Daenerys first big military defeat.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

To many things to adress, here and in general.

• Its not a matter or personal taste, and that was not the point of the thread. Read carefuly before calling someone idiotic, Daenerys forces never losing a battle is a fact, whatever I like it or not, and the point of the thread is to discuss if she would continue to be flawless AT THE BATTLEFIELD for the rest of the books or not. In my personal opinión, it would border with bad writting, when every other competent character ends up losing a cuple of times, while she with no militar knolwdge whatsoever keeps winning,

If the title is not clear enough, I must insist Im talking about the freaking battlefield. I do not denay she had lots of other seatbacks and rought times in general.

Robb Starks plan, in his own words FAILED in the big picture. His global plan failed at the Ford; he doesnt need to be in personal command of all his units to consider him " lose ", as Daenerys is not in front of her forces either. (I think he was bluffing, but whatever). In his maps, he also LOST the north and his capital city, and lots of men in duskendale. He is the general commander of all this forces, and the loses go to him. Otherwise, we could not give Daenerys any credit in none of her battles since she does nothing than let others decide for her. As she gets the credit for Barristan, Daario, or Mormonts victories, Robb has to deal with Cassel or Glover f...g it up.

For crying out loud. SHE HAS TEENAGE DRAGONS. She is not Aegon the conqueror mounted on a houndred years perfecty trainned Belarion. Aditionally, she can ride ONLY ONE DRAGON, and theres nobody in sight with Valyrian blood (Faegon, Jon, Stannis) likely to fight for her side. And Im not even talking about the freaking horn. Theres no way to compare this to Aegon and his two sisters. A cuple of norths gigants probably can break the dragons neck at this point. By the way, we are in a freaking blizzary Winter.

So much rage got me tired, Im going to stop by now. The "idiotic" Smart guy pissed me of.

To start, I never quite called you idiotic - I said the idea that Dany needs to lose on the ground that she should er... lose, is idiotic. The argument is idiotic. I'm sorry if you felt offended, but like I said, it just sounds idiotic. I'm not saying Dany won't lose - In fact, she has several factors that show her possible, future battles are possible to be lost, but if instead of arguing that, as you have done in your response, the argument falls into "She should lose because she should lose", well, there's nothing more circular than that. And Dany has had setbacks and failures as a leader - Mostly, her dealing with Meereen. I don't think she's invincible on the battlefield as it is. Not more than Robb. Again, sorry if you felt offended, not my intention. But there's no point in Dany losing to self-service any type of fandom. If she loses, It's for reasons stated in-books, which can be considered arguments. Not because one wishes what.

Seriously, I don't even like Dany that much, but some arguments are just too much. Sometimes, the hatred makes me enjoy her more. And this is coming from someone who usually preferred Stannis.

[Arakan]

We know that GRRM spoke about a "bittersweet" ending to the Series. And I wouldnt be surprised in the slightest that Dany's story arc will finish bittersweet as well...

Plotwise it would make sense. She had a huge-built up, her dragons will play a big part in the catharsis of Westeros (= "the sweet"), but she personally will die or ultimately suffer (="the bitter").

As she is the "mother of dragons", her ending will thus be bittersweet.

[WierWood Wolf]

take a look at how much exaiment the battle of ice brings, and how little the upcoming Mereen clash does. Add than George himself has no problem giving us 4 or 5 AWOW sample chapters of this battle, while he just gave up one of the battle of ice. You know why this is happening? Because we all know Daenerys is winning there, and it is not fun at all.

Personally I'm looking forward to both battles. Your supposition the the battle of Merreen is in the bag is presumptuous. There are to many variables to call it a victory for Dany. Hell Dany isn't even present at the battle. There are the freed dragons she has no control over. Victarion IMO is a wildcard. Who knows who's side he will take and even if he sides with Dany will she want him?

Too many variables to call the battle a victory.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

Personally I'm looking forward to both battles. Your supposition the the battle of Merreen is in the bag is presumptuous. There are to many variables to call it a victory for Dany. Hell Dany isn't even present at the battle. There are the freed dragons she has no control over. Victarion IMO is a wildcard. Who knows who's side he will take and even if he sides with Dany will she want him?

Too many variables to call the battle a victory.

just for fun, do a survey,

[WierWood Wolf]

just for fun, do a survey,

Cool, I vote both.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

Cool, I vote both.

I vote battle of Ice. lol

[JonisHenryTudor]

I understand what the words mean when people say things like "plot armor" and "plot gifts" but I also have to go wtf? Stories have protagonists, and they tend to get lucky (or unlucky) breaks. That's just what happens in stories. You're reading a story, you know. There's no law that says things have to be equally fair to all characters: they won't be.

Some things happen to some characters; other things happen to other characters. Got it? The author makes those decisions. They're not random decisions. They're based on what the author thinks will be entertaining, or sometimes what the author thinks will bang on some political or cultural gong the author wants to sound.

The concept that people get all worked up because characters in a fiction aren't treated equally to each other is a new one on me, and I struggle a bit to follow it. It must be a function of a series that reaches a mass audience and the frustration to some members of the mass audience at having to wait for a resolution. People want to go ahead and get invested in some kind of outcome now, even though there isn't one to get invested in.

I've personally had bad luck in the past at reading books or watching movies where I went in with some kind of expectation. My personal rule is to keep an open mind and don't over-anticipate, and it's slightly harder during a long, frustrating wait for a sequel but far from impossible.

I agree with the bold portion. I think the issue is, martin likes to wear the "realism" aspect on his sleeve, so people hold him accountable for that. So either you are full bore realistic in regards to the physiology, psychology, and brutality of the natural world, or you are not. Martin has done well enough, but I think some people are taking issue with the fact that Dany wins battles before the battles are fought. Meaning no matter what, Martin was making her win.

I would agree with those using Robb and Tywin as examples. Edward IV didn't lose a single battle, and managed to lose allies in regards to his political decisions. In the end, it helped perpetuate the Wars of the Roses. I think Dany has seen failure, almost all of her administrative decisions have been a bust. Even as someone not fond of her, I don't think she needs to lose a battle to somehow become more real.

Having said that. There is a very good possibility the OP will have his wish, sort of. Dany and her army are very familiar with the Essos environment. When they arrive in Westeros, many of her men may die during the crossing and in the initial stages of confronting very adverse weather conditions. If this does not happen, I may take issue with Martin's version of realism. He can do as he pleases. But there is a reason why most medieval armies, and early modern armies, had warring seasons. Now Westeros is on the verge of just winter, the wrong season for war.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

Personally I'm looking forward to both battles. Your supposition the the battle of Merreen is in the bag is presumptuous. There are to many variables to call it a victory for Dany. Hell Dany isn't even present at the battle. There are the freed dragons she has no control over. Victarion IMO is a wildcard. Who knows who's side he will take and even if he sides with Dany will she want him?

Too many variables to call the battle a victory.

I agree that there are too many things that can go wrong - I actually think it will be a pyrrhic victory.

Two loose dragons (and Barristan worring about what they can do) are a real danger for both armies and Ironborn are never good news, to anyone.

Wild speculation scenario:

...

While Barry & army are out for the battle, inside the walls the Harpy makes a coup and takes the city.

Yunkai are totally destroyed, but Dany's forces have to fight take the city back.

New allies (Ironborn, sellswords etc) don't discriminate friends from foes and there comes a wholesale slaughter.

The population who survives has to deal with the pale mare.

Meereenese knot CUT, not solved.

Action (and main POV) back to Volantis for the interesting stuff there.

Meanwhile Dany takes her "time in the desert" in the Dothraki sea, for whatever she is to do there.

[the trees have eyes]

1) "Hey, I want to buy your gun. In return, I'll give you this really awesome diamond worth a lot of money"

"Okay, deal!. Here's the gun, and I"ll just take this diamond."

*inserts shell into gun, BAM, picks up diamond*

Since when is that not treachery? I'm not going to say she didn't do it for a noble cause, but it's still a blow below the belt. Yunkai is much worse in my eyes. If you can't see how that one in particular is reprehensible (I'm not saying agree, I'm saying see), we will never see eye to eye.

2) I will always place my sympathies with those who are wrongfully executed. They were slavers when slavery was okay, and didn't have the opportunity to break the new system when Dany came in. Without any sort of trial to acertain their guilt in the murder of the 163, I'm sympathizing with the slavers. Putting the pool that contains the murderers, who likely have the power to avoid being picked, in charge of selecting those for revenge is also a bad move.

3) So we have the slavers above as witness to a perverted sense of justice, which can be just fine IMO IF you assume that all 163 were guilty of murdering the children (I don't think we can make that assumption). Torturing the winesellers daughters because of an affiliation with an assassin is not justice. The "court' ruling where she says a woman lost her house because she ran from being murdered is also not justice. Quite frankly, I'd be terrified of what she'd do if she came across some innocent Lannisters (all of them remaining), Baratheons (only Stannis actively participated in the war), Starks (all of the ones remaining are innocent), or Robin (who despite being a brat, is innocent of a rebellion), not to mention the rebellion is entirely justified in the first place.

1. Yes she tricked them and reneged on the deal. Question is why you see tricking the Grand Masters of Astapor in order to free the slaves as a reason to heap calumny on her head and assess her character in a very negative fashion. To treat it as purely a business transaction and the Grand Masters as the innocent and defrauded party misses what is really going on and has the whole of Essos stirring. It's about liberation / revolution not about a mobster's business practice.

2. Astapor and YUNKAI. Not Meereen. And pretty much the same as 1. Reprehensible? The night skirmish when one sell sword company came over to her side, a second was too drunk to fight and the third joined the Yunkai'i was a very brief affair with few casualties AND it secured a larger victory, the freeing of all the slaves of Yunkai without any protracted fighting or any fighting inside the city. Tactically smart.

What I do find reprehensible is that you place your sympathies with the slavers so, no, we won't see eye to eye.

3. The 163 is an eye for an eye indeed, very Old Testament style and she does admit later in her internal voice that she made a horror just as great as the crucifixion of the children. I think she's too hard on herself there but she acknowledges that it was wrong to retaliate that way. Question is whether you think this is her guiding principle and modus operandi or if the system she establishes immediately after the city's fall is more like the system and principles she wants to establish: that rape and murder be punished by castration and hanging and that any man or woman can bring a petition to her. I know where my money is.

[Hodor's Dragon]

I agree with the bold portion. I think the issue is, martin likes to wear the "realism" aspect on his sleeve,

What do you mean by this? The first book was marketed as a fantasy novel, and won or was nominated for several awards for which only fantasy or sci fi novels were eligible. Of course it contains lots of gritty realism, but that's just setting the readers up to more fully appreciate the fantasy when it comes. The book has a hero, like almost all fantasy novels; maybe we'll get some subversion of the hero trope in the end, who knows, but in the meanwhile things don't happen the same way for the hero as for ordinary folk.

And sometimes these things even happen in the real world. The right person in the right place at the right time. Gandhi was one man, and he changed the world radically. On the other side of the coin, you've got Hitler. Neither was high-born, but both got the kind of confluence of opportunity and the right person with the right talent and the right attitude that it takes to step up and really change things. Maybe it's a million-to-one shot, but that number isn't too high to actually happen from time to time.

As the Gandhi and Hitler examples show, sometimes these kinds of confluences are the best thing that can possibly happen, and sometimes they're the worst thing that can possibly happen. Getting to watch this first-person as a reader - especially when it's written in a realistic way - can be very entertaining.

* * *

There is a very good possibility the OP will have his wish, sort of. Dany and her army are very familiar with the Essos environment. When they arrive in Westeros, many of her men may die during the crossing and in the initial stages of confronting very adverse weather conditions. If this does not happen, I may take issue with Martin's version of realism. He can do as he pleases. But there is a reason why most medieval armies, and early modern armies, had warring seasons. Now Westeros is on the verge of just winter, the wrong season for war.

I think Stannis' army has run into a spot of weather that's less than perfect for mobile military operations, so Martin has heard of Marshal Winter. If flowers bloom in the path of Dany's army as they march on Winterfell, you'll have a point - and I'll be surprised. It's going to be very difficult for her to conduct any kind of large-scale operation north of Dorne.

[JonisHenryTudor]

Of course the book was marketed as a fantasy, it is a fantasy. But that doesn't mean that Martin isn't trying to maintain a realistic view of the middle ages, which he has stated repeatedly. Martin isn't high fantasy, and while he loves Tolkien he is much more like Bernard Cornwell than anyone. The realism isn't just manifested in the brutal violence of the era, but also cultural, social, and political aspects.

My response to Hodor's Dragon was that just because Stannis took a major defeat doesn't mean Dany has to, which is what he/she was arguing. The argument was that people get lucky breaks, etc. I was agreeing with HD by pointing out one particular individual who never lost a single battle in the WotR's.

So realistically speaking, Dany doesn't have to lose a battle in order to shed the "plot armor" argument, because rw commanders have actually gone undefeated in wars.

Ghandi....well he has influenced people. But if you look at the historical record, his influence was limited to the city he was stationed in. The real change in India came from violent upheaval.

I don't think I get your last point? The OP wants Dany to suffer a military defeat. Her army is currently not fitted for the type of conditions Westeros will be under, and considering (again based on real oceanic travel) some or many of her men will be lost during the voyage. The OP may have his wish because Dany's army may suffer a tremendous blow in casualties. I don't believe I said anything about her path to Winterfell being easy. WHat I said was the conditions will be terrible and if her men are not fitted properly, many will die on the march; thus, the OP getting his "defeat" or blow to Dany's military strength.

[Hodor's Dragon]

Of course the book was marketed as a fantasy, it is a fantasy. But that doesn't mean that Martin isn't trying to maintain a realistic view of the middle ages, which he has stated repeatedly. Martin isn't high fantasy, and while he loves Tolkien he is much more like Bernard Cornwell than anyone. The realism isn't just manifested in the brutal violence of the era, but also cultural, social, and political aspects.

My response to Hodor's Dragon was that just because Stannis took a major defeat doesn't mean Dany has to, which is what he/she was arguing. The argument was that people get lucky breaks, etc. I was agreeing with HD by pointing out one particular individual who never lost a single battle in the WotR's.

So realistically speaking, Dany doesn't have to lose a battle in order to shed the "plot armor" argument, because rw commanders have actually gone undefeated in wars.

Ghandi....well he has influenced people. But if you look at the historical record, his influence was limited to the city he was stationed in. The real change in India came from violent upheaval.

I don't think I get your last point? The OP wants Dany to suffer a military defeat. Her army is currently not fitted for the type of conditions Westeros will be under, and considering (again based on real oceanic travel) some or many of her men will be lost during the voyage. The OP may have his wish because Dany's army may suffer a tremendous blow in casualties. I don't believe I said anything about her path to Winterfell being easy. WHat I said was the conditions will be terrible and if her men are not fitted properly, many will die on the march; thus, the OP getting his "defeat" or blow to Dany's military strength.

I wouldn't be surprised if her army - at least eventually, or at some point - consists of her and Drogon.

[JonisHenryTudor]

I wouldn't be surprised if her army - at least eventually, or at some point - consists of her and Drogon.

Now that would be the greatest of all ironies.

[SeanF]

1. Yes she tricked them and reneged on the deal. Question is why you see tricking the Grand Masters of Astapor in order to free the slaves as a reason to heap calumny on her head and assess her character in a very negative fashion. To treat it as purely a business transaction and the Grand Masters as the innocent and defrauded party misses what is really going on and has the whole of Essos stirring. It's about liberation / revolution not about a mobster's business practice.

2. Astapor and YUNKAI. Not Meereen. And pretty much the same as 1. Reprehensible? The night skirmish when one sell sword company came over to her side, a second was too drunk to fight and the third joined the Yunkai'i was a very brief affair with few casualties AND it secured a larger victory, the freeing of all the slaves of Yunkai without any protracted fighting or any fighting inside the city. Tactically smart.

What I do find reprehensible is that you place your sympathies with the slavers so, no, we won't see eye to eye.

3. The 163 is an eye for an eye indeed, very Old Testament style and she does admit later in her internal voice that she made a horror just as great as the crucifixion of the children. I think she's too hard on herself there but she acknowledges that it was wrong to retaliate that way. Question is whether you think this is her guiding principle and modus operandi or if the system she establishes immediately after the city's fall is more like the system and principles she wants to establish: that rape and murder be punished by castration and hanging and that any man or woman can bring a petition to her. I know where my money is.

It's too early to say what system she'll establish. We've seen her try cruelty, and we've seen her try appeasement. In her last chapter, she concludes that the latter failed. Whether she'll manage a successful middle course remains to be seen.

My own view is that Martin, despite his professed liking for Daenerys, has written her to be a contentious figure, who divides opinion, as he has with Tyrion. We could see her smash the slave trade for good, in Western Essos, in TWOW, even as her forces kill thousands, and thoroughly loot the place. Readers would remain divided.

[JonisHenryTudor]

It's too early to say what system she'll establish. We've seen her try cruelty, and we've seen her try appeasement. In her last chapter, she concludes that the latter failed. Whether she'll manage a successful middle course remains to be seen.

My own view is that Martin, despite his professed liking for Daenerys, has written her to be a contentious figure, who divides opinion, as he has with Tyrion. We could see her smash the slave trade for good, in Western Essos, in TWOW, even as her forces kill thousands, and thoroughly loot the place. Readers would remain divided.

Does one have to hate a character to write them as a villain? I think Martin can love her, and still write her as an antagonist/contentious figure. I presume a writer has to like all of their characters in a certain way in order to successfully write them. I don't write fantasy, or fiction for that matter, so I wouldn't know....

Having said that I am pretty sure Martin didn't like Quentyn......

[HexMachina]

Does one have to hate a character to write them as a villain? I think Martin can love her, and still write her as an antagonist/contentious figure. I presume a writer has to like all of their characters in a certain way in order to successfully write them. I don't write fantasy, or fiction for that matter, so I wouldn't know....

Having said that I am pretty sure Martin didn't like Quentyn......

Why not? I've come to apprciate Quentyn more, particularly in light of the Daenerys re-read. Its really no wonder he is as he is with the hand he was dealt.

ETA: Misread your post, oops. I'm not sure why you think Martin doesn't like Quentyn :dunno:

[JonisHenryTudor]

Why not? I've come to apprciate Quentyn more, particularly in light of the Daenerys re-read. Its really no wonder he is as he is with the hand he was dealt.

ETA: Misread your post, oops. I'm not sure why you think Martin doesn't like Quentyn :dunno:

I was being sarcastic....forgot the comic sans.... :dunce: