The burning of the Tarlys - discussion

[starklover]

what she did was cruel. what is she going to do next? burn down kings landing? burn jon because he wont bend ? burn tyrion ? burn everyone in the north because they wont bend?

[Samwell_Tarly]

3 minutes ago, princess brittany said:

what she did was cruel. what is she going to do next? burn down kings landing? burn jon because he wont bend ? burn tyrion ? burn everyone in the north because they wont bend?

Yeah thats pretty much it, are you a greenseer?? 

[Being Daenerys Targaryen]

I Fully understand. I haven't read all the posts but I just wanted to say that apart from the fact that Tarly's death is an opportunity for Samwell, it is also another parallel in Game Of Thrones... 

Samwell Tarly is the One who saved Jorah Mormont (Daenerys' friend) 's life... On the other hand, Daenerys (Jorah Mormont's friend) had both Sam's father and brother killed... 

[snow is the man]

initially I thought it was uneccasrily cruel. It was stupid because it made people think of her father. To be fair she did give tarly a chance and when tyrion said to offer him the black tarly shot it down real quick. I actually think tarly was the bad guy in this because he should have told his son not to follow him and then if he didn't listen he would take the black instead. Tarly got his son killed because his son didn't want to dissapoint him.

Also getting hit straight on with dragon fire tends to be a death that lasts less then ten seconds. Sometimes they just turn to ash. It's still brutal but  not as bad as getting burned at the stake.

[Frances Bean Corbray]

Dickon's eagerness to die and Randyll's half-assed attempt to order him to stand down/preserve the house made it a little too transparent they're clearing the path for Sam to ultimately inherit Horn Hill.

Killing them off/clearing the path for Sam is fine as a storytelling decision.  Expected, even.  I'd probably do it too.

We all know it's fiction and there's plot rails guiding the story from beginning to end.  But the art and the fun comes in the form of camouflaging those plot rails and when the best guess as to Dickon's motive seems to be a meta-desire to GTFO of Sam's way, well, the camouflage ain't working.

Randyll Tarly is a general and he is fiercely protective of the welfare of "his house"; the latter is the whole rationale for abusing Sam and ultimately disowning him.  Dickon DEFIED AN ORDER from his dad, his lord, and his commanding officer.  Does that seem like the sort of thing the Randyll Tarly we've heard about since Season 1 and seen since Season 6 is going to take lightly?  Nope!  More to the point, Dickon's death means either The Death Of House Tarly or Lord Samwell Tarly, which in Randyll's mind is a fate worse than Death Of House Tarly.  And Randyll's reaction to this is basically...  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  ?

Nope.  Don't buy it.

There's ways to get around this.  Dickon could've fried last week.  That would make Randyll resigned to his house's fate.  NOW I buy him being despondent and hopeless enough to say fuck it and die on his feet, cuz he'd see it as all he had left (although I don't really have a issue with Randyll's motivation for dying in this scene).  I can see Dany insisting on a package deal from them, especially if they want to tease the whole "is Dany turning into her dad?" thing.  After all, she wouldn't want Dickon around nipping at her heels plotting revenge, would she?  Can't have that.  Shit, have Cersei hire some assassins or something and take them out for "betraying her" or whatever.  Keeps her nice and strong for the big showdown with Dany like they want.  There's ways to get rid of characters that don't make it quite so obvious you're just getting rid of characters.  And they're way more fun.

No real problem with the scene other than that.

 

[Katleesi]

On 8/14/2017 at 0:03 PM, Orphalesion said:

 

Instead however, not only were the deaths of the Tarlies basically their own fault (Daenerys gave them a choice, after all) but even so Daenerys' idea to execute people with her dragons was seen as controversial by everybody around her.

Daenerys' actions were not portrayed as completely justified and it was stubbornness (and loyalty to the wrong person) that led to Randyll's and Dickon's demise.

Pretty good for the show, imho.

The difference is that Daenerys gives you a choice, at all, Cersei just kills you if she thinks you have crossed her, or thinks that you might be planning on crossing her somewhen in the future, or happen to stand in a 500 meter radius of somebody who crossed her.

Daenerys executed two military commanders after giving them a choice to surrender. Cersei blew up hundreds of civilians for the crime of attending a trial.

See the difference?

YES! YES YES YES. agreed!

I'm feeling  very affronted by the fuss people are making over Dany's "humanity" in executing two high born military men who refused to bend the knee when they lost a battle.  

[Katleesi]

On 8/14/2017 at 3:48 PM, tugela said:

No. Those who will not accept her rule are future rebel leaders for sure, and they have to be taken care of while she has them in captivity.

yep, this. Either take prisoners, which I am not sure she has the capability of doing now, or offer them their choice. 

[Katleesi]

On 8/14/2017 at 3:58 PM, Lord Okra said:

Dany has a long history of being ruthless and quick to kill any who disobey her.

Her decision is perfectly in line with many of her previous scenes in the series going way back.  Sir Barristan tried to get her to show mercy to the slavers but instead she crucified them only to learn in the future that there was no true justice in the action.  Later her first instinct was to have all those slavers in Astapor who'd retaken control killed but Jorah was able to stop that by reminding her that her form of justice would have seen him killed.  Tyrion and Jon have each prevented her from laying waste to Kings Landing.

Dany's first inclination is always to just kill or burn her enemies it seems.  She isn't some total tyrant thought as she listens to advice.

Contrast that with Robb/Jon who always seem to want to show mercy if at all possible even over the objections of advisers.

She's a true dragon through and through.  We love it about her but it comes with its own set of issues.

The scene was good because it made sense for everyone to do exactly what they did.  Tyrion was obviously wanting to spare as many lives as possible after having witnessed what he just brought to his homeland, his family's army no less.  It made sense for him to want to offer them Westerosi type of treatment (the honorable kind).  Robb kept prisoners and treated them with respect.  Even Cersie offered Ned a chance to go to the wall.

Dany needs Jon for some balance.

 

This is perfect!

[Illiterati]

6 minutes ago, Katleesi said:

YES! YES YES YES. agreed!

I'm feeling  very affronted by the fuss people are making over Dany's "humanity" in executing two high born military men who refused to bend the knee when they lost a battle.  

It's more than just humanity.

In military strategy, if the enemy knows or even think you will brutally murder them upon victory, they will fight to the death.  If they believe that you will treat them humanely and especially treat them well and with honor, they are much more likely to surrender.  That shortens battles and preserves your own forces.

Winning the hearts and minds of the enemy isn't just a cool cliche.

[I prefer summer]

19 hours ago, Illiterati said:

It's more than just humanity.

In military strategy, if the enemy knows or even think you will brutally murder them upon victory, they will fight to the death.  If they believe that you will treat them humanely and especially treat them well and with honor, they are much more likely to surrender.  That shortens battles and preserves your own forces.

Winning the hearts and minds of the enemy isn't just a cool cliche.

She will now have to demonstrate that humane treatment to the survivors, as she would have had to do if she had beheaded those who refused to bend the knee.

I still believe that burning two men as an example was more effective, and maybe even more humane, than beheading all those who remained standing. Beheadings might have made the holdouts more resolute - they have likely all seen beheadings before. But no one stayed standing after the Tarleys burned.

[cpg2016]

On 8/15/2017 at 10:21 AM, Nerevanin said:

Daenerys was captured by Dothraki and her future was to live with former khaleesis. Cersei, although guilty, was captured by High Sparrow and her future was life imprisonment or execution. They both killed their captors to break free. I can't blame them for doing it.

Daenerys was "captured" and was imprisoned because of a fucked up cultural belief, one which she was not allowed any choice in.  Cersei was imprisoned because she was a criminal.  This is like saying that incarcerated mass murderers are equally victimized as someone born into slavery.

If you are willing to excuse criminals any action in order to escape justice, then you are basically granting anyone carte blanche to do what they want and then kill to escape justice.  In other words, you've denied the concept of justice entirely.