Dany as ruler of the Seven Kingdoms

[Gingerly Grumkin]

Oh he definitely wasn't an abolistionist. That's really what I was saying: even he didn't want to abolish slavery--he thought it would more "die out" over a period of years. Unfortunately, most of the South thought he was going to abolish it, and on that instinct alone they rebelled. I can't even imagine what would have happened if he came into office and immediately said "Yeah, it's over guys, sorry." Which is basically what Dany did.

But he should have. The leader of a nation founded on liberty and equality should be ethical. Slavery is not a grey area, despite what Penny, Jorah and Tyrion have to say about it. The fact that she was sold is complete justification for abolishing slavery. Maybe if we talk about the fighting pits you will have some leg room.

Whoa now. I'll give you Qarth (which, still, she visited of her own volition) — the warlocks were trying to kill her — but even then, a Qartheen alliance was open to her until she rejected it in ADWD and they declared war. But the Slaver's Bay conflict started when she had Drogon and the other dragons and the Unsullied sack Astapor. She continued that by marching on to Yunkai and Meereen. Was sacking through Slaver's Bay the right thing to do? Maybe, maybe not. But saying that Essos declared war on her when she was the one who, rightly or wrongly, sacked all three major Slaver's Bay cities is ... just incorrect, I'm sorry. Whether you view her cause as righteous or not, she's the invader and the instigator here.

Everyone already knows my opinion of Dany so I won't repeat it here ad nauseum. I'll just point out Tze's observation that Dany repeatedly ends up destroying what she sets out intending to save. Just ... chew on that.

Yes she took over Slaver's Bay, then she executed the leaders and signed a peace treaty with her puppet regime. Then they attacked her... so as a Dany fan, i am more then willing to go thru any logistics to make Dany a hero. Just... chew on that. lol

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Yes she took over Slaver's Bay, then she executed the leaders and signed a peace treaty with her puppet regime. Then they attacked her... so as a Dany fan, i am more then willing to go thru any logistics to make Dany a hero. Just... chew on that. lol

At least you're honest about the logistical gymnastics involved. *shrugs*

[Bright Blue Eyes]

why? Because she frees slaves? Or is it because she shuts down the primitive "coliseum" where they feed Dwarvs to Lions? Or maybe its the fact that she considers every farmer/worker to be her child and even if they are sick she will help them? How in the 7 hells does she give you nightmares? I mean... have you seen your avatar?

Well, the top of the list are a certain winesellers daughters. Dany snaps and orders them tortured in front of her father on the off chance he may know something - when she was fully aware that it was extremely unlikely he'd knew anything and a huge injustice just thirty seconds ago. Just because she knows a murder victim and loses her temper. And that is just the top of a very long list.

And supernatural threats killing and wightifiying you are nothing against the horrors humans do inflict upon themselves.

[Gingerly Grumkin]

Fascinating post. And as I said, I think if she had been a little more tactful of the culture of Essos, no matter how dehumanizing it is, she would have had an easier time. Now of course, that would require her ruling there for several years, but everything from the slavers to the fighting pits reeked of a person trying to change an entire cultural way of thinking overnight. For example, the pits. She hates them, but everyone including the fighters in them want to fight. Now, is this wrong/have the fighters been brainwashed by years of living like this? Very possibly. But for better or worse, Dany ends up trying to change the entire zeitgeist of a culture and people in barely any time at all--it was pretty much doomed to disaster. It would be like an invader charging into the U.S. and then decreeing that there would be no more American Football played--something that such an intrinsic part of a culture being "eliminated" in that manner is bound to cause some rage.

if anybody tells me i cant watch football... ill go to war for that, i dont care how many dragons she has... or how fat her ass is.

But is it wrong to change sompthing that is evil and wrong? If you were a leader of a barbaric nation that kills for fun, has slavery, etc,etc. And you watch your "children" starve, get beaten, etc.etc, would you do nothing to stop it when the power is soley in your hands? I mean... i thought you were fucking Superman!

[Lady Olenna]

In reference to the OP:

Assuming Dany makes it Westeros in one piece (this is GRRM we are talking about after all - there is always that element of surprise) I think the success of her reign would be contingent on one thing:

A VERY VERY competent Small Council. With the right group of advisors she could pull it off.

[jarl the climber]

Fascinating post. And as I said, I think if she had been a little more tactful of the culture of Essos, no matter how dehumanizing it is, she would have had an easier time. Now of course, that would require her ruling there for several years, but everything from the slavers to the fighting pits reeked of a person trying to change an entire cultural way of thinking overnight. For example, the pits. She hates them, but everyone including the fighters in them want to fight. Now, is this wrong/have the fighters been brainwashed by years of living like this? Very possibly. But for better or worse, Dany ends up trying to change the entire zeitgeist of a culture and people in barely any time at all--it was pretty much doomed to disaster. It would be like an invader charging into the U.S. and then decreeing that there would be no more American Football played--something that such an intrinsic part of a culture being "eliminated" in that manner is bound to cause some rage.

That why I feel that what happened in Slavers Bay isn't going to be relevant to how she would rule in Westeros, she isn't going to try and overthrow their culture. However I think what happened in Slavers Bay will come back to haunt her and her enemies in Westeros will be able to paint her as a threat to Westerosi society because of the foriegners around her and because some of her advisors dabble in magic and worship other gods or have dubious reputations. I also don't think you can say she is at war with Essos, she is only at war with some of the slaveholding states, not even all of them, Volantis is the only one of the free cities that seems to be at war with her. Mereen is not emblamatic of Essosian culture as a whole. Its also possible if she ends up moving on Volantis that she will get a lot of help from its slaves and that they may be far better organized than the ones in Slavers Bay were.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

That why I feel that what happened in Slavers Bay isn't going to be relevant to how she would rule in Westeros, she isn't going to try and overthrow their culture.

On the one hand, she has the benefit in Westeros of not fighting a losing battle to change an entire way of life overnight. On the other, she must offer the people of Westeros something other than, "You were a slave and now I've freed you, you can adore me now." What works in her favor — Westeros is not a slaving culture — is also, oddly enough, what might give her the hardest time.

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

if anybody tells me i cant watch football... ill go to war for that, i dont care how many dragons she has... or how fat her ass is.

But is it wrong to change sompthing that is evil and wrong? If you were a leader of a barbaric nation that kills for fun, has slavery, etc,etc. And you watch your "children" starve, get beaten, etc.etc, would you do nothing to stop it when the power is soley in your hands? I mean... i thought you were fucking Superman!

Leaders need to understand and that is politically relevant even today that wars are incredibly costly morally and otherwise. Destabilizing a region can cause a shitload of suffering, not to mention the more direct consequences to the people due to the war.

Danny goes in Astapor to buy an army, has some doubts about using slaves. Then to not pay for her army she kills the authority of the place which are slavers. And she also wants to free the slaves. So she frees them and kills all slavers. Then leaves Astapor leaving the power vacuum she created.

If any nation decides to go to war based on as little thinking as Danny did then that nation will probably commit atrocities and bring suffering rather than bringing positive social change. The life quality of civilians is not up to any idiot queen or king playing war games to decide. War and conquering has very serious consequences and if you want to be a savior of people and morally right, things like that need to be decided after serious considerations and thinking of the consequences of your actions to the region. And preferably not by teenagers. Of course Danny also has her ulterior motives of gaining an army and going to Westeros to become queen so she is not all about saving slaves.

[Mr. E]

if anybody tells me i cant watch football... ill go to war for that, i dont care how many dragons she has... or how fat her ass is.

But is it wrong to change sompthing that is evil and wrong? If you were a leader of a barbaric nation that kills for fun, has slavery, etc,etc. And you watch your "children" starve, get beaten, etc.etc, would you do nothing to stop it when the power is soley in your hands? I mean... i thought you were fucking Superman!

Well as has been well established though the comics, Superman's not quite God. ;)

No, objectively it's not wrong to change something evil and wrong, of course. But you have to realize that to the people of slaver's bay, and to the people in the South during the American Civil war, they didn't see it as evil and wrong--and that is an entirely cultural attitude brought about by hundreds of years of sociological conditioning that you could basically write a book about. As you said, you'd go to war for not watching football--but what if a new ruler came in and he/she knew football was evil and wrong and needed to be changed? If said ruler is gonig to make that call, he/she either has to be patient and wait for the culture to change on its own, or risk a huge war where millions will die. Which one is the best path? Heck if I know.

[Gingerly Grumkin]

Leaders need to understand and that is politically relevant even today that wars are incredibly costly morally and otherwise. Destabilizing a region can cause a shitload of suffering.

Danny goes in Astapor to buy an army, has some doubts about using slaves. Then to not pay for her army she kills the authority of the place which are slavers. And she also wants to free the slaves. So she frees them and kills all slavers. Then leaves Astapor leaving the power vacuum she created.

If any nation decides to go to war based on us little thinking as Danny did then that nation will probably commit atrocities and bring suffering rather than bringing positive social change.

She didn't just kill the slavers to be a good person, she killed them so no one can raise any Unsullied against her in the future. And also she was playing it by ear (a common thing to do for some reason) And i dont think she will bring atrocities and suffering,

when she wins the war things will become much chiller in the East

On the one hand, she has the benefit in Westeros of not fighting a losing battle to change an entire way of life overnight. On the other, she must offer the people of Westeros something other than, "You were a slave and now I've freed you, you can adore me now." What works in her favor — Westeros is not a slaving culture — is also, oddly enough, what might give her the hardest time.

She is blood of the dragon and not a Lannister, i think thats enough

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

She didn't just kill the slavers to be a good person, she killed them so no one can raise any Unsullied against her in the future. And also she was playing it by ear (a common thing to do for some reason) And i dont think she will bring atrocities and suffering,

when she wins the war things will become much chiller in the East

She is blood of the dragon and not a Lannister, i think thats enough

Yes political necessity justified in her views atrocities. Now considering that she already committed atrocities and brought suffering I am not sure why you think she wouldn't bring them but in an above post you admitted how you are biased so I don't know what is left to debate. The point of how wars cause very high consequences and there need to be serious considerations of the geopolitical situation before pursuing them if you really care about the people and the place, seems to have escaped you.

[Gingerly Grumkin]

Well as has been well established though the comics, Superman's not quite God. ;)

No, objectively it's not wrong to change something evil and wrong, of course. But you have to realize that to the people of slaver's bay, and to the people in the South during the American Civil war, they didn't see it as evil and wrong--and that is an entirely cultural attitude brought about by hundreds of years of sociological conditioning that you could basically write a book about. As you said, you'd go to war for not watching football--but what if a new ruler came in and he/she knew football was evil and wrong and needed to be changed? If said ruler is gonig to make that call, he/she either has to be patient and wait for the culture to change on its own, or risk a huge war where millions will die. Which one is the best path? Heck if I know.

Superman is kinda like god... But you are 100% right (about Supes) he can not do everything, but he never takes a brake with it. The capitol of Krypton is still in the Fortress of Solitude being worked at 24/7. He has never been able to fully defeat Lex Luthor, but he still gives it his 110%. But he has morals that won't bend, no matter what brainiac does Superman wont kill him (even thou he is a robot). And yes your right about some people have different morals then others but thats a flawed argument because we all share the same morals here. Slavery and Genocide is wrong. It's like getting into an argument with a nazi, will they think im wrong regardless? yes. Does that mean i have to compromise with em? fuck no

e.t.a. im not calling u a nazi

[Gingerly Grumkin]

Yes political necessity justified in her views atrocities. Now considering that she already committed atrocities and brought suffering I am not sure why you think she wouldn't bring them but in an above post you admitted how you are biased so I don't know what is left to debate. The point of how wars cause very high consequences and there need to be serious considerations of the geopolitical situation before pursuing them if you really care about the people and the place, seems to have escaped you.

fuck that! You shouldn't have to care about the after effects, you cross that bridge when you get to it. Yes she killed people in war (quite brutally) but it was for a good cause, the only thing thats not justified by Dany is her trying to claim her birth right

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

She is blood of the dragon and not a Lannister, i think thats enough

So when people are starving and need food to eat and need peace and security and a stable economic and political structure, all Dany has to do is land and say, "I'm blood of the dragon, everyone! Chill out, I got this"? Sorry I give them a little more credit than that. Not that Dany can't offer them more (I don't think she can but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt for a sec), just that she'll have to. Blood of the dragon bullshit isn't enough.

fuck that! You shouldn't have to care about the after effects, you cross that bridge when you get to it. Yes she killed people in war (quite brutally) but it was for a good cause, the only thing thats not justified by Dany is her trying to claim her birth right

I can't even tell if you're being serious or not.

[Lady Olenna]

fuck that! You shouldn't have to care about the after effects, you cross that bridge when you get to it.

How very Joffrey Barartheon of you!

(I'm only teasing. It just reminded me of the conversation between Cersei and Jof about being a king)

[Gingerly Grumkin]

So when people are starving and need food to eat and need peace and security and a stable economic and political structure, all Dany has to do is land and say, "I'm blood of the dragon, everyone! Chill out, I got this"? Sorry I give them a little more credit than that. Not that Dany can't offer them more (I don't think she can but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt for a sec), just that she'll have to. Blood of the dragon bullshit isn't enough.

your right, saying "I'm blood of the dragon, everyone! Chill out, I got this" is not enough. saying im not a Lannister is. (plus she got an army and enough men to stabilize the economy.

I can't even tell if you're being serious or not.

sometimes neither can i :cool4:

[Gala]

I don't know, at the beginning of the series I thought she would be a good queen and "savior", a great character etc. But really…she not fit to rule at all. I do not why, but it's not her mistakes (everybody makes them- that's how we learn and characters as well) that bothers me…Freeing the slaves is admirable action, starting their revolution is also great…idealistic, as someone said Neddish. I like that she has a sense of justice, but she still stays ignorant about many things.

But…always this 'but'... if you see what she brought to those people and cities - fire and blood. I am re-reading now and I just came across Osha's quote about a comet (paraphrasing because I have a version in another language) "Dragons, boy…nothing good,boy, just fire and blood, fire and blood". so that it is, I am afraid that's what she will bring to Westeros as well, and we know that it is already in a very sad and poor state.

'Blood of a dragon' attitude won't probably be her advantage among Westerosi lords, I agree. But at least she has the dragons. I really don't know whether she should be the queen of Westeros or not, I just don't see her on the Throne + plus I don't like the end with Dany-only-saviour-because-of-her-dragons. That's my opinion.

[Gingerly Grumkin]

So when Dany kills it wrong but when Ned or Robb or Jon kills its honorable right?

Ned killed a dude who ran away from zombies and winter

Robb killed his cuz because Karstark wanted revenge for the death of his kids

Jon killed because some dude didn't want to follow his instructions.

How was Dany's so much worse?

[Gala]

So when Dany kills it wrong but when Ned or Robb or Jon kills its honorable right?

Ned killed a dude who ran away from zombies and winter

Robb killed his cuz because Karstark wanted revenge for the death of his kids

Jon killed because some dude didn't want to follow his instructions.

How was Dany's so much worse?

Somebody argues what is good and what is wrong? I didn't see that. As for me the difference is in extent (or scale?) of killing. Plus all of those you bring to the subject did killing with their own hands (they looked in the eyes of those they were going to kill) not only to fulfill their orders/duty, but to take responsibility for this killing, which is also quite different with killing thousands or distorting the city…but that's just me, I mean my point of view. no offense intended.

[Lady Olenna]

What do you think will happen if her dragon children decide to go on a BBQing expedition?

This is what I always wonder about her situation. She has to figure out how to get them under her control if she really wants to conquer anything. Without them I don't think she will get too far.

But she seems pretty bonded to Drogon so maybe she will figure out how to do it.