12 years old wearing tokars; fair game or not?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Recently I had a discussion about it through the inbox. The member who contact me sent me this passage from the app:

Daenerys gives the command to kill anyone over the age of twelve who wears a tokar that marks out the slavers of the city.

Now this is what we know from the books also. Dany ordered everyone over the age of 12 years old, who wears tokar to be killed.

Now I would like us to discuss about that decision. Was she right? Should they die because they were wearing tokars? Or she was wrong because first and foremost they were children.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

I'll just quote this :)

While the tokar can be worn by all freeborn men, it's noted in ADwD that the impracticality of the garment means that it is only worn by the wealthy, not by laborers and the like, and the wealthy in Astapor all held slaves as a matter of course.

So Dany's meaning when ordering men wearing tokars to be killed was to get rid of the slave-holding class, who were the ones who'd be wearing the tokar.

I would guess that, just as in Rome (the tokar obviously being based on the toga), poorer citizens who actually labored for a living tended not to actually wear the tokar outside of formal occasions, festivals, and the like.

So while there would have been children over the age of 12 who would have been technically allowed to wear a tokar, the chance of them actually being present and wearing one, would have been very, very slim to none.

[Gregor Clegane's head]

Would it be right to march into Syria and kill everyone who has a ISIS coat of arms? You would think so. They associate themselves as masters with it.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Lmao

What? The opinion I was told was that no child was killed only slavers. So if a child was wearing a tokar was a fair game. I find it next to impossible to believe that the Unsullied asked them if they personally have sold someone or not or if they just were members of a slavers' family and they wear tokars.

I'll just quote this :)

So while there would have been children over the age of 12 who would have been technically allowed to wear a tokar, the chance of them actually being present and wearing one, would have been very, very slim to none.

Yet we don't know that do we? The only think that we know is that they were wealthy. So it is a fair question.

Would it be right to march into Syria and kill everyone who has a ISIS coat of arms? You would think so. They associate themselves as masters with it.

It's not just anyone. They were children, there is a huge difference.

[Sir Lee knot]

By modern standards, certainly not but when you think about Dany only being 13 in the beginning of the books and is probably only about 14 when it happened. Judging by Dany's own maturity I'd say perhaps 13 year olds are fair game in asoiaf.

[aryagonnakill#2]

Historically speaking, 12 years old is a higher age line then many would have given. For example, the Mongols used the "tall as the wagon rule" if you were as tall as a wagon, you died. Many cultures were worse than that even, they used the "old enough to remember" rule. Old enough to remember is like 4...

[Gregor Clegane's head]

Also Dany believes herself to be adult at 13, as did Arianne, Asha and Sansa.

[mormont]

Now this is what we know from the books also. Dany ordered everyone over the age of 12 years old, who wears tokar to be killed.

Not quite.

Dany orders any man wearing a tokar to be killed, but further orders that no child under 12 is to be harmed. That is quite a different thing. The difference in intent between ordering that children above a certain age be killed, and ordering that children below a certain age be spared, is absolutely significant in considering a character's mindset and thus morality.

[Hodor's Dragon]

Not quite.

Dany orders any man wearing a tokar to be killed, but further orders that no child under 12 is to be harmed. That is quite a different thing. The difference in intent between ordering that children above a certain age be killed, and ordering that children below a certain age be spared, is absolutely significant in considering a character's mindset and thus morality.

That's a good point. When you start in on micro-analyzing passages from the text, it really is important to get the text right. Here, the real question is whether she got the age right when she specified which persons are children and therefore not to be harmed.

[Minsc]

First, can we have evidence of any twelve year old being killed by book quote

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Not quite.

Dany orders any man wearing a tokar to be killed, but further orders that no child under 12 is to be harmed. That is quite a different thing. The difference in intent between ordering that children above a certain age be killed, and ordering that children below a certain age be spared, is absolutely significant in considering a character's mindset and thus morality.

Wait a minute, several characters get critisized for their actions no matter their morality or anything like that but Dany gets a free pass because what? She ordered the children of 12+ to be killed if they wore tokars. I am wrong? And since tokars were a sympol of wealth, people who were wealthy were killed, children 12+ years old who were rich enough to wear tokars were killed. Am I wrong?

[John Doe]

First, can we have evidence of any twelve year old being killed by book quote

How should soldiers know who is a twelve year old an who isn't?

[mormont]

Wait a minute, several characters get critisized for their actions no matter their morality or anything like that but Dany gets a free pass because what?

No idea what you're saying here. Nobody was giving Dany a 'free pass': I was pointing out a slight, but significant, misrepresentation in your original description of what happened (and explaining why it is significant).

Since this was, in fact, a misrepresentation, you were to a certain degree wrong, yes.

As I say, Dany did not specifically order any child to be harmed. She can be criticised for giving the order, certainly, but if you're so sure that the order was so terrible, why bother to distort it at all?

[Mithras]

“Slay the Good Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under twelve, and strike the chains off every slave you see.”

We do not know whether a tokar wearing child over 12 was killed but even if there was none, that order is enough to stain Dany. That was not something momentary. She thought every detail beforehand.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

First, can we have evidence of any twelve year old being killed by book quote

There aren't. It's just all based on theoretically killed children. Though there's a fair point to be said that being 12 in Westeros/Essos, although obviously not sixteen, is still pretty much for most intents and purposes, an adult. Being twelve certainly did not do Sansa any favors when she was a prisoner of the Crown, and stripped and beaten. Tyrion lusts for thirteen-year old Sansa as well, Dany herself was married off at thirteen, Robb was King at Fourteen and so was Dany.

But what is funnier for me is how some can find excuses to justify Walder's brutal murder of four thousand people, and sixteen-year old Robb, for a "slight", and yet feels awful for "supposed" killed "children". Double standards, heh? I guess those brutally murdered people in the Red Wedding obviously mattered less because... Well, no reason at all except lack of consistency. If you are going to be ruthless, then be consistent. That is, IMO, one of Dany's failures in Meereen.

[John Doe]

She is indeed ruthless sometimes, but she has no bigger plan in her mind, no goal, which makes her ruthlessnes appear rather stupid.

[Blow My Horn]

People are drawing a correlation that doesn't exist. A 13-yr-old wearing a tokar is not a man. What about some teen who dreams of becoming a globetrotting archaeologist, are they killed for holding a whip? No.

[John Doe]

People are drawing a correlation that doesn't exist. A 13-yr-old wearing a tokar is not a man. What about some teen who dreams of becoming a globetrotting archaeologist, are they killed for holding a whip? No.

Kill all people wearing uniforms, they work for an evil government! :commie:

[John Doe]

What

She has probably the most well defined goal of any character in the series. She wants to conquer Westeros. She's not going to do that being all hugs and kisses in Essos.

So how have her own ideas and actions led her anywhere near that goal?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

No idea what you're saying here. Nobody was giving Dany a 'free pass': I was pointing out a slight, but significant, misrepresentation in your original description of what happened (and explaining why it is significant).

Why Dany has to be the exception though? Why her view of morality makes her innocent the same time when others are monsters for much less than that.

As I say, Dany did not specifically order any child to be harmed. She can be criticised for giving the order, certainly, but if you're so sure that the order was so terrible, why bother to distort it at all?

I try to discuss it. If for example Tywin who we all know how that he had to grow up faster because his father was an idiot fool so he had lost his childhood, before the Rebellion, had gave an order every wealthy male 12+ should be killed should he had the same pleads(I am not sure if this is the right word) with Dany?

After all Dany gave the order to kill them because of what happened before she started her knew so called law. Should people be killed for what they have done before it becomes illegal?