their treasury of every valuable? There was looting, as there is every single time a city is conquered (as she says herself when Meereen is captured and riots erupt), and Dany seized supplies she needed, unless one thinks she left all that food lying around out of the goodness of her heart while her ''children'' starved. It might have been looting for a benevolent purpose, but it still is.

I'm not beating the thrice-dead horse of how many people Dany directly killed/wanted killed. But that's not really the point anyway. The population of King's Landing did not seem to significantly decrease following Tywin's little adventure, and it's still a sack.

Call it a lower intensity sack if you will. I believe it's splitting hairs a hundred times over at this point myself. Dany is a better person than Tywin or Ramsay, and her conquests are less violent. That doesn't mean they are non-violent or that she doesn't sack cities when she loots and kills a part of one's population after taking it by force.

I mean, what, do people prefer we refer to it by ''the massacre of Astapor''? Because that one unquestionably happened unless the Unsullied are ridiculously lousy at their job.

Ok, so every city that undergoes a conquest involved some degree of resource taking. Does this mean that every conquest is also a "sack?" Is your belief that "sack" accurately describes every conquest? It looks like it doesn't, given that you appealed to the lower intensity of Jon Con's taking upon returning to Westeros.

I'm not personally invested in whether Dany is better than Tywin or other ulterior issues of the debate. If you genuinely believe that any and all conquests that involve some form of taking constitutes a "sack" regardless of intensity or how the taking was done, based on the technical extension of the word, then fine. I think "conquest" is the term closer to the way you're using "sack," and that "sacking" is a particular type of conquest.

[danm_999]

The taking of weapons from a defeated enemy is evidence of a sack? That is not true in any military campaign. It is completely without merit when we are talking about providing for the defense of people whose lives have been damn near destroyed.

Yes. I'll quote you from the OP;

Sacking is the looting or plundering of a conquered city.

Looting weapons and wine (at the least) from a city she conquered, fits the definition of a sack you argued and the OP and claimed there was no evidence for.

As I said, if you want to argue it was mild as far as sacks go, if you want to argue it was justifable, I think all those things are legitimate points of discussion.

Arguing it wasn't a sack at all just seems a bizarre hill to die on to me.

[danm_999]

I'm not sure I follow. Isn't a sack about pillaging and destroying the city?

Gotta disagree bumps. Tywin doesn't destroy King's Landing, for example. I mean, by Daenerys' own language, a sack occured at Meereen when she captured it.

When the last resistance had been crushed by the Unsullied and the sack had run its course, Dany entered her city.

And Meereen, if anything, is less damaged than Astapor is once Daenerys takes it over. Meereen still has its elite, whose private property remains intact (barring a few cases Daenerys is brought in court). Meereen still has most of its people, top and bottom, and its wealth mostly intact.

Meereen is in no way destroyed, but Daenerys clearly views it as being sacked.

So, basically, if we're going by a definition stating that "performing a military victory and gaining some form of material profit from it" = "a sack" then every single person in the book who has ever led some form of a military group has done this, including, but not limited to, rangers who take spoils off dead wildlings after battle beyond the wall, and as such, what the hell does it matter who "sacked" what if we're going to turn this into such a broad definition?

I think where the definition grows a bit more nuanced than you're allowing it here (and this is a definition the OP provided by the way, it's the underpinning of the thread's premise) is that it's when you loot or pillage a conquered city (or really, any sort of settlement or holding). So Rangers looting spoils off Wildlings beyond the Wall fails that crucial contextual component of the term; they haven't conquered a Wildling city or anything like it. A sack is when looting takes place in the context of a captured settlement.

"Sack," to me, is what the Ironborn do, what Quentyn witnesses, what Ramsay did to WInterfell, the indiscriminate slaughter Tywin's known for. It strikes me as a fairly alarmist and unnecessary way of describing what actually happened at Astapor.

I think you're correct in that when I think of what happened in Astapor, I wouldn't think of it as a sack representative of what usually happens when a city is captured and looted on Planetos (and a large part of this is because the Unsullied are so disciplined), but a city was indeed conquered.

People were brutally killed. Resources, specifically wines and weapons (though I doubt personally it ends there, I'm guessing food and livestock were also appropriated) were plundered and appeared to have been collectivised by Daenerys for future use, and the conqueror responsible then quits the city.

Again, I can see merit in arguing what kind of sack it was, but that it wasn't a sack? I have trouble with that.

[Parwan]

Yes. I'll quote you from the OP;

Looting weapons and wine (at the least) from a city she conquered, fits the definition of a sack you argued and the OP and claimed there was no evidence for.

As I said, if you want to argue it was mild as far as sacks go, if you want to argue it was justifable, I think all those things are legitimate points of discussion.

Arguing it wasn't a sack at all just seems a bizarre hill to die on to me.

You utterly fail to grasp a central point I have made. The leaders are not the city. Any competent military commander who defeats his enemy will take their weapons.

You also do not deal with the very iffy nature of the claim that something was stolen from a bunch of thieves. When the very essence of their operation depends on utterly rapacious behavior towards a wide variety of others, it is questionable what "theft" of their "property" might even mean. If someone had tricked the Brave Companions during their rule of Harrenhal, taken their weapons and acquired their wine, would you maintain that the castle was sacked?

We have the matter of "looting" and "plundering." These words do not mean simply "robbing." "Plunder" generally implies a large scale operation. The idea that the removal of the master's property was done on a large scale is no more than iffy. The idea that Dany, or even her forces (who, once again, are identified as being quite poor after the so-called "sack") plundered the city is baseless. "Looting," according to my American Heritage dictionary, "suggests in its primary sense the carrying away of property by undisciplined troops or mobs." The very essence of the Unsullied is discipline. That was a main point that Jorah used to argue for Dany's acquisition. They would have taken control of the city. There is no textual evidence that I am aware of which says that mobs did anything in Astapor while Dany was there.

If you wish to say that Dany made a serious mistake by marching from the city, then I will agree with you. If you want to say this indicates she shouldn't be a queen, then I'd say you have a point. If you want to apply words like "incompetent" or "grossly negligent," then I'll say the matter could be argued (though I say that you'd have to produce more evidence than just this one mistake.) The argument that a city was sacked because weapons were taken from one group, and given to another group that deserves them more than the first group, is without merit.