Between Sansa and Daenerys, who would make the better ruling Queen?

[ShadowCat Rivers]

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

This is where a modern reader will differ from the characters in the books.  Dany would take the view that her invasion of Westeros is a just war, fought to regain the Throne from which her family had been treacherously driven, and to avenge the deaths of her father, brother, and relatives.

In that sense, the Dothraki are also waging just wars because, by their worldview, it is the natural order the weak to be subjugated by the strong; they so believe it, that the defeated Dothraki take their fate of enslavement without complain. In that sense, was Daenerys wrong to intervene and disturb what most people in the context of reference understood as just and natural? I suppose we can argue about it, but I believe that the reader is led to mostly share Dany's feelings on the matter (or, more accurately, the character is deliberately desingned -wrt the specific issue- to appeal to the modern reader's sensibilities).

So, while I support "moral relativism" (in the sense that one's morality should be evaluated by the ideas of their own context, independently of how their actions are judged - e.g. Drogo's actions are appalling but he appears to be a rather moral individual) I wouldn't agree that this can be a valid argument in this particular discussion. After all, it is about who we, the readers, believe that would make the better ruler, so it is only appropriate that we apply our own criteria (each their own, of course) to make the judgement.

[SeanF]

17 minutes ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

In that sense, the Dothraki are also waging just wars because, by their worldview, it is the natural order the weak to be subjugated by the strong; they so believe it, that the defeated Dothraki take their fate of enslavement without complain. In that sense, was Daenerys wrong to intervene and disturb what most people in the context of reference understood as just and natural? I suppose we can argue about it, but I believe that the reader is led to mostly share Dany's feelings on the matter (or, more accurately, the character is deliberately desingned -wrt the specific issue- to appeal to the modern reader's sensibilities).

So, while I support "moral relativism" (in the sense that one's morality should be evaluated by the ideas of their own context, independently of how their actions are judged - e.g. Drogo's actions are appalling but he appears to be a rather moral individual) I wouldn't agree that this can be a valid argument in this particular discussion. After all, it is about who we, the readers, believe that would make the better ruler, so it is only appropriate that we apply our own criteria (each their own, of course) to make the judgement.

All fair points.  Although, it has to be said that the Lhazareen and other people who are on the receiving end presumably don't share the Dothrakis' views on what constitutes a just war.

In our view, it's States that are entitled to wage (just) wars, rather than individuals. 

[ShadowCat Rivers]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

All fair points.  Although, it has to be said that the Lhazareen and other people who are on the receiving end presumably don't share the Dothrakis' views on what constitutes a just war.

In our view, it's States that are entitled to wage (just) wars, rather than individuals. 

Agreed. Just like, in Westeros, other fractions (and simple people of the corresponding regions, I'd wager) that would be on the receiving end of Dany's hypothetical attack won't, most likely, share her views either.

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

Agreed. Just like, in Westeros, other fractions (and simple people of the corresponding regions, I'd wager) that would be on the receiving end of Dany's hypothetical attack won't, most likely, share her views either.

I'm not sure whether intellectuals, clergy, and nobles in Westeros have formulated a just war theory ie. it must be waged by lawful authority, for a just cause, as a last resort, and have a reasonable prospect of success.

One can see that any claimant for the Throne would take the view that all four of those conditions were satisfied, if they thought they were the legitimate monarch, that they were being denied their rights, that their opponents had rejected the chance to acknowledge their rule, and they had an army to back up their claim. 

[ShadowCat Rivers]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

I'm not sure whether intellectuals, clergy, and nobles in Westeros have formulated a just war theory ie. it must be waged by lawful authority, for a just cause, as a last resort, and have a reasonable prospect of success.

One can see that any claimant for the Throne would take the view that all four of those conditions were satisfied, if they thought they were the legitimate monarch, that they were being denied their rights, that their opponents had rejected the chance to acknowledge their rule, and they had an army to back up their claim. 

I don't think there exists such a concept "formally", just the general sense of right and wrong of the "public opinion". That's what I've taken from the five books and the companion novels so far, anyway. Moreover, said "public opinion" is divided more often than not, by the historical exambles we've got, see for examble the Blackfyre rebellions.

[teej6]

12 hours ago, SeanF said:

This is where a modern reader will differ from the characters in the books.  Dany would take the view that her invasion of Westeros is a just war, fought to regain the Throne from which her family had been treacherously driven, and to avenge the deaths of her father, brother, and relatives.

Agreed. Our modern sensibilities may not be the right measure to define a just war in the books. But even in Westeros, there are instances of people fighting just wars like when Jon Arryn raised his banners to defend the lives of Robert and Ned against the madness of a tyrant. Ned tells Robert in AGOT when he argues against killing Dany that they rose against Aerys to put an end to the murder of children. So in Ned's view that was a just war. Yes, everybody has a POV and in the books that's exactly what GRRM shows, conflicting points of view. Dany of course will see her cause as just but will all the nobles that oppose her and the commoners that fight for them feel the same? And if she were to loose her dragons on her enemies and their armies, especially when those said enemies are not mustache twirling slavers, how will the reader see Dany? Will she still be a good ruler? 

[teej6]

9 hours ago, ShadowCat Rivers said:

In that sense, the Dothraki are also waging just wars because, by their worldview, it is the natural order the weak to be subjugated by the strong; they so believe it, that the defeated Dothraki take their fate of enslavement without complain. In that sense, was Daenerys wrong to intervene and disturb what most people in the context of reference understood as just and natural? I suppose we can argue about it, but I believe that the reader is led to mostly share Dany's feelings on the matter (or, more accurately, the character is deliberately desingned -wrt the specific issue- to appeal to the modern reader's sensibilities).

So, while I support "moral relativism" (in the sense that one's morality should be evaluated by the ideas of their own context, independently of how their actions are judged - e.g. Drogo's actions are appalling but he appears to be a rather moral individual) I wouldn't agree that this can be a valid argument in this particular discussion. After all, it is about who we, the readers, believe that would make the better ruler, so it is only appropriate that we apply our own criteria (each their own, of course) to make the judgement.

GRRM, I feel, does expect us to question the morality we assign to one character or another as the story progresses. As you so aptly pointed out, the Dothraki, in their view, see no wrong in pillaging, raping and enslaving weaker populations. Yes, Drogo's behavior should be appalling to the reader based on our modern sensibilities but instead most readers begin to like him as Dany begins to do so. Most readers are willing to forgive Drogo being a slaver and a murderer but see the Mereenese nobles as evil (which they are of course). Why is a savage character like Drogo so popular? Is it because of the way GRRM writes his character or is it because Dany loves him? 

Moral relativism is a great concept but how many of us are capable of truly not judging and tolerating the moral code of another society (even in the modern day) if by our standards we find it morally wrong? I know I can't understand or empathize with the murder of innocents no matter how noble the cause. Dany's arc appears to be progressively moving towards a very intolerant and merciless crusade against her enemies. And when her enemies turn out to be people the readers like and sympathize with, how many of us will continue to feel that her cause is just? GRRM shows the brutality and pointlessness of war in Arya's and Brienne's POVs really well. After reading those chapters, I am better able to understand and appreciate Catelyn's anti-war stand inspite of my sympathy towards Robb's cause. 

[El Guapo]

1 hour ago, teej6 said:

Agreed. Our modern sensibilities may not be the right measure to define a just war in the books. But even in Westeros, there are instances of people fighting just wars like when Jon Arryn raised his banners to defend the lives of Robert and Ned against the madness of a tyrant. Ned tells Robert in AGOT when he argues against killing Dany that they rose against Aerys to put an end to the murder of children. So in Ned's view that was a just war. Yes, everybody has a POV and in the books that's exactly what GRRM shows, conflicting points of view. Dany of course will see her cause as just but will all the nobles that oppose her and the commoners that fight for them feel the same? And if she were to loose her dragons on her enemies and their armies, especially when those said enemies are not mustache twirling slavers, how will the reader see Dany? Will she still be a good ruler? 

Same was I see her now. An exiled Queen conquering the kingdom that is her birthright. Where did this idea come from that readers are going to somehow turn on Dany once she invades Westeros and fights agiainst the nobles of Westeros?  We have been patiently and eagerly awaiting for her to do this since the end of book one.  I don't get it.

[teej6]

23 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

Same was I see her now. An exiled Queen conquering the kingdom that is her birthright. Where did this idea come from that readers are going to somehow turn on Dany once she invades Westeros and fights agiainst the nobles of Westeros?  We have been patiently and eagerly awaiting for her to do this since the end of book one.  I don't get it.

My mistake, I should have said how will the reader see Dany's actions instead of Dany since Dany fans, no matter the consequence, will continue to see her as the conquering hero who is taking what's rightfully hers by fire and blood. But can you honestly say, if Dany were to burn Aegon and his supporters, you wouldn't question/doubt her actions. 

[El Guapo]

43 minutes ago, teej6 said:

My mistake, I should have said how will the reader see Dany's actions instead of Dany since Dany fans, no matter the consequence, will continue to see her as the conquering hero who is taking what's rightfully hers by fire and blood. But can you honestly say, if Dany were to burn Aegon and his supporters, you wouldn't question/doubt her actions. 

I guess it would depend on the circumstances. If we are talking about a field of fire type situation then no I have no problem at all. War is hell.

 

 

[Light a wight tonight]

 One point in Sansa's favor is that she's studying practical politics with the master of manipulation, Petyr Baelish. Meanwhile Dany is blundering around getting gamed by the Green Goblin Grace and the Sons of the Harpy. 

Dany could be a conqueror but as she currently is she wouldn't be good at running a country. 

[khal drogon]

3 hours ago, Light a wight tonight said:

 One point in Sansco favor is that she's studying practical politics with the master of manipulation, Petyr Baelish. Meanwhile Dany is blundering around getting gamed by the Green Goblin Grace and the Sons of the Harpy. 

Dany could be a conqueror but as she currently is she wouldn't be good at running a country. 

That's the difference between a person who learns politics from a mentor and by observation and someone who learns politics by trial and error and experience. Of course Dany would have made errors because that's how she learns. Sansa so far we have never seen her ruling. 

So while judging Dany we judge her by seeing every error she had made while for Sansa we are simply assuming she would be good because she learns froms LF though we haven't seen her ruling anything.

And Dany is ruling one of the most difficult part of the world while Sansa was trying to feed SweetRobin. In the end Dany will always have the ground experience and she could only improve and in Sansa's case I don't feel good about LF's influence. 

And for people who say Dany know less about Westeros. Sansa knew shit about anything in GOT. At present she knows court politics. That's it. Dany has experience with people and armies and courts and practices of different cultures of Essos. It's not hard for Dany to know Westeros than Sansa.

[Kaibaman]

10 minutes ago, khal drogon said:

That's the difference between a person who learns politics from a mentor and by observation and someone who learns politics by trial and error and experience. Of course Dany would have made errors because that's how she learns. Sansa so far we have never seen her ruling. 

So while judging Dany we judge her by seeing every error she had made while for Sansa we are simply assuming she would be good because she learns froms LF though we haven't seen her ruling anything.

And Dany is ruling one of the most difficult part of the world while Sansa was trying to feed SweetRobin. In the end Dany will always have the ground experience and she could only improve and in Sansa's case I don't feel good about LF's influence. 

And for people who say Dany know less about Westeros. Sansa knew shit about anything in GOT. At present she knew court politics. That's it. Dany has experience with people and armies and courts and practices of different cultures of Essos. It's not hard for Dany to know Westeros than Sansa.

Precisely, Dany has both experience and renown through her endeavors to rule. Out of the two of them I would endorse her over Sansa any day. I mean what has Sansa ever done that's noteworthy enough for us to think she is a capable ruler? I mean sure she's getting her masters in political intrigue but I really doubt that would do her that much good in actual day to day governance.

[Hodor the Articulate]

^ Right, it's not a fair comparison. Sansa has no accomplishments of her own (that's not an insult, it's fact), so we can only judge her for her personality and known skills. It's not fair unless Dany is judged on the same grounds.

On 4/09/2016 at 8:10 AM, teej6 said:

The point is she tried and failed and as of her last chapter in ADWD, she's given up on peace and society building in favor of fire and blood, doom and destruction for all that oppose her, not a very good trait for a good ruler, wouldn't you say. 

I'd say a bit of 'fire and blood' is exactly what is needed in Meereen. The slavers have proven to be a stubborn lot, and all the compromises Dany made have diminished her authority.

I don't see Dany's arc as heading towards 24/7 doom and destruction, though. She'll probably be ruthless when the situation calls for it, but what was the point of Meereen, or having her lead a Khalasar, only to have her completely give up on peace and society building? It doesn't make any sense.

9 hours ago, teej6 said:

Agreed. Our modern sensibilities may not be the right measure to define a just war in the books. But even in Westeros, there are instances of people fighting just wars like when Jon Arryn raised his banners to defend the lives of Robert and Ned against the madness of a tyrant. Ned tells Robert in AGOT when he argues against killing Dany that they rose against Aerys to put an end to the murder of children. So in Ned's view that was a just war. Yes, everybody has a POV and in the books that's exactly what GRRM shows, conflicting points of view. Dany of course will see her cause as just but will all the nobles that oppose her and the commoners that fight for them feel the same? And if she were to loose her dragons on her enemies and their armies, especially when those said enemies are not mustache twirling slavers, how will the reader see Dany? Will she still be a good ruler? 

Well, of course those who oppose her won't see her war as just...that's why they oppose her. It should be noted, though, that most of Westeros shares Dany's mindset, that blood vengeance is justified. More than that, it's considered a duty (Dany explicitly states this as her main motivation for re-claiming Westeros). In fact, that's what Robert's Rebellion was about, at least in part.

I can't speak for other readers, but I personally wouldn't view Dany any differently, just as I didn't change my opinion of Tyrion or Davos when they battled for opposing forces. If she roasts some of my other favourites for resisting her, so be it. That's war.

[teej6]

2 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I'd say a bit of 'fire and blood' is exactly what is needed in Meereen. The slavers have proven to be a stubborn lot, and all the compromises Dany made have diminished her authority.

I don't see Dany's arc as heading towards 24/7 doom and destruction, though. She'll probably be ruthless when the situation calls for it, but what was the point of Meereen, or having her lead a Khalasar, only to have her completely give up on peace and society building? It doesn't make any sense.

Well, of course those who oppose her won't see her war as just...that's why they oppose her. It should be noted, though, that most of Westeros shares Dany's mindset, that blood vengeance is justified. More than that, it's considered a duty (Dany explicitly states this as her main motivation for re-claiming Westeros). In fact, that's what Robert's Rebellion was about, at least in part.

I can't speak for other readers, but I personally wouldn't view Dany any differently, just as I didn't change my opinion of Tyrion or Davos when they battled for opposing forces. If she roasts some of my other favourites for resisting her, so be it. That's war.

Even in Meereen, killing all the slavers I don't feel is the solution. She practically wiped out all the slavers in Astopar. Did that help? Even without the Yunkish invasion, Astopar had become a hell hole. The point of Meereen is that Dany tried peace and dialogue but she failed (at least in her thoughts) and decided to adopt a strategy of war and destruction to her enemies. There's a series of essays by Adam Feldman (which includes Dany's arc in Meereen) that shows an interesting perspective [https://meereeneseblot.wordpress.com/essays/] I believe that GRRM said Feldman's essay on Meereen understood what he was trying to convey by Dany's arc in Meereen. 

As for Westeros, Dany with her dragons will cause war and destruction, and I am pretty certain the scale of chaos and destruction that she leaves after will be significant. There is this line from Arianne's TWOW chapter hinting at it:

 

Teora gave a tiny nod, chin trembling. “They were dancing. In my dream. And everywhere the dragons danced the people died.”

And yes, almost most nobles in Westeros share Dany's mindset that vengeance is justified. I don't disagree. But I disagree that Ned's primary motive for RR was vengeance. Perhaps Robert feels that way. Jon Arynn raised his banners because he didn't want to hand over the heads of innocents to a mad tyrant and that I feel is a just cause. 

[SeanF]

46 minutes ago, teej6 said:

Even in Meereen, killing all the slavers I don't feel is the solution. She practically wiped out all the slavers in Astopar. Did that help? Even without the Yunkish invasion, Astopar had become a hell hole. The point of Meereen is that Dany tried peace and dialogue but she failed (at least in her thoughts) and decided to adopt a strategy of war and destruction to her enemies. There's a series of essays by Adam Feldman (which includes Dany's arc in Meereen) that shows an interesting perspective [https://meereeneseblot.wordpress.com/essays/] I believe that GRRM said Feldman's essay on Meereen understood what he was trying to convey by Dany's arc in Meereen. 

As for Westeros, Dany with her dragons will cause war and destruction, and I am pretty certain the scale of chaos and destruction that she leaves after will be significant. There is this line from Arianne's TWOW chapter hinting at it:

  Hide contents

Teora gave a tiny nod, chin trembling. “They were dancing. In my dream. And everywhere the dragons danced the people died.”

And yes, almost most nobles in Westeros share Dany's mindset that vengeance is justified. I don't disagree. But I disagree that Ned's primary motive for RR was vengeance. Perhaps Robert feels that way. Jon Arynn raised his banners because he didn't want to hand over the heads of innocents to a mad tyrant and that I feel is a just cause. 

Adam Feldman's essays were good, but neglected the fact that many slavers were bent on war at any price.  People like Hizdahr and the Yellow Whale were prepared to accept Meereen becoming a free state, and why not?  Hizdahr and his class retain almost all their wealth, and can hire people to work for them at a pittance.  They can invest in the slave trade in the other cities through agents.  The Yellow Whale, and those Yunkish who agree with him would just see more business for Yunkai, if Meereen was out of the slave trade.

But other slavers see a free Meereen as an existential threat, above all Volantis.  Dany's an inspiration to their slaves.  They have to stamp out a free Meereen, and preferably bring Dany and her chief followers back to Volantis to be very publicly tortured to death, so that their slaves will know what the price of rebellion is.

[Light a wight tonight]

10 hours ago, khal drogon said:

That's the difference between a person who learns politics from a mentor and by observation and someone who learns politics by trial and error and experience. Of course Dany would have made errors because that's how she learns. Sansa so far we have never seen her ruling. 

So while judging Dany we judge her by seeing every error she had made while for Sansa we are simply assuming she would be good because she learns froms LF though we haven't seen her ruling anything.

And Dany is ruling one of the most difficult part of the world while Sansa was trying to feed SweetRobin. In the end Dany will always have the ground experience and she could only improve and in Sansa's case I don't feel good about LF's influence. 

And for people who say Dany know less about Westeros. Sansa knew shit about anything in GOT. At present she knows court politics. That's it. Dany has experience with people and armies and courts and practices of different cultures of Essos. It's not hard for Dany to know Westeros than Sansa.

Dany's trial and error is pretty heavy on the error side, as in massive screw-ups every stinkin' time she tries her hand at ruling. She's the poster child for the road to hell being paved with good intentions. She's at her best when she gets out of the way and lets someone competent take over, the problem being she can't discern who is actually competent.

[Kaibaman]

6 hours ago, Light a wight tonight said:

Dany's trial and error is pretty heavy on the error side, as in massive screw-ups every stinkin' time she tries her hand at ruling. She's the poster child for the road to hell being paved with good intentions. She's at her best when she gets out of the way and lets someone competent take over, the problem being she can't discern who is actually competent.

People said the same about Obama. He got voted into office thanks to his charisma and likability (very much like Dany) but due to his inexperience in managing a broad administration and his lack of skills in Washington politics, his first term wasn't so great and many actually wanted him to resign and let someone more competent take over. Yet four years later the economy is stronger than ever, unemployment is down and the country is doing very well. 

Sure I admit comparing Dany to Obama is like comparing apples to oranges but the fact remains that though she still has a long way to go, unlike Sansa she at least has gone through trial and error and doesn't lack the skills to improve herself. Now I admit the same can be said for Sansa as she too is a quick leaner but what has she actually done to make you believe she's a better option than Dany? Seriously when have we ever seen Sansa sit on a throne listening to the problems of lords and smallfolk and handing out solutions, bailouts and judgements, or read petitions or sit in council meetings, wrangle taxes, deal with foreign emissaries or dictate laws and decrees? Sansa has done none of that. Unlike Dany she has no merit to call her own and yet there are still people on this thread who think she is more qualified than Dany to be queen.

[Light a wight tonight]

1 hour ago, Kaibaman said:

People said the same about Obama. He got voted into office thanks to his charisma and likability (very much like Dany) but due to his inexperience in managing a broad administration and his lack of skills in Washington politics, his first term wasn't so great and many actually wanted him to resign and let someone more competent take over. Yet four years later the economy is stronger than ever, unemployment is down and the country is doing very well. 

Sure I admit comparing Dany to Obama is like comparing apples to oranges but the fact remains that though she still has a long way to go, unlike Sansa she at least has gone through trial and error and doesn't lack the skills to improve herself. Now I admit the same can be said for Sansa as she too is a quick leaner but what has she actually done to make you believe she's a better option than Dany? Seriously when have we ever seen Sansa sit on a throne listening to the problems of lords and smallfolk and handing out solutions, bailouts and judgements, or read petitions or sit in council meetings, wrangle taxes, deal with foreign emissaries or dictate laws and decrees? Sansa has done none of that. Unlike Dany she has no merit to call her own and yet there are still people on this thread who think she is more qualified than Dany to be queen.

No comparison to Obama. He inherited an economic meltdown from the previous administration. Dany doesn't inherit her problems, she causes them. 

[khal drogon]

10 hours ago, Light a wight tonight said:

Dany's trial and error is pretty heavy on the error side, as in massive screw-ups every stinkin' time she tries her hand at ruling. She's the poster child for the road to hell being paved with good intentions. She's at her best when she gets out of the way and lets someone competent take over, the problem being she can't discern who is actually competent.

Trial and error will almost always skew towards the error side unless if you have luck. Don't you know it?

I bet even the competents would struggle ruling Slaver's bay. So till you show any person who was in as much difficult position as her there was no comparison. Definitely I can't see Sansa even surviving Slaver's Bay for a day before talking about ruling.