Ramsays 63 and Daenerys 163... Is Martin trying to hint something?

[Dany Girl]

Then judge them for being a slaver. And execute them. Executing them for the wrong crime is a crime in itself.

And by the way, do the job right and judge Drogo, the Dothraki, Illyrio, Jorah and Dany herself as well.

.

I do judge her, i just take her whole story into account. And I think Drogo, Illyrio, and Jorah were/are a bunch of evil people that need to die.

With Dany though, she starts out ok-ish with slavery, even gets sold herself as a slave. But she's on a journey of discovery to realize that it is wrong, and now is on a crusade to abolish it. She's no longer a slaver.

Edited for clarity.

[Dany Girl]

If anything, I imagine GRRM was drawing a parallel between Ramsay and the Great Masters. After all, their crucifixions were done with the intention of taunting their enemies, whilst Dany crucified the Great Masters out of a misguided sense of justice. Whatever we may think of it, "an eye for an eye" is still considered a form of justice, whilst crucifying enemies who have surrendered (after being promised mercy) and crucifying innocent slave children cannot be considered justice in any sense of the word.

Dany also displayed feelings of guilt, regret and horror at her actions, something Ramsay and the Great Masters have yet to do. So, again, if a parallel is meant to be drawn between Ramsay and Dany, it's likely to distinguish Dany from Ramsay and those like him.

I think it's also hugely important to Dany's arc in Meereen. Throughout her time there she begins to adopt their customs, their clothing, their "justice", and their cruelty. But by the end of ADwD, she realises that:

This is beautifully put. A great analysis between the 2 situations.

[Kungsmurfen]

Guys lets not be so hard.

We are discussing two characters; an evil one, and one who had a difficult childhood, a very harsh relative, and was often abused. But now that character is trying to restore his House to power, despite everything going against - of course, to finish on top, some difficult and un-noble decisions have to be made!

And then the other character is Daenerys.

You did well! :lol:

[RoamingRonin]

Patrick Stormborn did a nice job summing things up and it has Butterbumps! seal of approval. I think the case is closed on the matter.

[Dr. Pepper]

Just thought I'd repost these as it seems like they've been overlooked.

This is really abusing the connection in order to claim that the repetition indicates Dany = Ramsay.

That's not what's going on, though. The repetition of 63 is a reminder of the 163, but isn't meant to be the character assassination it's being used as here. The message is not "Dany must be a psychopath." It's more a comment of the horror that occurs in the name of trying to do good-- crucifixion is the tactic of monsters, and Dany is no monster and should have kept the high-ground, perhaps.

The 163 comes up in Dany's PoV again around the same time Ramsay's 63 are; clearly the connection is there. But importantly, Dany is haunted by the fact that these men were crucified; Ramsay is in no way troubled by his little display. Dany comes to realize what she'd done was inhumane.

If anything, I imagine GRRM was drawing a parallel between Ramsay and the Great Masters. After all, their crucifixions were done with the intention of taunting their enemies, whilst Dany crucified the Great Masters out of a misguided sense of justice. Whatever we may think of it, "an eye for an eye" is still considered a form of justice, whilst crucifying enemies who have surrendered (after being promised mercy) and crucifying innocent slave children cannot be considered justice in any sense of the word.

Dany also displayed feelings of guilt, regret and horror at her actions, something Ramsay and the Great Masters have yet to do. So, again, if a parallel is meant to be drawn between Ramsay and Dany, it's likely to distinguish Dany from Ramsay and those like him.

I think it's also hugely important to Dany's arc in Meereen. Throughout her time there she begins to adopt their customs, their clothing, their "justice", and their cruelty. But by the end of ADwD, she realises that:

[PatrickStormborn]

I do judge her, i just take her whole story into account. And I think Drogo, Illyrio, and Jorah were/are a bunch of evil people that need to die.

With Dany though, she starts out ok-ish with slavery, even gets sold herself as a slave. But she's on a journey of discovery to realize that it is wrong, and now is on a crusade to abolish it. She's no longer a slaver.

Edited for clarity.

Agreed. It's also worth noting that Dany frees every Dothraki as soon as she has complete autonomy. To compare her to Drogo or Illyrio (both of whom actively profit from the slave trade), or even Jorah, is completely ridiculous. They're all adults who were in positions of autonomy when they engaged in the slave trade.

And thank you for the compliment on my post. :)

[Dany Girl]

Agreed. It's also worth noting that Dany frees every Dothraki as soon as she has complete autonomy. To compare her to Drogo or Illyrio (both of whom actively profit from the slave trade), or even Jorah, is completely ridiculous. They're all adults who were in positions of autonomy when they engaged in the slave trade.

And thank you for the compliment on my post. :)

And I agree with you. Comparing an adult male to a 13 year old girl on something like this is silly. AN adult male had rights, responsibilities, and freedoms that a 13 year old girl, who is herself essentially a slave, does not have.

I do not like the fact that she uses Xaro's slaves so easily in Quarth after everything she's already seen, and having already freed her own slaves. But I also understand that she doesn't have much choice. If she had made a big deal out of it in Quarth, her entire tribe would have been cast out again, with no where to go, no way to get there, and no way to feed themselves. So I don't like it, I find it one of her low point and can see it be called hypocritical, but I also understand it.

[TheCrannogDweller]

Then judge them for being a slaver. And execute them. Executing them for the wrong crime is a crime in itself.

That's like saying "judge Al Capone for being a murderer, not a tax-fraud". The fact that a crime hasn't been proven, despite of being obviously committed is not a mitigating circumstance.

There is a difference between law and justice.

It doesnt matter who is worse of the two. they have both done shitty horrible things.

Oh yeah, because burning people alive is totally a legitimate and ok method of punishment.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

That's like saying "judge Al Capone for being a murderer, not a tax-fraud". The fact that a crime hasn't been proven, despite of being obviously committed is not a mitigating circumstance.

There is a difference between law and justice.

So it's obvious that those 163 who were crucified were the quilty?

[E-Ro]

Oh yeah, because burning people alive is totally a legitimate and ok method of punishment.

And this relates to my post because?

You bring up Stannis more then the stan stans do, and then you bitch over it. No one is talking about Stannis, get over it.

[El Guapo]

And this relates to my post because?

You bring up Stannis more then the stan stans do, and then you bitch over it. No one is talking about Stannis, get over it.

Because you said crucifixions were not ok. So, the question is then what forms of executions are ok in your mind? beheadings? burnings? Impalings? drownings?

[Lummel]

If anything, I imagine GRRM was drawing a parallel between Ramsay and the Great Masters. After all, their crucifixions were done with the intention of taunting their enemies, whilst Dany crucified the Great Masters out of a misguided sense of justice. Whatever we may think of it, "an eye for an eye" is still considered a form of justice, whilst crucifying enemies who have surrendered (after being promised mercy) and crucifying innocent slave children cannot be considered justice in any sense of the word.

Dany also displayed feelings of guilt, regret and horror at her actions, something Ramsay and the Great Masters have yet to do. So, again, if a parallel is meant to be drawn between Ramsay and Dany, it's likely to distinguish Dany from Ramsay and those like him.

I think it's also hugely important to Dany's arc in Meereen. Throughout her time there she begins to adopt their customs, their clothing, their "justice", and their cruelty. But by the end of ADwD, she realises that:

There is no shortage of arbitrary punishment in Westeros, just thinking of the Antler Men or of the body in a crow cage in The Sworn Sword that prompts Dunk to think that some Lords punish people just because they can. But another difference that occurs to me between daenerys and Ramsey Snow is keeping and breaking your word.

Ramsey executes those men after having sent Theon in to promise them their freedom, Daenerys makes clear that she will punish, as you say on an eye for an eye basis, in retaliation for the executed children.

So there is only a surface similarity in having both of them order executions.

[TheCrannogDweller]

So it's obvious that those 163 who were crucified were the quilty?

They were guilty of being slavers.

Let's be clear, I'm not condoning those crucifixions - but I also don't think they're that big of a monstrocity. If you ask me, she should've repaid them in dragon coin, rather than in harpy ones.

And this relates to my post because?

You bring up Stannis more then the stan stans do, and then you bitch over it. No one is talking about Stannis, get over it.

Guilty as charged.

Then again, "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" is my point, I guess.

[Minsc]

So it's obvious that those 163 who were crucified were the quilty?

Didn't you previous argue it would was justice to just murder two relatives of the guilty party?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

They were guilty of being slavers.

Let's be clear, I'm not condoning those crucifixions - but I also don't think they're that big of a monstrocity. If you ask me, she should've repaid them in dragon coin, rather than in harpy ones.

So, killing someone for his culture? Wouldn't that be like killing, no not just killing torturing, someone because he is a Targ who have dragons and dragons are MDW?

Are we even sure that they were slavers?

[Bronn Urgandy]

ETA: I could not give two figs about the 163. "There could have been innocents...!" is such a weak, pitiful argument.

Will you say the same about the Freys after they undergo a blanket slaughter?

They're slavers. They're not innocent. Dany should have killed them all. How many lives have they each ruined? Millions. Let them die, let it be brutal. I for one don't have a single f*** to spare caring about slavers.

Genocide? Retroactive punishment is wrong. Like illegalising booze and arresting anyone whos ever had a drink.

:o But why?

Couldnt afford an army of Unsullied

Yes, I do. Ned should have killed him, but Jorah ran away like a little b*tch. Now he's a slave himself, and getting what he deserves. If he ends up with some happy ending I'll be extremely disappointed in GRRM.

You hate slavery but Jorah mormont is getting what he deserves?

Ser Jorah was supposed to be executed by Westorosi law.

George Washington doesn't live in Westoros...

Neither did the Astaporians, Meerenese or Yunkai.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

I'm still baffled with the argument some have used Men are sons of their environment. If that was true, think about all the young men that fought against slavery. Their families were sometimes slavers themselves, and yet they took a stand.

If we are going the Morally Relativist way, then be prepared to admit all cases of marital rape in the past because "They were just created like that", slavery because "It's okay since it was permitted by their society" and murder of defective infants in Ancient Sparta because "It was the rule." And that's not even going for murder, rape and pillaging.

To argue that the slavers should be doing slavery because that's their economical tradition is the same to take a stand against the abolishing of the First Night, for example, passed by Jaehaerys because "It was their tradition." I'd bet one wouldn't think that if they were the bride brought to the Lord, right? There is always a choice. One can choose, you know, not to enslave. The same way that one can, even if their environment thinks otherwise. (Jorah, anyone?)

[PatrickStormborn]

So, killing someone for his culture? Wouldn't that be like killing, no not just killing torturing, someone because he is a Targ who have dragons and dragons are MDW?

Are we even sure that they were slavers?

Considering that Dany knew the names and addresses of the wives of the men she crucified, I'm gonna go out on a wild guess and say that yeah, they were probably slavers.

[Bronn Urgandy]

I'm still baffled with the argument some have used Men are sons of their environment. If that was true, think about all the young men that fought against slavery. Their families were sometimes slavers themselves, and yet they took a stand.

If we are going the Morally Relativist way, then be prepared to admit all cases of marital rape in the past because "They were just created like that", slavery because "It's okay since it was permitted by their society" and murder of defective infants in Ancient Sparta because "It was the rule." And that's not even going for murder, rape and pillaging.

To argue that the slavers should be doing slavery because that's their economical tradition is the same to take a stand against the abolishing of the First Night, for example, passed by Jaehaerys because "It was their tradition." I'd bet one wouldn't think that if they were the bride brought to the Lord, right? There is always a choice. One can choose, you know, not to enslave. The same way that one can, even if their environment thinks otherwise. (Jorah, anyone?)

Illegalise slavery. Dont just kill everyone whos owned a slave after changing the law. Some people treated their slaves well, but they'll die with the rest.

[TheCrannogDweller]

Illegalise slavery. Dont just kill everyone whos owned a slave after changing the law. Some people treated their slaves well, but they'll die with the rest.

The fact that they are slavers is not their crime - their crime is that as slavers and part of the governing body of Meereen, they condoned the murder of 163 children.