379 replies to this topic

[Winter's Knight]

danm_999, on 31 May 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

We moderns get pretty high minded about the notion of freedom and liberty, but if you went to poor parts of Africa, of the Middle East, of Asia, or Medieval Europe, the top demands are not going to be things like freedom of speech, or freedom of assembly or habeas corpus, they're going to be clean water, malaria medicine, freedom from incessant warfare and violence.

I don't think it's an accident that the highest liberties and rights in human history were sorted out by societies that had already managed to provide basic material needs and security to their people.

Eh?
Like France in the 1700's? Or the New World Colonies? South Asia in the mid 20th century?

[Gingerly Grumkin]

butterbumps!, on 31 May 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

I think you have I have agreed on some points though, such as the potential that Dany and a combination of dragons might not be a panacea for Westeros and I think some other points as well- like finding Dany interesting as a character, not wanting to see Tyrion save the day, and that she could be a good ruler somewhere.   So I think at least we've had some common ground?  

I guess here's the issue that prompted me, and Stanmore answered some of it.  The Dany threads always become very tense, and sometimes the "pro Danys" (sorry- I'm not sure what other terms to use) do say that there is fault in her rule as general terms, but then when the "anti Danys" start bringing up points, it often results in a kind of shouting match, where one side insists that her actions are bad, and the other says that some actions are bad, but not the ones the "antis" are currently contesting.  

So I was really wondering if those against might find some good in her (and I suspect that many who have turned against her probably found good qualities early on that that they believe her to be regressing from), and I wondered about what specific faults those who defend her might consider problematic.  And I suppose, most apropos for this thread, whether both sides might have some agreement about whether Westeros is the right place for her to rule for any number of reasons (and I think some on both sides have expressed some
agreement there).  I guess I'm wondering if we could dig a little deeper to look at where her potential lies, and how she might get there?

Totally off-topic, but Monsieur Grumkin- I don't know that I agree with your views on this topic, but I'm right there with you on the subject of Grumkins.

What don't you agree with? If you love Grumkins then you can't be a fool like your namesake. Do you disagree that A game of thrones is a vile, and new game, that has destroyed the honorable lords of Westeros? Do you have a problem with abolishing slavery? (you really care about the savages economy?) Do you sympothize with slaver sympothizers?

[danm_999]

Winter, on 31 May 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

Eh?
Like France in the 1700's? Or the New World Colonies? South Asia in the mid 20th century?

Revolutionary France was experiencing a financial crisis, and bread shortages in parts of the country, but it was still the richest and most advanced nation in Europe. The Thirteen Colonies were also extremely prosperous and secure (the French and Indian tribes had been beaten back in the Seven Years War) in 1776.

As for the subcontinent, it's really difficult to say that its achieving first world democracy. It has an alarming slavery problem, even today, and parts of South Asia, Pakistan for example, are shockingly devoid of Western liberties.

[Winter's Knight]

danm_999, on 31 May 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

Revolutionary France was experiencing a financial crisis, and bread shortages in parts of the country, but it was still the richest and most advanced nation in Europe. The Thirteen Colonies were also extremely prosperous and secure (the French and Indian tribes had been beaten back in the Seven Years War) in 1776.

As for the subcontinent, it's really difficult to say that its achieving first world democracy. It has an alarming slavery problem, even today, and parts of South Asia, Pakistan for example, are shockingly devoid of Western liberties.

Perhaps, but the idea of civil liberty and rule by republic did not originate with the richer members of society.

[butterbumps!]

Monsieur LeDauphin Grumkin, on 31 May 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

What don't you agree with? If you love Grumkins then you can't be a fool like your namesake. Do you disagree that A game of thrones is a vile, and new game, that has destroyed the honorable lords of Westeros? Do you have a problem with abolishing slavery? (you really care about the savages economy?) Do you sympothize with slaver sympothizers?

I don't disagree with calling the Game of Thrones vile, and I've actually never contested whether slavery ought to have been abolished or sympathize with the the slavers.  I care about the slaver's economy for the simple reason that by replacing the slaving mode of production with something else will create stability, ensure that people are secure and fed, and that no one- former slave or slaver- will be tempted to sell themselves back into slavery.  

I think I disagree with you to the extent that Dany's re-emergence in Westeros, especially in the capacity as Queen, will eradicate the game of thrones.

[danm_999]

Winter, on 31 May 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

Perhaps, but the idea of civil liberty and rule by republic did not originate with the richer members of society.

The democracy of Athens was created by the rich Athenian landowners like Pericles.

The liberties of the Roman Republic were established by the Patricians.

The Magna Carta was forced upon King John by his wealthy feudal barons.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was penned by the French National Constituent Assembly; full of French arisocrats.

The Founding Fathers of the USA were exceedingly wealthy landowners.

There's a pretty clear link between oppulence and advancement of liberty in history.

[Gingerly Grumkin]

butterbumps!, on 31 May 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

I don't disagree with calling the Game of Thrones vile, and I've actually never contested whether slavery ought to have been abolished or sympathize with the the slavers.  I care about the slaver's economy for the simple reason that by replacing the slaving mode of production with something else will create stability, ensure that people are secure and fed, and that no one- former slave or slaver- will be tempted to sell themselves back into slavery.  

I think I disagree with you to the extent that Dany's re-emergence in Westeros, especially in the capacity as Queen, will eradicate the game of thrones.

This is the economy of Essos. Nomads breed like rabbits but can't create wepons because the people in Slaver's bay don't want them to. The Dothraki then go and rape and pillage the nomads tribes and sell the slaves for wepons at Slaver's bay.
How does this economy not need fixing!
We must look at the Stark's advice Winter is coming. Think of the future, after the ExSlavers fail in their rebellion and are killed and Dany tames the Dothraki then this economy will be changed.

What is AGOT then? Is it King Lannister and King dude in the Reach vs King Aegon? Or Mayhaps it's King Robert vs Prince Rheager? Because those sound like battles and war to me. But what's LF whispering in Joff's ear and Lysa writing her sister or Renly offering Stannis Storms End, or Tywin writing to Frey and and Bolton?

[Stanmore]

To answer some of Butterbump's points, and to try and address the original topic. Dany definitely has it within her to be a good queen. Whether or not she's the best choice for Westeros I can't say ,but judged on her own merits she certainly has a lot of good qualities. She's intelligent, and resourceful. She's not blind to the suffering of those around her. She's got a natural charisma, and she seems to attract followers. She's proved that she's capable of pragmatism and compromise.


She certainly has her flaws though. As I've said before she's too trusting, she's rather naïve, she doesn't always think her actions through before committing too them and she often lets her compassion get the better of her


If she wants to live up to her potential as a ruler she needs to surround herself with better advisers, and she needs to listen to the advice they give. She needs to spend more time thinking about the bigger picture and not just react to things on an ad hoc basis. She needs to realise that her compassion will be used against her by her political opponents, and that leniency sometimes looks a lot like weakness.


In short she needs to kill the girl and let the woman be born. If she can manage that, there's no reason why she couldn't make a good ruler. Certainly she's got it in her to be a much better ruler than Robert ever was.

[butterbumps!]

Wait- do you or do you not care about the slaver's economy?     I'm saying that I "care" about it to the extent that I think it matters in order for abolition to stick.   If you abolish slavery and figure out a way to keep everyone fed and materially comfortable, they will not revolt nor sell themselves into slavery.  The slavery cycle will end, the Dothraki have no one to sell captured slaves to, their way of life becomes extinct.

Also, I'm not sure what you're getting at with the game of thrones stuff.  How do you see Dany eliminating the game- by sitting the throne herself or by destroying it?   Could you expand a bit, especially in terms of why you think she should rule over Westeros specifically, and what you believe she might bring to the table in that role?

[Stanmore]

danm_999, on 31 May 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

The democracy of Athens was created by the rich Athenian landowners like Pericles.

The liberties of the Roman Republic were established by the Patricians.

The Magna Carta was forced upon King John by his wealthy feudal barons.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was penned by the French National Constituent Assembly; full of French arisocrats.

The Founding Fathers of the USA were exceedingly wealthy landowners.

There's a pretty clear link between oppulence and advancement of liberty in history.

I think it's more correct to say that it's easier for the wealthy to advance liberty in society.  Take the English peasant's revolt of  1381, the Roman slave rebellions or similar slave revolts in the American south.  All grass root attempts by the poorest and most oppressed members of society to improve their stations and increase liberty and equality but all quashed utterly by those with wealth and power.

The rich and powerful can take away freedoms just as easily as they grant them. That's why it's important for every person to stand up for their rights whenever they can. If you don't make an effort to stick up for your rights and freedoms they'll be gone before you even know it.

Edited by Stanmore, 31 May 2012 - 12:08 PM.

[Gingerly Grumkin]

How good does a ruler have to be in the first place? The Hand is the one who does everything anyways. Dany just needs to sit her fat ass down on that throne looking as gorgeous as ever and she'll be be better then any of the Lannister kings. (Joff shooting the crossbows at people, Tommen handing over the Realm to flowers)
Don't get me wrong Dany is a fine ruler, she fixes the backwards lands, tames the great Khal and is a fantistic conqueror. I understand that she did do wrong like probobly killing her enemies enemies, or leaving the city (although she left it with Selmy, and she had to get on the dragon if she wanted to save her child's life) But is that much worse then Renly leaving Storm's End, or Stannis burning dudes, or Robert filling his courts with lions, or Robb abanoding the North (i.e Wall, Hornwood lands, Winterfell) and reneging on the Frey marriage? If the Imp or Selmy serve as hand to a not 100% insane monarch then the Realm will be in good shape
@Butterbumps
I think the whole economy is fucking disgusting. I think the rape, pillaging and abuse to children is horrible and I have no problem with Drogon burning the piece of shit contenint to ashes. Thankfully Dany has a gentler heart then me and I'm sure that she won't do that and mayhaps invest in... Zorses or something. The Dothraki must be tamed quickly, they won't stop selling slaves and even if there are no buyers they will still survive broke for at least one more generation.

A game of thrones is a stupid name because they only fight over one throne. This is possible becuase the Targaryens, Baratheons, Martells, Blackfyres and Lannisters all have claim to the throne. If a Targ gets back on the throne she can make everything that the Usurper did become null and void, thusly ending the hopes for Queen Myrcella, King Tommen, Queen Arianna, etc. Although in order for this to work at least 2 generations of Targ kings/queens have to go by smoothly

Edited by Monsieur LeDauphin Grumkin, 31 May 2012 - 12:13 PM.

[danm_999]

Stanmore, on 31 May 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

I think it's more correct to say that it's easier for the wealthy to advance liberty in society.  Take the English peasant's revolt of  1381, the Roman slave rebellions or similar slave revolts in the American south.  All grass root attempts by the poorest and most oppressed members of society to improve their stations and increase liberty and equality but all quashed utterly by those with wealth and power.

Which means our liberties and rights come from the upper members of society, not the lower.

[Stanmore]

danm_999, on 31 May 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

Which means our liberties and rights come from the upper members of society, not the lower.

It's more the reverse. Freedom is the natural state of things. In the simplist societies everyone is equal. However, as soon as a class system develops   the upper classes  use their power to decide what the lower orders can't do, and what they're not entitled to. Sometimes they're lenient, and other times they're not.  They give with one hand and take with the other. It's up to the rest of society to hold on to whatever rights they've been given.

Edited by Stanmore, 31 May 2012 - 01:11 PM.

[Castel]

danm_999, on 31 May 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

The former slavers who leave the city do so with their wealth and head for Yunkai or the countryside. They don't swarm down to the docks.

Daenerys has not abolished property rights, so there's going to be little incentive for a vast amount of the elite to abandon Mereen to slavery in Qarth. These are the high value slaves who would rather live in a gilded cage than free in poverty.

PatrickStormborn, on 31 May 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

The passage speaks for itself -- they are "well spoken" and "gently born". They are not former slaves. Note how no one in the quote says "sell themselves back into slavery", nor are they referred to as "former slaves". As far as I can tell, the passage suggests that Meereenese former slavers (not the wealthy Great Masters) were the ones who sold themselves into slavery, and not the ex-slaves.

There are social classes between Great Masters and mistreated slaves. Missandei could for example be considered well spoken, and free men with learning and skills like Xaro's merchant friend aren't Great Masters. Hell, putting aside Xaro's friend there are probably plenty of well read and spoken people that aren't Masters or slaves.For that matter,there are many types of slaves, like bedslaves born in servitude that could be considered gently born I guess. Xaro also pointed out that the wealthy merchant was forced to go out and dig ditches he did not want to dig, we're not sure if he was paid at all.

butterbumps!, on 31 May 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

I don't disagree with calling the Game of Thrones vile, and I've actually never contested whether slavery ought to have been abolished or sympathize with the the slavers.  I care about the slaver's economy for the simple reason that by replacing the slaving mode of production with something else will create stability, ensure that people are secure and fed, and that no one- former slave or slaver- will be tempted to sell themselves back into slavery.  

I think I disagree with you to the extent that Dany's re-emergence in Westeros, especially in the capacity as Queen, will eradicate the game of thrones.

Honestly this. Plenty of people are reacting like Dany and going "RAR! RAR! Bad slavers! Fuck 'em" when we have no idea who exactly is being sold into slavery. I'm generally fine with people doing whatever the fuck they want with themselves but there's an exception here. When you're trying to eradicate such an ancient practice you would do well to not provide any incentives for it to continue, or create a situation where it exists in a slightly different skin. I love how she claims individual liberty here and says that no slave may sell another person into slavery. That's all well and good but what about people being born into slavery? The number might be very low due to the downtime (might be cheaper to just buy kids) but it could exist. So after all she did for the children she's creating a situation where the children can once again end up as slaves. I don't think Ghis is one of those cultures where the children of slaves are born free.

Monsieur LeDauphin Grumkin, on 31 May 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

How good does a ruler have to be in the first place? The Hand is the one who does everything anyways. Dany just needs to sit her fat ass down on that throne looking as gorgeous as ever and she'll be be better then any of the Lannister kings. (Joff shooting the crossbows at people, Tommen handing over the Realm to flowers)

The Hand does not in fact do all of the work, in fact that king is supposed to sit in on meetings, the problem is that we've had two boy kings that didn't give a shit and Robert. Also, Tommen didn't hand over anything, as a minor he had nothing to hand over, the deal was made long before he was king. On top of that, the Tyrells being in a more dominant position is not necessarily a bad thing for the realm. For Cersei maybe, but the realm is fine.

On top of that, a Hand that does everything would only prosper if the king doesn't want to get involved at all. Dany isn't the type of person to sit back and not get into the thick of things.

Quote

@Butterbumps
I think the whole economy is fucking disgusting. I think the rape, pillaging and abuse to children is horrible and I have no problem with Drogon burning the piece of shit contenint to ashes. Thankfully Dany has a gentler heart then me and I'm sure that she won't do that and mayhaps invest in... Zorses or something. The Dothraki must be tamed quickly, they won't stop selling slaves and even if there are no buyers they will still survive broke for at least one more generation.

*sigh* Point proven

And this is the problem, she needed to come up with some replacement industry and she didn't. Barbarism or no barbarism, there needs to be a reason to stop slavery. Her pure moral goodness is not going to do it. Newsflash! People have their own moral codes,and in the scheme of things, they are as tangible as yours, you don't get to will them away. And she's done little on that front, perhaps since that's the kind of thing you research before jumping on your high zorse.

Quote

A game of thrones is a stupid name because they only fight over one throne. This is possible becuase the Targaryens, Baratheons, Martells, Blackfyres and Lannisters all have claim to the throne. If a Targ gets back on the throne she can make everything that the Usurper did become null and void, thusly ending the hopes for Queen Myrcella, King Tommen, Queen Arianna, etc. Although in order for this to work at least 2 generations of Targ kings/queens have to go by smoothly

You could just assume that it's a term from before the Targaryens arrived. Phrases stay around for a while,I mean, this is a bad example because these things still exist, but in a house with only mobile phones, the phrase "hang up the phone" makes no sense without context.

Edited by Castel, 31 May 2012 - 07:20 PM.

[Sasha Steelsong]

Ferrous, on 21 June 2011 - 06:21 AM, said:

I'm not arguing that Stannis should be king, but that he was the only army leader in Westeros that took proper action to prevent his armies raping women. His religous intolerance is irrelevant to that.

In my own view, no contender has an ability to hold together the kingdom save for Daenerys, but Daenerys doesn't have the ability to establish a dynasty. So there will not be a return to the status quo of one King in Westeros.

It isn't clear that Dany is baren however.  She may well have had a miscarrage in her last chapter in in ADWD.  Frankly I don't think Dany is infertile so much as carrying a child to term will kill her.  MMD did say she would see Drogo agian when she brought a living child into the world, so I'm actually betting that Dany does unify Westeros under one rule to fight the others, but then herself dies in childbirth (infant monarchs have their own problems I know but this story isn't going to have a totally sweet Disney happy ending so I'm fine with the idea of some lingering issues)...i.e. her purpose is to re-establish the dynasty but not to actually rule Westeros.  The rule would be left to her son or daughter and there would be a regent (Jon?) to actually rule till they grew up.

[QuaitheTheShadow]

butterbumps!, on 31 May 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

Wait- do you or do you not care about the slaver's economy? I'm saying that I "care" about it to the extent that I think it matters in order for abolition to stick.   If you abolish slavery and figure out a way to keep everyone fed and materially comfortable, they will not revolt nor sell themselves into slavery.  The slavery cycle will end, the Dothraki have no one to sell captured slaves to, their way of life becomes extinct.

Slavery doesn't tend to die a quick natural death and ending it has routinely required several generations and a good deal of bloodshed, particularly in areas where slaves outnumbered slave owners. One side is really going to "win" and one side is really going to "lose".

The mere fact that slavery is inhumane is reason enough to end its practice in areas under your control. It's most pressing in Slavers Bay considering their culture's wanton brutality toward their slaves.

I don't think Dany should have taken some time off to dream up a new economic system when slaves were being mutilated and fed to animals before her eyes. She had the power to end it and tried.

I'd think most humane people would.

Edited by QuaitheTheShadow, 31 May 2012 - 08:00 PM.

[butterbumps!]

@Quaithe

I think you misunderstand me.  I never said that I disagreed with freeing the slaves of Slaver's Bay.  I'm operating from the premise that abolition is morally right, and will be better for the entire world in the long term.  I've also never tried to play off the terrible conditions post-abolition as completely avoidable if the leadership were better.  I understand that ending slavery is a long and drawn out process.  Also, someone had asked me about the economy directly- they'd brought it up- and I wasn't even trying to criticize Dany in terms of my thoughts on it.

But with that said, the abolition of slavery requires both enforcement and a new economic structure in order for it to stick, even in the short term (and I'd argue, an attempt at an ideology change as well).  So my point is that if you use only one of these facets- either force or economics- then slavery will persist; both force and filling the production mode vacuum are equally important for sustained results.  One way that Dany could have done this, at least in as a short-term safety net, would have been to strip those who grew rich off slave labor of their wealth and redistribute it into public works, purchasing food from elsewhere (since the crops were destroyed) and investing in industry (since it seems most of the slaves were involved in artisan trades).  When people are not starving, they are not selling themselves into slavery, nor will they riot or revolt in great numbers.  

Also, I strongly disagree with your assertion that "I don't think Dany should have taken some time off to dream up a new economic system when slaves were being mutilated and fed to animals before her eyes. She had the power to end it and tried.   I'd think most humane people would."   Although I would argue that Dany did have ample time to consider redistributing wealth, I don't want to focus on that.  She spun her wheels trying to fight a guerrilla war that persisted, largely, because many of the wealthy were not stripped of their power, and because the city was starving and sick.  For any number of reasons, people were very unhappy with the state of affairs, and I was arguing that some of this unpleasantness could have been avoided by giving people work and material security along with their freedom.

[danm_999]

Stanmore, on 31 May 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

It's more the reverse. Freedom is the natural state of things. In the simplist societies everyone is equal. However, as soon as a class system develops   the upper classes  use their power to decide what the lower orders can't do, and what they're not entitled to. Sometimes they're lenient, and other times they're not.  They give with one hand and take with the other. It's up to the rest of society to hold on to whatever rights they've been given.

I disagree with freedom being humanity's natural state.

Human history is not evidence of that. Whenever humans gather, they attempt to dominate each other for their own ends. We do this through force, through coercion, through religion and cultural institutions, we do it through trade.

Even in the simplest of societies, the best example we have is of small nomadic groups like Indigenous Australians or Bedouins in the Middle East, you have an incredibly complex series of customary kinship loyalties and relationships that strongly resemble vassalage that play out amongst people in tribes, and between tribes. In these types of societies, it also basically boiled down to the annointed older men deciding what was what (in Aboriginal society it was the elder spiritual guardians who had the power, Bedouins had sheiks and interestingly women and men were to different justice systems), woman and children being subservient, and that can hardly be called equality between people.

As in all other societies men dominated women, the chiefs and religious guardians dominated the tribes and the strong tribes dominated the weak. Other primitive societies (by European standards) like the Maoris had exactly the same patterns, they formed clans, they had ruling clans, they even had slaves.

Human beings will attempt to dominate each other even if the stakes are only 50 people in a nomadic tribe, because that's just how we are as a species. We have the capacity for great altruism and self sacrifice, but it pales in comparison to our tendency to dominate others.

Edited by danm_999, 01 June 2012 - 12:15 AM.

[Parwan]

Ferrous, on 29 May 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

Stannis Baratheon was the legal Lord of Storm's End (especially with Renly dead).

Penrose committed treason by first supporting Renly in his bid for the throne and then by denying Storm's End to it's rightfull lord.

This charge against Penrose lacks any worthwhile foundation. At the time of the siege of Storm's End, Stannis himself admits that he lacks proof of his accusation against Joffrey. Thus, there is a legitimate basis for considering all of the Baratheon supporters as rebels. Those holding the castle, like those besieging it, would be guilty of the same crime. Saying that Penrose is guilty of treason against Stannis would be tantamount to saying that Penrose is committing treason against a traitor.

More importantly, there is no basis for saying that Penrose was properly tried and executed for treason. The man is a lord. He has a right to trial by combat. He was denied that right. Furthermore, when Stannis sends Davos out on his dirty mission, he makes no mention of treason. Later, when the two men are discussing Penrose, it's clear that the onion knight thinks Penrose a more honorable and faithful man than any of the lords Stannis has recently pardoned. Stannis agrees. Here and elsewhere, Davos fails to really press his liege lord on what happened below Storm's End. It's clear that the two men don't want to thoroughly discuss the matter. They don't want to deal with this and other hard questions, because they don't want to face the answers. There is a much better case for considering Lord Stannis a kinslayer than there is for considering Cortnay Penrose a traitor.

In a chapter of ASoS (the one where Salladhor Saan is trying to convince Davos not to make an attempt on the red woman's life), the onion knight has this to say: "She killed Cressen and Lord Renly and a brave man named Cotrnay Penrose..." No mention of treason there. In a later chapter, Stannis has this to say: "Penrose chose to die rather than give him [Edric Storm] up." Again, no mention of treason. Stannis puts the whole matter in terms of Robert's bastard. It's clear to me that Penrose had more than adequate reason for refusing to surrender the boy.

[QuaitheTheShadow]

butterbumps!, on 31 May 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

@Quaithe

But with that said, the abolition of slavery requires both enforcement and a new economic structure in order for it to stick, even in the short term (and I'd argue, an attempt at an ideology change as well).  So my point is that if you use only one of these facets- either force or economics- then slavery will persist; both force and filling the production mode vacuum are equally important for sustained results.  One way that Dany could have done this, at least in as a short-term safety net, would have been to strip those who grew rich off slave labor of their wealth and redistribute it into public works, purchasing food from elsewhere (since the crops were destroyed) and investing in industry (since it seems most of the slaves were involved in artisan trades).  When people are not starving, they are not selling themselves into slavery, nor will they riot or revolt in great numbers.  

IIRC correctly she actually makes a deal with the lamb men to bring food into Mereen so she was tending to that need. Mereen was also supposed to be well supplied with food to hold off a siege, so that shouldn't have been an issue. If she had men plant the fields outside of Mereen, Yunkai would have burned the fields during its advance, so no gain.

Stripping the slave owners of even more of their property would served to have made them even more resentful and even more willing to turn to the harpy so that seems less than helpful.

Also, a large portion of the slave owners' wealth most likely consisted of the slaves themselves, which they were stripped of.

We have few clues as to how the Mereenese economy functioned under Dany's rule. She had wealth from Yunkai and made tax revenue off adults who willingly left to become slaves in Quarth. We know things like her throne are new constructions so there's evidence that she did invest in Mereen.

I assume she was paying the brazen beasts, many of whom are ex-slaves, so she did provide jobs to them when she could.

Quote

Although I would argue that Dany did have ample time to consider redistributing wealth, I don't want to focus on that.  She spun her wheels trying to fight a guerrilla war that persisted, largely, because many of the wealthy were not stripped of their power, and because the city was starving and sick.  For any number of reasons, people were very unhappy with the state of affairs, and I was arguing that some of this unpleasantness could have been avoided by giving people work and material security along with their freedom.

See, in Astophor the nobles were stripped of everything and absolute chaos ensued. Dany was attempting to co-opt Mereen's nobility. This didn't work well, but if she'd taken an even harder line toward them the Sons of the Harpy would probably have grown faster and stronger making the situation even worse. It was a very messy balancing act. Her POV mirrors the frustration with that situation.

Even though Dany is a Queen she can't just 'employ' an entire city. Since Mereen survived on slave labor I doubt the city had enough resources to pay all of those former slaves to do anything. Neither Essos nor Westeros seems to be big on public works projects so I don't think the idea to commission a public bath is something anyone would have come up with.

The best she could do, and what most Lords seem to have done as a common practice, is employ as many men in the army as possible. In other words, the Brazen Beasts and her freedman companies. That's as close as Martin's universe gets to 'public investment / works.

Edited by QuaitheTheShadow, 01 June 2012 - 06:30 PM.