Will dany and tyrion join forces?

[SeanF]

It's not just a matter of who deserves what. Often that isn't even the major consideration. There is a lot of "that's the way it goes" or "I believe that's called war" or " how else does one pay sellswords?" One of the many places in the text that shows this is Harry Strickland's speech in ADwD. He is talking to the Golden Company and Aegon's people. He wonders why Dany hasn't moved west:

"Sack Meereen, aye, why not? I would have done the same in her place. The slaver cities reek of gold, and conquest requires coin. But why linger?"

No one objects to Harry's analysis. Sacking is accepted as standard operating procedure. If anything, Dany's moves to limit the sacking of the city show her to be at least a bit on the gentler side of this SOP. Note that I'm not arguing here that she does a good job in Meereen, or that she'd make a good ruler of the seven kingdoms. More importantly for this thread, there is no reason to believe Tyrion will make any effort to dissuade her or her followers from busting things up in the west. He may have been exaggerating the "rape and kill my sister" business. He doesn't object to revenge, however, and I see no reason to think he would advise the

placing of strong restraints on fighters who take a city by force.

I think it's interesting, though, to contrast Dany's reaction to the Sack of the Lhazareen town, and the Sack of Meereen. Both are awful. We're told she rides through streets choked with corpses at Meereen.

Yet, she wanted to burst into tears at the former, and tries to save men from murder and women from rape. She doesn't accept Dothraki arguments that this is "the way of war". At the latter, she doesn't seem very bothered. She's two years older, and one could just see it as part of the process of growing up. She's " killing the

girl" and becoming much harder and colder. But, we'll see in ADWD that she does still get bothered by the deaths of innocents.

If pressed, I think she'd say the Meereenese, unlike the Lhazareen, weren't innocent. They were Slavers, they resisted, and they paid the price.

[Nictarion]

If pressed, I think she'd say the Meereenese, unlike the Lhazareen, weren't innocent. They were Slavers, they resisted, and they paid the price.

That's my take on it. She was still quite upset from seeing the crucified children the Meereenese killed to taunt her. And like you said, they chose to resist.

[SeanF]

That's my take on it. She was still quite upset from seeing the crucified children the Meereenese killed to taunt her. And like you said, they chose to resist.

And yet, I do think that Dany's thoughts at the Lhazareen town were, in a horrible way, right. The price of the Iron Throne is looking on with indifference as your soldiers commit horrors. Say, sealing off a town, and burning it down with its inhabitants, because they won't hand over an enemy. Or watching the "useless mouths" being expelled from a stronghold you're besieging, and making them starve in front of the defenders.

[Zorral]

And yet, I do think that Dany's thoughts at the Lhazareen town were, in a horrible way, right. The price of the Iron Throne is looking on with indifference as your soldiers commit horrors. Say, sealing off a town, and burning it down with its inhabitants, because they won't hand over an enemy. Or watching the "useless mouths" being expelled from a stronghold you're besieging, and making them starve in front of the defenders.

Yet the commanders and their conduct at the Siege of Rouen, on both sides, are still alive in history's infamys annals. Which does matter to such figures, thus the constant re-writing of history.

[SeanF]

Yet the commanders and their conduct at the Siege of Rouen, on both sides, are still alive in history's infamys annals. Which does matter to such figures, thus the constant re-writing of history.

Why? I doubt if Henry V was bothered. Nor were contemporaries.

[Parwan]

Sacking a city that offers no resistance is seen as very bad form in Westeros; likewise breaching guest-right. Some behaviours are considered so dishonourable as to be counter-productive.

True, there are many factors involved. it is hard to tease them all apart. Now, the Red Wedding was an extreme action that should not be compared to the SOP of sacking a conquered town. The RR was a violation of a strongly held cultural norm. It was and is the sort of thing that will definitely be remembered, a thing that could get the great grandchildren of the perpetrators slaughtered. The sack of KL was more of a standard action. It is worthy of note, however, that the men who did it were sacking their own capital. That can't be considered completely normal.

Then there is the difference between taking a city by force and taking it by deceit. The gates of KL were opened to the Lannisters; Tywin said he had come to help the king, and thus, presumably, the residents of KL.

I think it's interesting, though, to contrast Dany's reaction to the Sack of the Lhazareen town, and the Sack of Meereen. Both are awful. We're told she rides through streets choked with corpses at Meereen.

Yet, she wanted to burst into tears at the former, and tries to save men from murder and women from rape. She doesn't accept Dothraki arguments that this is "the way of war". At the latter, she doesn't seem very bothered. She's two years older, and one could just see it as part of the process of growing up. She's " killing the

girl" and becoming much harder and colder. But, we'll see in ADWD that she does still get bothered by the deaths of innocents.

If pressed, I think she'd say the Meereenese, unlike the Lhazareen, weren't innocent. They were Slavers, they resisted, and they paid the price.

With Dany's experience we have further complications. From the description of post-battle Meereen, we can't tell for sure how much of the destruction and death is the result of combat and how much the result of the sacking. The dead heaped before the broken gate probably died fighting. When we read that "gutters were choked with the stiff and swollen dead," it's not certain how these people died. As far as I can tell, the queen didn't see any women being raped in Meereen. I'm pretty sure she didn't see any boys being run down for sport by mounted warriors. This is important for an emotional person like Daenerys. It would certainly seem to me to be a partial explanation for different responses to the two events.

Another matter that shouldn't be forgotten: A lot of what happened in the slaver city should be viewed as an uprising, a rebellion, not a sacking by a foreign army. The Meereenese slaves did a lot of the damage. The former slaves who followed the dragon queen from Astapor and Yunkai did most of the rest; these latter people are described as "starving hordes." It appears clear that the Unsullied didn't do any sacking, and the sellswords didn't do the majority of what happened. This makes the whole business significantly different from what usually happens when a city falls.

Overall, I continue to stick with my main themes. Dany doesn't stand out as terribly different from other leaders when it comes to the sacking of conquered cities. If anything, she is probably milder than most. Tyrion, if he works with her, will probably not serve as a moral restraint. He might give some good practical advice on where to be harsh and where to be merciful.