137 replies to this topic

[Ser Lepus]

While we were discussing other matters in other threads, it come up how much Dany really knows about Westeros, and how foreign and "exotic" she will be to the westerosi, and that made me think...

Dany has learned most of what she knows about Westeros and the Targayren rule from Vyseris, who made her believe that the Targayren were some kind of god-emperors revered and almost worshipped as living gods by their subjects (hence all that "blood of the dragon" crap she repeats again and again and again...she believes she is expected to be like that), and sadly, the westerosi she has met to date have done very little to change her opinions (they all humor her and fawn excesively over her, even when she was at her lowest point; Ser Jorah was in love with her, Ser Barristan was trying to make her accept him despite his period of service to Robert, and Quentyn was trying to woo her).
But we, as readers, know how being ruler of the Seven Kingdoms really is: you have to compromise and negotiate and haggle and cajole the many powerful players that think themselves almost as important as the king/queen himself/herself; let remember the concesions Roberts had to do to the Lannisters, how Tywin and Renly had to bribe and flatter the Tyrells, how Cersei and later Kevan had to haggle with the Great Septon, how Robb had to give up to Lord Walder Frey demands (and got screwed when he didn´t fulfill his part of the deal)...etc.

So, what do you think will happen when Dany crashes against reality? She has dragons, and if she manages to control them, that will help a lot, but I think that if she spits too many times her "blood of the dragons" line to the great lords, she will be in trouble anyway; her dragons can´t protect her from being poisoned or strangled in her own bed or stabbed in the back...I know she can be quite smart and a fast learner when Daario is not around, but I think she is too used to use her dragon queen attitude to mask her fears and insecurities, and she will probably more afraid and insecure than ever when she faces the task of finally ruling the Seven Kingdoms at last...Will she be able to adapt and change her usual behaviour to suit the enviroment?.

Your thougths?

Edited by Ser Lepus, 29 February 2012 - 12:59 PM.

[Revan Baratheon]

I believe she will never reach westeros.She will be queen of slavers bay and live happily to the end of her days.

[Gingerly Grumkin]

So assuming Aegon is out of the picture and Danys enemies are dead.
The dragons will cause a lot of problems, Maesters will try to kill them for a chain, people will kill them so there last name is Dragonslayer And the HS will call her the devil. Her army of Unsullied will be looked upon as a "slave" army, despite the fact that they are free. And her Dothraki heard will be looked upon like savages who rape and pillage (for good reason)
However i dont think she is the only person who thinks Targaryens are deities, im fairly confident that the average farmer thinks she is a god, and many Lords feel the same way. E.G. Brown Ben, Martells, Lannisters

[David Selig]

Ser Lepus, on 29 February 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

While we were discussing other matters in other threads, it come up how much Dany really knows about Westeros, and how foreign and "exotic" she will be to the westerosi, and that made me think...

Dany has learned most of what she knows about Westeros and the Targayren rule from Vyseris, who made her believe that the Targayren were some kind of god-emperors revered and almost worshipped as living gods by their subjects (hence all that "blood of the dragon" crap she repeats again and again and again...she believes she is expected to be like that)

I don't think that's true. At one point in AGOT Jorah told her that the common people in Westeros don't give a damn who's on the throne and she accepted it.

Quote

“Still,” she said, “the common people are waiting for him. Magister Illyrio says they are sewing dragon banners and praying for Viserys to return from across the narrow sea to free them.”
“The common people pray for rain, healthy children, and a summer that never ends,” Ser Jorah told her. “It is no matter to them if the high lords play their game of thrones, so long as they are left in peace.” He gave a shrug. “They never are.”
Dany rode along quietly for a time, working his words like a puzzle box. It went against everything that Viserys had ever told her to think that the people could care so little whether a true king or a usurper reigned over them. Yet the more she thought on Jorah’s words, the more they rang of truth.

And her Meereen experience, blunders and all, show that she knows that just being the blood of the Dragon is not enough, she has to play the Game, with political marriages, deals and all that.

[danm_999]

Daenerys doesn't even seem aware of the biggest problem facing the Seven Kingdoms in a generation, that the Long Winter has come.

With such a woeful lack of context, I can't really see how she could be expected to be an effective ruler.

[Lord Damian]

I hope she never acheives her goal of becoming queen of Westeros but I must conceed the build up in this series is one that suggests whe will mount the iron throne, atleast for a brief time. We have seen that deserving to hold the throne has nothing to do with whom does hold it. i get a feeling that the people of westeros will be exhausted and worn out from fighting each other and possilby "THE" others, I could see her sailing or flying in, taking a undefended King's Landing without having to throw a spear and proclaiming herself the savior of Westeros, while the real heros will have already died or just finished fighting too far away to stop her. Trust me, her character is that ignorant and arrogant. This would be the worst ending of all.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Dany as Queen of the Seven Kingdoms gives me nightmares. As much as fiction could. Because, honestly, she is ignorant and on the best way to become a worse tyrant than Aerys and Joffrey ever were.

[Gingerly Grumkin]

Bright Blue Eyes, on 29 February 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

Dany as Queen of the Seven Kingdoms gives me nightmares. As much as fiction could. Because, honestly, she is ignorant and on the best way to become a worse tyrant than Aerys and Joffrey ever were.

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?

[Mr. E]

Ndrew of Typhgarian, on 29 February 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

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?

You know, as far as the slaves thing goes, I honestly think Martin was trying to imply that her handling of it was a bit too idealistic--too Neddish, if I might go there. Like someone else said, she doesn't know how to play the game. Freeing slaves is idealistic, sure, but doing so just on an order after just having established a new government is going to be problematic at best--basically what I'm trying to say was it was an immature thing to do, and exactly the kind of thing a ruler with little connection to reality would pull. Will she learn? Perhaps, perhaps not. Buuut...I don't know if the slave-freeing thing is the best example of that to support your point.

[Gingerly Grumkin]

Mr. E, on 29 February 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

You know, as far as the slaves thing goes, I honestly think Martin was trying to imply that her handling of it was a bit too idealistic--too Neddish, if I might go there. Like someone else said, she doesn't know how to play the game. Freeing slaves is idealistic, sure, but doing so just on an order after just having established a new government is going to be problematic at best--basically what I'm trying to say was it was an immature thing to do, and exactly the kind of thing a ruler with little connection to reality would pull. Will she learn? Perhaps, perhaps not. Buuut...I don't know if the slave-freeing thing is the best example of that to support your point.

ight Supes. is it cool if i call u Supes? your avatar is awsome and your name is way to mysterious for me.
Slaver's Bay is the "nucleus" of Essos. The Dothraki capture slaves bring em to the Bay and then they are sold to Pentos & friends. So for sure, she did change the way the continent functions, but is that so bad? Dont forget she was sold, she knows how it feels to be a slave. Wait hold on... do i really have to argue why the abolishment of slavery is the right thing to do?

Edited by Ndrew of Typhgarian, 29 February 2012 - 03:21 PM.

[PatrickStormborn]

Revan Baratheon, on 29 February 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

I believe she will never reach westeros.She will be queen of slavers bay and live happily to the end of her days.

Daenerys is one of the most central characters to the series. This is a series about Westeros. Do you think she's not even going to set foot there? Really?

Mr. E, on 29 February 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

You know, as far as the slaves thing goes, I honestly think Martin was trying to imply that her handling of it was a bit too idealistic--too Neddish, if I might go there. Like someone else said, she doesn't know how to play the game. Freeing slaves is idealistic, sure, but doing so just on an order after just having established a new government is going to be problematic at best--basically what I'm trying to say was it was an immature thing to do, and exactly the kind of thing a ruler with little connection to reality would pull. Will she learn? Perhaps, perhaps not. Buuut...I don't know if the slave-freeing thing is the best example of that to support your point.

Was it a rash decision? Yes, of course it was. But was it the right one? I believe so, and I'm sure every slave that she freed would agree.

[Mr. E]

Ndrew of Typhgarian, on 29 February 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

ight Supes. is it cool if i call u Supes? your avatar is awsome and your name is way to mysterious for me.
Slaver's Bay is the "nucleus" of Essos. The Dothraki capture slaves bring em to the Bay and then they are sold to Pentos & friends. So for sure, she did change the way the continent functions, but is that so bad? Dont forget she was sold, she knows how it feels to be a slave. Wait hold on... do i really have to argue why the abolishment of slavery is the right thing to do?

You can call me anything you like.   And as to your question, I explain my thinking below.

PatrickStormborn, on 29 February 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

Daenerys is one of the most central characters to the series. This is a series about Westeros. Do you think she's not even going to set foot there? Really?



Was it a rash decision? Yes, of course it was. But was it the right one? I believe so, and I'm sure every slave that she freed would agree.

But see that's the thing. Was it the right decision? Yeah, morally. BUUUUUT...it has ruined the economy of an entire region, severely hurt the entire economy of another entire region, has basically sent the entirety of Essos into war, has caused the deaths of thousands if not hundreds of thousands, has caused the slavers to reclaim their old slaves and get new slaves and treat them even harsher--so was it a savvy "Game" move? IDK. I don't think it's as black and white as it seems.

Mainly I'm arguing this with reference to the American Civil War, BTW, where even the President credited with freeing the slaves would have rathered it died out slowly than fight a war over it wherein 630,000 people died. And he didn't even declared the slaves were free; and afterwards, an entire half of the U.S. fell into an economic ruin that in some ways it still hasn't recovered from getting on a century and a half later--like I said, I just think the issue is more complicated than it would originally appear.

[jarl the climber]

I don't think that Danys experiences in Slavers Bay will be that relevant to how she might rule in Westeros. I agree that most of her knowledge about Westeros came from Viserys but that isn't her fault, it seems likely that she will have more knowledgable advisors by the time this happens, the question is whether or not she listens to them.

The problem Dany might have is how she is perceived. Ser Barristan is popular in Westeros, so his association with her might be helpful. But the rest of the people around her or heading towards her don't seem to bw well regarded. Tyrion is a kinslayer, Victorian is a pirate, Ser Jorah was a slaver and a spy, Marwyn the mage is outside the mainstream for a maester. If Moqourro sticks with her that might hurt, he is a red preist. If she brings a bunch of Dothraki with her that will be a problem, the Unsullied are well behaved but people will tell stories. Ser Barristaan is the only one who would be popular and her enemies might try to accuse him of conspiring with Dany to kill Robert Barratheon. Even if Dany rules well she still might be hated.

[PatrickStormborn]

Mr. E, on 29 February 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

But see that's the thing. Was it the right decision? Yeah, morally. BUUUUUT...it has ruined the economy of an entire region, severely hurt the entire economy of another entire region, has basically sent the entirety of Essos into war, has caused the deaths of thousands if not hundreds of thousands, has caused the slavers to reclaim their old slaves and get new slaves and treat them even harsher--so was it a savvy "Game" move? IDK. I don't think it's as black and white as it seems.

Mainly I'm arguing this with reference to the American Civil War, BTW, where even the President credited with freeing the slaves would have rathered it died out slowly than fight a war over it wherein 630,000 people died. And he didn't even declared the slaves were free; and afterwards, an entire half of the U.S. fell into an economic ruin that in some ways it still hasn't recovered from getting on a century and a half later--like I said, I just think the issue is more complicated than it would originally appear.

I mostly agree with you. But, personally, I think she did the right thing. She had the power to crush slavery in Astapor, and that's what she did. I think it was a naive decision, but still very admirable. And I think any ex-slave would agree.

Has it caused that many deaths? I'm pretty sure most of the deaths that have occurred have been from: 1) the power vacuum left in Astapor; and 2) the Pale Mare. I wish there was a way to end slavery other than war, but I think war was pretty much the only option, despite Dany doing almost everything to prevent it. However, a war to stop slavery is certainly more honourable than Ned's war to place "the rightful heir to the seven kingdoms" on the throne.

I'd also like to add that the Meereenese ruined their own economy by burning the olive trees -- the one good that other nations were willing to trade for.

[Mr. E]

PatrickStormborn, on 29 February 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

I mostly agree with you. But, personally, I think she did the right thing. She had the power to crush slavery in Astapor, and that's what she did. I think it was a naive decision, but still very admirable. And I think any ex-slave would agree.

Has it caused that many deaths? I'm pretty sure most of the deaths that have occurred have been from: 1) the power vacuum left in Astapor; and 2) the Pale Mare. I wish there was a way to end slavery other than war, but I think war was pretty much the only option, despite Dany doing almost everything to prevent it. However, a war to stop slavery is certainly more honourable than Ned's war to place "the rightful heir to the seven kingdoms" on the throne.

I'd also like to add that the Meereenese ruined their own economy by burning the olive trees -- the one good that other nations were willing to trade for.

Fair enough. Like I said, it's a forever debatable question...and to bring it back on topic, would a older, more mature Dany have done the same thing?  I think the answer to that question would answer a lot about how well she would do when/if she reaches Westeros.

[Gingerly Grumkin]

Mr. E, on 29 February 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

You can call me anything you like.   

ight bitch. lol jk.

Mr. E, on 29 February 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

But see that's the thing. Was it the right decision? Yeah, morally. BUUUUUT...it has ruined the economy of an entire region, severely hurt the entire economy of another entire region, has basically sent the entirety of Essos into war, has caused the deaths of thousands if not hundreds of thousands, has caused the slavers to reclaim their old slaves and get new slaves and treat them even harsher--so was it a savvy "Game" move? IDK. I don't think it's as black and white as it seems.

Mainly I'm arguing this with reference to the American Civil War, BTW, where even the President credited with freeing the slaves would have rathered it died out slowly than fight a war over it wherein 630,000 people died. And he didn't even declared the slaves were free; and afterwards, an entire half of the U.S. fell into an economic ruin that in some ways it still hasn't recovered from getting on a century and a half later--like I said, I just think the issue is more complicated than it would originally appear.

Essos declared war on Dany, the fight was inevitable thou and not 100% about slavery. She is a Westeros women who comes and makes fun of Lords, shuts down fighting pits, owns dragons, and took out the cities thru trickary. But it was justified, fuck the economy. And good thing were talking about the 7 kingdoms and not this piece of shit continent
Now on to Mr. President Lincoln... Lincoln was one the best/worst pres in U.S. history. He preserved the union, which is cool, i guess. But the emancipation proclamation only freed the slaves in the states that ceded (Not West Virginia, or i think Michigan, etc.etc) He only passed the 14th amendment (which only prohibits people from owning slaves, the gov't still can E.G prison, jail, etc) to appease the North, i doubt that he was an abolitionist. and the wild laws that he passed was the perfect precedent for the Paitriot Act. Im under the impression that if john wilkes booth didn't kill him, Lincoln would be the first king of America.

[Mr. E]

Ndrew of Typhgarian, on 29 February 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

Now on to Mr. President Lincoln... Lincoln was one the best/worst pres in U.S. history. He preserved the union, which is cool, i guess. But the emancipation proclamation only freed the slaves in the states that ceded (Not West Virginia, or i think Michigan, etc.etc) He only passed the 14th amendment (which only prohibits people from owning slaves, the gov't still can E.G prison, jail, etc) to appease the North, i doubt that he was an abolitionist. and the wild laws that he passed was the perfect precedent for the Paitriot Act. Im under the impression that if john wilkes booth didn't kill him, Lincoln would be the first king of America.

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.

[Apple Martini]

Ndrew of Typhgarian, on 29 February 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

Essos declared war on Dany

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.

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

I agree with the opening post. Danny represents more fire and blood than what Westeros needs.

She already is a destructive entitled force in the world that has some compassionate feelings as well in addition to being a war mongering conqueror but at the end she does more harm than good. She is a conqueror and I don't see her bringing a good fortune to Westeros by ruling it but if she ends up fighting the Others she might end up doing some good.

Just look at her history. In GOT she wanted the Dothraki to invade Westeros that would result in a lot of misery so she could be queen. She sacked cities because they were on the way and to get her army and because she didn't like slavery, causing a lot of misery and atrocities in the process. And also not realizing the real ramifications of her actions to the people of the area.

At Mereen she decided to stay and rule but that did not work out. I see her representing fire and blood more than anything else and that is not what Westeros needs.  And sure she does feel compassionate feelings some times about people but rather than saving people she often ends up damning them and bringing them suffering.

And where will her path take her? Will she become a more effective but ruthless, less trusting and more bloodthirsty conqueror? Or will she try to be realistic and compassionate and with lower more achievable goals instead? Or maybe as usually she will try both ruthlessness and being a conqueror in some cases and trying to help and save a specific category of people. Will she or will she not abandon slaver bay for Westeros?

Edited by Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren, 29 February 2012 - 04:18 PM.

[Mr. E]

Apple Martini, on 29 February 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

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.

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.