Dany's death!

[Horus Ex Machina]

Well, I never considered R+L=J to be obvious.

That being said, the reason I have seen people citing for why they believed it to be obvious is because it makes Jon the stereotypical "lost prince" like Aragorn from LOTR or even Corporal Carrot from Discworld. So far as I know, the Red Wedding is a much less common trope in fantasy literature.

I'm not going to bother to respond to your list of things that did not surprise you, because, well, I don't care. It bores me to tears to hear people rattling on about all the shit they predicted in these books and it doesn't, in my opinion, bolster the idea that you can tell when a character's story has ended in advance. I think it's the textual clues that help a person predict the Red Wedding -- not some vague sense that, "Oh, Robb's narrative arc is spent, he's going to die soon." I just don't think a reader can decide when a character's story is over. You said yourself that Robb's continued survival before the Red Wedding surprised you, right? So you couldn't have predicted when his arc was over?

It seems to me that you are backward-defining "important" characters to be the ones that we are pretty sure will survive because of their place in the story. That Jon and Dany will survive for at least the vast majority of the story arc is no huge insight. But you don't consider any of the people who died to be important characters?

Did Robb Stark's death surprise you?

1.Robb Stark never had a single POV chapter.

2.Robb Stark's campaign was progressing too well at a point in the arc of the total story where victory would have been out of place.

3.It seemed clear even then that Jon Stark was the true protagonist. Robb Stark's presence would have stunted his character's growth since Jon would have naturally deferred to him.

4.Robb Stark had a moral character type in which self preservation was a last resort. In times when honor is abandoned this weakness makes a character vulnerable. Don't tell me you hadn't noticed this, e.g. the alienation of the Karstarks, the release of Theon Greyjoy, and the marriage to Jeyne Westerling.

I may not have predicted the chapter, but people who understood where GRRM was going with the story had some idea that his days were numbered as soon as the first few chapters of ASOS were read. It was becoming obvious that he would not survive even half of the book. The previous books set up the plausibility of his death. The third book made his death imminent.

[DanteGabriel]

I may not have predicted the chapter, but people who understood where GRRM was going with the story had some idea that his days were numbered as soon as the first few chapters of ASOS were read.

This was exactly my point, but thanks for throwing the BS tag at me.

I was saying that a reader cannot predict exactly when a character's narrative arc is up. The fact that he died did not surprise me. The fact that he died at his uncle's wedding DID, because I bought into the shit about guest right. I also like to try and let books and movies surprise me, instead of furiously guessing at everything that's going to happen to prove what a clever person I am. Maybe you knew exactly what was going to happen at the Red Wedding. In that case, you're ever so much smarter and more clever than me. Such blazing textual analysis power should, perhaps, also be applied to fully comprehending other people's posts on internet message boards.

Dante Dante Dante, I miss stated my point and heres what I meant : Hitler WASN'T a physically imposing specimen, or extraordinary warrior, Ghengis WAS in his own right a highly trained/skilled/imposing martial figure... I aggrivates me that the only depiction of him (or atleast the widest circulated version) is that of the chineese propogandists which shows him as fat and docile which he was not

Of course, I am once again baffled as to how any of this is at all relevant to a discussion of George RR Martin's books. But I guess it's pretty entertaining to see you gamely put on your water wings again and again to paddle out into the deep waters of historical analysis and consistently ending up swamped and dead in the water.

You haven't sufficiently refuted Celtic's points about feeding the hundreds of thousands of horses the Dothraki would bring over or the lack of open maneuvering space. I guess refuting real points is hard while going on about John of Gaunt's huge manly calves (hello, Johnny Drama) is much easier.

LOL I have read 2 and am about to start my 3rd "primary" source and yes I stretched the facts to accomodate the point I was trying to make

Why should people bother to discuss anything with you if you're going to stretch facts?

[Enguerrand]

Well, If you like Xanrn assume that all of Westeros staunchly will oppose the Dothraki hordes and a Targaryen king, then I doubt they would prevail. It is possibly I suppose if Drogo wouldn’t care at all for cooperation. Considering medieval naval warfare it's apparent I'm just wasting bandwidth.

I’m not certain how well the Dothraki Mongol comparison holds up. The Mongols were extremely adaptable and totally pragmatic. Winning was everything, while the Dothraki has wide streaks of honour culture. Mongols wouldn’t have charged down an infantry force if they had better options, they would not seek for “braver foes†if their enemies hid behind walls etc.

Pikes doesn’t seem to see much use in Westeros. Understandable, since it’s mainly the bane of heavy cavalry, if they were effectively used the knighthood would already be obsolete.

They have massive numbers of well fortified strongholds, garrisoned by large numbers of well armored and trained men, numbering in the hundreds of thousands.

Actually my impression is that they don’t. That was Jorah’s point when discussing Rheagar’s army against Drogo’s screamers. Numerically they would both number 40000. But just a few thousand Rhaegar’s force would have been professional warriors. This would also be consistent with the Mongols that virtually always fought and won outnumbered many times over.

The strength of horse nomad warriors is in their tactical and strategic mobility, not in their armaments - which were inferior to crossbows in terms of distance and power (See Richard I's Crusade).

Crossbows didn’t matter much for battlefield control. The composite Mongolian bow was their primary weapon and widely considered a main reason for their success. It had a force comparable with the English longbow, but was smaller and lighter and could be fired from the horse. Mongolian forces never closed with there enemy if they weren’t forced to and since virtually always had the superior mobility they rarely were. The lance and the mace where for cleanup work when the enemy ranks had been broken by the hail of arrows.

They maintained that mobility because they kept massive trains of horses, up to 18 or 20 if you believe Marco Polo. That many steppe ponies requires a massive amount of fodder every day, something that is rarely a problem when on the steppe, but becomes a serious issue when you leave that band of territory.

Strange then that they had no problems conquering vast amounts of land without steppe. Agricultural areas can of course supply more fodder per square kilometre then grasslands if you stop and think about it.

Thats what happened in Europe in 1241. The Mongols could invade and wipe out the poorly led, and hastily organised armies of Hungary and Poland (two weaker, less cohesive or organized states) but fail to take any castles, let alone maintain a siege for a year or two. Within 6-8 months they had exhausted the available fodder of the Hungarian plain, and were forced to return home.

Actually Mongol siege warfare was considered second none (which makes them a poor comparison to Dothrakis). The reasons the Mongols didn’t conquer Europe has been hotly debated, but it certainly wasn’t because they lacked the ability. Turkmen’s and Arabs that easily defeated the European crusaders rarely had anything to put up against the Mongols superior warfare. Most likely the Mongols had reached the logistic limit conquering 1/12 of the earths landmass. The empire by that time degenerated into civil war.

Its not just the logistical side of things. The lack of sheer open ground would limit their mobility, and constrict their approaches of attack, depriving them of their primary tactical and strategic advantage. Besides, when the Dothraki army is forced to split apart to search for fodder for 18 horses a man, they will be easy prey for the vastly more numerous and heavily armed and armored Westerosi knights.

You are kidding right? If the Dothraki is anything like the Mongols they are the best light cavalry in the world. Skirmishing was their national sport. They can pick their fights as they please. Knights are meant to be used as shook troops on the battlefields. Heavy armour would just stop them from keeping up.

Concerning logistics, you understand that the more horses you have the better you are at supplying your forces? In lean times it was always the infantry that succumbed first to lack of food and other necessities . During the end of the thirty years war for example, the armies most often consisted of cavalry because it was the only those that could live on the desolate land.

Really I don't recall Hitler having been an exceptional soldier, what won the battle was Drogo's ability to slay two Khals in turn in SINGLE COMBAT

Hitler was an exceptional soldier. He was very dedicated and received both the Iron crosses for valor.

then why is it that John of Gaunt is noted for having particularly muscular calves, thats not the trait of a fat person, its a characteritic of someone muscled by war.

A man can be muscled and fat at the same time.

[CelticBrennus]

Numerically they would both number 40000. But just a few thousand Rhaegar’s force would have been professional warriors. This would also be consistent with the Mongols that virtually always fought and won outnumbered many times over.

This is a debatable point. Robb’s army for instance, taking solely the Northmen, included at least 5,000 mounted lancers, and it appears that a good number of the infantry were armored in at least mail. A force from Highgarden would certainly include a larger number of armored men, given the far richer state of the land. Certainly there would be unarmed men included, but we cannot discount the numbers of men whose armor rendered them proof from arrows, especially at long range when their penetrating power is diminished.

Crossbows didn’t matter much for battlefield control. The composite Mongolian bow was their primary weapon and widely considered a main reason for their success. It had a force comparable with the English longbow, but was smaller and lighter and could be fired from the horse. Mongolian forces never closed with there enemy if they weren’t forced to and since virtually always had the superior mobility they rarely were. The lance and the mace where for cleanup work when the enemy ranks had been broken by the hail of arrows.

When you look at the methods of the Crusaders under Richard I, they were quite effective. It appears from the records that the vast majority of his infantry were armored in mail, which was suitable protection from the long range archery the Turks (whose technological level was equivalent to the Mongols, at least in terms of bow quality). The crossbowmen were interspersed with the infantry and their bolts were capable of taking down Turkish horses at long range. and proved effective enough to force the Turks to remain at a long distance (a couple hundred yards), which neutralized the power of the mounted archers.

In terms of his order of march, he had his cavalry in the center, protected on three sides by his infantry and crossbows, and the other side he had the ocean. A river should prove a suitable Westerosi match.

The majority of the armies defeated by the Mongols, especially the Chinese and Middle Eastern ones, were far less diciplined, and less armored then the Europeans of the time, and so proved easier prey.

This eventually forced them into attacking at close range, and when they did so, they were soundly defeated.

This is the tactic I had in mind

Strange then that they had no problems conquering vast amounts of land without steppe. Agricultural areas can of course supply more fodder per square kilometre then grasslands if you stop and think about it.

The vast majority of those regions were close enough to the Steppe (500 miles or so), that they coudl count on a resupply of horses to reach them in a timely manner. Europe was a good 1000 miles from the wide open steppes, and the Hungarian plain was simply not large enough to support millions of horses.

The logisitical problems were exactly why infantry played such a major role in European history. Fodder is bulky, and quite hard to transport over large distances.

Actually Mongol siege warfare was considered second none (which makes them a poor comparison to Dothrakis). The reasons the Mongols didn’t conquer Europe has been hotly debated, but it certainly wasn’t because they lacked the ability.

Again, it is debatable. As for their siege warfare, could you offer a guess as to why they failed to take any major European castles?

John Keegan makes an interesting point in his History of Warfare. He argues that by and large it appears the Mongols were able to force the large fortifications of their enemies to surrender quickly, and when confronted with a a resolute defence of strong fortifications could take months to take.

Turkmen’s and Arabs that easily defeated the European crusaders rarely had anything to put up against the Mongols superior warfare. Most likely the Mongols had reached the logistic limit conquering 1/12 of the earths landmass. The empire by that time degenerated into civil war.

Easily huh? Is that the reason that a few thousand (at most, and down to a few hundred by Hattin) knights were able to stop all attempts to reconquer the Holy Land?

The loss of 300 knights at Hattin proved the death blow. If, as you suggest, the Turks and Arabs could easily beat the Crusaders, should not the Arab and Turkish armies numbering in the high tens of thousands should have been able to easily expell the Crusaders.

Concerning logistics, you understand that the more horses you have the better you are at supplying your forces?

Of if the fodder you need is available to forage. My point is that there simply was not enough within their operational range. In order to hope to find it, they would need to scatter far and wide to hunt it down, and keep moving farther and farther apart to avoid starving their horses.

A man can be muscled and fat at the same time.

Dont confuse him

[Red Rex]

Of course, I am once again baffled as to how any of this is at all relevant to a discussion of George RR Martin's books. But I guess it's pretty entertaining to see you gamely put on your water wings again and again to paddle out into the deep waters of historical analysis and consistently ending up swamped and dead in the water.

You haven't sufficiently refuted Celtic's points about feeding the hundreds of thousands of horses the Dothraki would bring over or the lack of open maneuvering space. I guess refuting real points is hard while going on about John of Gaunt's huge manly calves (hello, Johnny Drama) is much easier.

Why should people bother to discuss anything with you if you're going to stretch facts?

I didnt end up swamped in the water javkass, being "pleasantly plump" was attractive for FEMALES in medieval societies not males neccessarily and certainly not mongolians and or knightly nobles, what did YOUR water wing pop somehow?

feeding dothraki horses, slaughter every human being and livestock that you dont take for you r own while their lords hide behind their walls...

on the Johnny Drama reference, but that was from "the last knight" a historical source which YOU are always so FUCKING EAGER to have me site, and it was evidence against celtics proposed version of the facts... knights could walk on their hands, rode acrobatically, knights were the lordly class, fat CHICKS were considered attractive (site chaucers book of the dutchess-guants wife, heiress of lancaster) NOT MALE PLUMPNESS!!!!!!

-Yes you can be both fat AND muscular, but being fat AND agile is fae less common

[morgoth]

Two of three? Wow. Just wow.

wasn't that a song?

[Daemrion]

feeding dothraki horses, slaughter every human being and livestock that you dont take for you r own while their lords hide behind their walls...

Do Dothraki horses eat meat? I thought that horses eat fodder and greenery. Since when did they turn into omnivores or carnivores. Or are they some sort of mythical Greek Horse?

[Slinx]

I hope her dragons die before she does anything with them. If the dragons don't die, then she must die soon and pointless.

[DanteGabriel]

Do Dothraki horses eat meat? I thought that horses eat fodder and greenery. Since when did they turn into omnivores or carnivores. Or are they some sort of mythical Greek Horse?

You can feed them meat. Khal Drogo was such a legendary bad-ass that the horses of his khalasar learned to eat meat. But then they'd get Mad Horse Disease.

[CelticBrennus]

I dont think you fully inflated your water wings Rex.

on the Johnny Drama reference, but that was from "the last knight" a historical source which YOU are always so FUCKING EAGER to have me site,

You 'cite' referances, you dont 'site' them. And that book is far from a scholarly source, being more pop history then anything.

knights could walk on their hands, rode acrobatically, knights were the lordly class, fat CHICKS were considered attractive (site chaucers book of the dutchess-guants wife, heiress of lancaster) NOT MALE PLUMPNESS!!!!!!

Is a single person saying that knights were not in good shape? Not as far as I recall.

-Yes you can be both fat AND muscular, but being fat AND agile is fae less common

Can I change terms of the debate halfway through too? ITs fun, and it makes thing so much easier.

[morgoth]

You can feed them meat. Khal Drogo was such a legendary bad-ass that the horses of his khalasar learned to eat meat. But then they'd get Mad Horse Disease.

You 'cite' referances, you dont 'site' them.

I'm a mechanical engineer and I have men working on job sites for me.

When I was pulled over by the cops I was cited for speeding and issued a summons.

After a firework detonated in this guy's face he had lost his sense of sight.

I am Mr. Onamonapeia.

Sorry, Rex...I couldn't resist.

[Guest Other-in-law]

Not understanding what the phrase "primary source" means is a bigger problem than misspelling "cite", I'd say. For that matter, it's "references", not "referances"

Anyway, twentieth century author R.P.Lister could hardly be a primary source for thirteenth century Chingis Khagan, now could he? (shakes head) Noooo....

That's not to say that his work is shoddy scholarship or unsound, but he just wasn't around back then. The original sources are ancient texts like the Secret History of the Mongols, or the Jami al-Tawarikh of Rashid al-Din, or TarÄ«kh-i jahÄngushÄ by JuvaynÄ«. Those are also naturally as prone to be riddled with the errors and cultural misunderstandings of their times, of course, which is why modern criticism and scrutiny are needed to approach a more accurate understanding.

History involves a lot of uncertainty because of the incompleteness of the evidence. Rex's fondness for latching onto a single (often thin) possibility and concluding that it's some kind of final and irrefutably proven fact tends to run counter to the preferred method [/understatement].

[lee1026]

feeding dothraki horses, slaughter every human being and livestock that you dont take for you r own while their lords hide behind their walls...

Which is fine. Until your opponents decides to pull a scorched earth policy......

[CelticBrennus]

I found a bit that I wrote a while back, and saved, knowing it would come up again. I dont appear to have saved the page numbers, but I can get those for you if you need me too.

In Keegan’s discussion of the assorted horse peoples in “History of Warfare†(although I disagree with his central argument, the facts he marshals are undisputable) he notes several important things.

In reference to the Huns excursions into Europe he says that:

"Whether the conquests that successful warmaking brought could be maintained was another matter. Nature seems to impose limits on the depth of penetration that nomads can make into settled land. Nomadic demand on irrigated land for grazing disrupts the system and returns it to a state where it will support neither beast nor man; if cleared from forest, the land reverts to woodland when the ploughing population is dispersed. (The trend became disastrous in Mesopotamia after the arrival of the Turks in the thirteenth century) Nomadic expansion could be consolidated therefore, only in the borderland between steppe and agriculture, but such lands only support small populations. In the Far East, where the conquering nomads were halfway to being Chinese already, they were easily assimilated, even if as a ruling class. In the west, where religion and civilized culture imposed a much sharper differentiation between them and the agriculturalists, the borderlands became a permanent battleground, where the use of the sail had to be sustained by force of armsâ€

“…the ploughed fields of Gaul and the gardened fields of the Po must have presented bewildering environments. Food they would have found in abundance, but not of the accustomed sort, and not in the varieties that regenerated after foraging. Grass does not replace wheat or beans in a single season.â€

He goes on to argue that Attila’s withdrawal is easily explained by the depletion of his horses in rough campaigning – Western Europe could not maintain a large cavalry based force for any sustained period of time, and not without destroying the entire economic base of the region.

On the Mongols:

"Why the Mongols, any more then similar horse peoples of the steppe world who preceded them on the paths of invasion into the civilized lands, should have exceeded them all in the extent and rapidity of the conquests defies easy explanation."

"Since, despite speculation to the contrary, it is almost certain that the Mongols had not yet learned the use of gunpowder – if, indeed, anyone had at that period – and none the less overwhelmed a whole succession of fortified places in the East and West – Utrar in Transoxiana (1220), Balkh, Merv, Heart and Nishapur in Persia (1221), and Ning-hsia, the Capital of the Western Hsia (1226) – we must conclude that the garrisons generally gave up without a struggle. It is significant that at the one place where the Mongols met resolute resistance, the Persian city of Gurganj, the siege lasted from October 1220 to April 1221, exactly the sort of delay that feudal warriors of the West would have anticipated in a similar action at that time."

"What seems likely in the circumstances is that the word got about that the Mongols could not be beaten. We know that Bohkara and Samarkand capitulated at their very appearance; in Bokhara, Ghengis, perhaps evoking the specter of Attila, preached a sermon in the chief mosque describing himself as the ‘flail of God’. "

Check out this primary source account of the Mongol invasion…let me quote a bit of it for you…

(Rex, so you know for the future, a primary source is one where the writer was a participant or witness or other original source. A secondary source is one that attempts to reach an analysis based on a number of primary, and usually other secondary, sources. Let that be the end of today's History 101 class...)

http://www.impub.co.uk/dlug3.html

“Because of his youth and feebleness, Boleslaw the Bashful, then living with his mother in Cracow castle, cannot deal with so powerful an army, so Wlodzimierz the Voivode of Cracow summons the knights and gentry to Kalina to seek ways of putting an end to this series of disasters; but then, learning that the Tatars are withdrawing from Skarbimierz, he orders all there to arm themselves and follow him. The Tatars have reached Polaniec on the River Czarna, where they are encamped, and there the Voivode attacks them with the remaining Cracovian knights, few in number, but determined to conquer or die. Surprise gives the Poles an initial advantage and they kill many of the enemy; but, when the Tatars realize how few are the Poles they are fighting, they regroup and break through the Polish ranks and defeat them. During the fighting, many Polish captives escape and hide in some nearby woods; their initial success sends the Polish knights greedily searching for booty and the battle is lost. Though victorious, the Tatars are horrified by their losses and dare stay no longer in Poland, lest a fresh army should attack them, and they withdraw hurriedly, abandoning their dead by the wayside.â€

“It is March 18. Battle is engaged as the sun rises. The Poles, few in number, are arrayed in a single line and have no reserves. Fighting bravely, they kill many of the Tatar first unit and, after several hours, even force them to retreat towards their reserves, who are fresh and immediately take up the attack. The Poles are physically tired and many of them wounded, and in the end, they, too, break and run. A number reach the cover of the woods and, knowing the terrain, escape; but most find a glorious death defending their country and their faith.â€

It would appear that the force under Batu did not bring any of the vaunted Chinese siege engineers with them – They couldn’t even take a fortified Monastery!

“Duke Mieczyslaw of Opole attacks one Tatar unit that lets itself be isolated, and destroys it; but, when the rest of the Tatar army comes up to avenge their fellows, the Duke escapes to Legnica to Henry of Wroclaw, whom he knows to be preparing a force to fight the Tatarsâ€

So, it would appear that the Mongols could be beaten…

“The Tatars lay siege to the castle: during the siege Czeslaw, the Dominican prior of the priory of St. Wojciech, a Pole, saves the castle with his tears and prayers: for a pillar of fire appears above his head and illuminates the whole city with an indescribable brightness. This so frightens the Tatars, that they abandon the siege and withdraw.â€

Miracles aside, this is another case of the Mongols failing to take a fortified center.

The description of the Battle of Leignitz is too long for me to post it here, so you will just have to read it yourself…It would appear the main weakness of the Polish army was that it was a motley crew so to speak, unused to working together, and without a centralized command. This is not a problem that would afflict the Holy Roman Empire, or French Kingdom to a similar degree, assuming that the kings are relatively able.

But you should note the credit given to the crossbowmen that accompanied the allied force. The crossbowmen of Germany and France were far more numerous and possessed better quality weapons. It serves to give credence to the idea that a army, using the tactics of Richard I at Arsouf could do a great deal of damage to a Mongol army, especially if the commander was a able one.

“Then, impaling Prince Henry's head on a long lance, they approach the castle at Legnica (for the town has already been burned for fear of the Tatars) and display it for those inside to see, calling upon them through an interpreter to open the gates. The defenders refuse, telling them that they have several other dukes, sons of good duke Henry, besides Henry. The Tatars then move on…â€

Unlike in the Middle East, the defeat of a field army, and the killing of a leader would not cause the collapse of a kingdom.

Also, note here, a passage suggesting how to defeat the Mongols. While some parts seem rather incongruous, the main point is that after the initial invasion, an astute observer could find ways to defeat them. If they fought the men of Emperor Frederick II, who had more and better trained fighters, the chances of it turning into another Leignitz are rather remote. Also, the Italian city states would have had relatively little to fear from a Mongol attack, relying as they did on heavy infantry and crossbows.

[Seventh Pup]

You know one of the things I love about this forum is that threads can devolve into almost anything. This thread has been a wonderful read.

But giving my opinions on the first post...

I have a feeling that GRRM is gonna shock us once again in aDwD by killing off Dany

It might sound crazy but something gives that feeling; am I the only one?

Another reason I got that feeling was the report from Jon Targaryen at comic last weekend. The spoiler part of his post got me thinking? http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?showt...=9466&st=40

He went a whole book without really killing any substantial characters no one saw the red wedding coming so maybe something shocking like that will happen again but maybe I'm wrong.

We shall see.

I sure hope not. Though I do think there has to be some killing off in ADWD other wise there will simply be to many PoVs. It will be interesting to see who the Mummer's dragon is though, and if that is who Dany dances with.

In general I think Dany will die before the end of the series. But I don't think she'll kick it until the last book, or next to last book. I could see her being offed if there was another Targ to take her place, but with none in the series so far I'm inclined to think she's going to be around for a bit.

[doc awesome]

I think she will rise up for a moment then die with out an heir and everything is ruined because she is an evil bitch.

[Guest Other-in-law]

Yeah, abolishing slavery is indeed evil. Long live the Good masters!

[Red Rex]

Anyway, twentieth century author R.P.Lister could hardly be a primary source for thirteenth century Chingis Khagan, now could he? (shakes head) Noooo....

i dont read 13th century chinese do you? i've not heard of GK's dictations having been translated in any complete version if you have mention it

[doc awesome]

I said nothing about slavery but if you want to bring that up, I dont feel that abolishing slavery is evil killing people because they have a toga is.

[Guest Other-in-law]

i dont read 13th century chinese do you? i've not heard of GK's dictations having been translated in any complete version if you have mention it

Oddly enough, you've managed to miss my point completely, which was to educate you as to the actual meaning of the terms you use in hopes of being able to read a post or two of yours that isn't riddled with errors.

There's nothing wrong with using secondary sources like Lister. That's how the overwhelming majority of us in the general public learn about history (there might be other secondary sources that have more up to date findings than his 1969 book, though). But they're not primary sources. Kind of like how the word "penultimate" has a different meaning from the word "ultimate".

And no, I don't read Chinese from any era, though you can often find translations of major primary sources. And none of those that I (or CelticBrennus, thanks for that link by the way; I'm strongly tempted to buy a copy of that Polish chronicle) cited are Chinese in the original, anyway. They were Mongolian and Arabic (or possibly Persian, I'm not 100% sure about Juvaynī).

I said nothing about slavery but if you want to bring that up, I dont feel that abolishing slavery is evil killing people because they have a toga is.

Those "togas" were a mark of slave owning status, so those people were part and parcel of the whole bloodthirsty apparatus of manufacturing Unsullied. It's very comparable to a swastika armband in WW2. Would you say that targeting Nazis in a city that was in the process of being liberated makes one an "evil bitch"?

The single thing that most distinguishes Dany from all the other lords and potentates in this series is the social change she brings about by her relentless opposition to slavery. Thus when someone singles her out for their hatred, it's tends to come across as resentment of her anti-slaveryism.

Either that or they just don't like the idea of women having power.