TheRevanchist

The burning of the Tarlys - discussion

151 posts in this topic

59 minutes ago, Nerevanin said:

Deaenerys was really pulling that boss bitch card in the scene. At first she talked about being different than Cersei and immediately after that she gives you a perfect choice - kneel or be roasted alive. How is that different from Cersei? Unless it's worse than Cersei?

She could at least tried to look like the self-called saviour and offer Randyll to join the NW, like Tyrion suggested. When Randyll said that he won't take orders from her, she should have said that it is not an order, it is a suggestion, so that Randyll could save at least a bit of honor. No, she was born to rule the 7K, so she just kills him.

 

20 minutes ago, Nerevanin said:

I see what you mean, however comparing Daenerys burning the Tarlys and Cersei blowing up the Sept isn't fair, I think. A better comparison would be Cersei blowing up the Sept and Daenerys killing the Dothraki leaders last season. Both Daenerys and Cersei did what they had to to stay alive and free. They acted exactly the same way.

And on the other hand you have Daenerys immediately burning the Tarlys because they refused to bend the knee and Cersei arresting Ned in Season 1 because he refused to bend the knee and intending to let him join the NW (before Joffrey decided to **** it up). I'm not trying to defend Cersei and portray her as the best ruler ever, I just want to say that Daenerys isn't really that much better than her.

Bend the knee or die is still a choice.. War is war... In recent times, when the Turkish invaded Cyprus, did they Cypriots have a choice?

Cersei didn't kill Ned because she didn't want war. Dany is already in a war and the Tarly chose the other side.. She could just let them all die... If she gave a 3rd option then who would stay like the Nights Watch, who would stay near Daenerys and the dragon. As you saw these 2 deaths saved a lot of lifes...many bend the knee after that.. 

As I said before, war is war.. She gave them a choice.. In the wars we have now people have no choice at a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tugela said:

No, Samwell will probably be released from his vows by the Nights Watch to take his seat as Lord Tarly. The Nights Watch will likely be decimated when the Whitewalkers come across the wall in any case, so they won't be around to demand allegiance from anyone.

Succession in Westeros generally followed to males of the house, it is likely that there are other male Tarlys around (uncles or cousins) who would pick up the position in the event Sam could not. An example of how this worked in medieval times was the succession of Henry I on his death. The crown did not go to his legitimate daughter (Matilda), nor his numerous illegitimate sons, it went to his nephew, Stephen. Succession to females only occurred much later in the Renaissance era, when Mary took the throne. In medieval times being a lord carried with it the responsibility of leading troops into battle on behalf of your liege (in fact, it was your primary responsibility), which obviously women of the time were not equipped to do.

I think according to the Andal law of succession, women can inheritate if they have no male brothers. And that's the difference between the Targaryen succession since a daughter of a king comes after the kings male brothers. Ofc Samwell can be released from his vows after the Long Night or even now since the Night Watch doesn't even have a Lord Commander..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dany is as mad as her father, or even more, what happens when you inbreed for generations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mad King also gave a choice. "I do not put men in chains" is a rather weak line if you roast them alive as well.

 

How many of those who bent the knee rather than burn alive would abandon her when the first of the dragons is lost? She could have easily done what was usual practice - strip the soldiers of arms and armor and let them go. And keep the higher ups locked up. If you absolutely want to kill them... Behead them. And return the bodies to the family. This way, Dany establishes herself as a pyromaniac sadist instead of "just another ruler". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that killing both makes it possible for Sam's son (the wilding) to become Lord of Horn Hill.  Those are the rules :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dany gave them a rather weak choice. Burning Randyll makes sense, burning Dickon alongside him was stupid, especially since Tyrion gave her a way out. 

And if you want to avoid looking like the Mad King, burning people alive with your dragon isn't exactly the best way to go on about it. 

I still liked the scene for its dramatic impact and the fact that we finally get a Dany moment that it's ''rah rah Khaleesi rah''.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Orphalesion said:

Unless you point me towards a scene, or passage in the books in which Daenerys randomly torched a crowd of civillians because they happen to stand next to somebody who inconvenienced her, then I gotta say Daenerys is leagues above Cersei.  

Daenerys crucifying members of nobles families of Meereen without giving a single damn whether or not they were responsible for killing the children, she crucified them because they were members of certain families.

 

22 minutes ago, Styl7 said:

 

Bend the knee or die is still a choice.. War is war... In recent times, when the Turkish invaded Cyprus, did they Cypriots have a choice?

Cersei didn't kill Ned because she didn't want war. Dany is already in a war and the Tarly chose the other side.. She could just let them all die... If she gave a 3rd option then who would stay like the Nights Watch, who would stay near Daenerys and the dragon. As you saw these 2 deaths saved a lot of lifes...many bend the knee after that.. 

As I said before, war is war.. She gave them a choice.. In the wars we have now people have no choice at a

The interesting point about Daenerys not letting them joining the NW is that for a few episode she's been discussing with Jon that the North and the NW don't have enough men to fight the WW. Yet she killed them without a second thought, although not killing them could result in saving much much much more lives if the potential new member of NW managed to stop the WW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The words of Tarley have moral and logical force behind them: Dany is simply a foreign invader with a horde of literal, actual savages and fell beasts from the abyss. She has 0 support in Westeros, and apparently has not even made an attempt at obtaining support. She has not reached out diplomatically, has not attempted to win over anyone (except the Greyjoy siblings, and the Dorne chicks. who all are themselves ursurpers), and has threatened or actually murdered those who are not even really her enemies -- the Tarley/Lannister force was an opponent of the Tyrells, not Dany. As of yet nobody has even apparently counter-attacked her for invading Westerosi territory, namely Dragonstone.

Edited by Donaldys I Trumpagar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Nerevanin said:

Daenerys crucifying members of nobles families of Meereen without giving a single damn whether or not they were responsible for killing the children, she crucified them because they were members of certain families.

The interesting point about Daenerys not letting them joining the NW is that for a few episode she's been discussing with Jon that the North and the NW don't have enough men to fight the WW. Yet she killed them without a second thought, although not killing them could result in saving much much much more lives if the potential new member of NW managed to stop the WW.

I kind of disagree with you on this but also see your point.  I think context is key.  Dany had seen individuals crucified when she took the Unsullied.  She had seen slavery on a large scale.  She may have crucified indiscriminately against the noble families of Meereen but I don't believe she wasn't justified in her response after seeing however many children crucified on her march.  Whereas Cersei dug her own whole and then blew up the sept. 

On your second point, I don't understand why everyone wasn't forced to go to the Wall either.  Makes the most sense and follows along with the whole idea that dead are coming and there aren't enough living to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Donaldys I Trumpagar said:

The words of Tarley have moral and logical force behind them: Dany is simply a foreign invader with a horde of literal, actual savages and fell beasts from the abyss. She has 0 support in Westeros, and apparently has not even made an attempt at obtaining support. She has not reached out diplomatically, has not attempted to win over anyone (except the Greyjoy siblings, and the Dorne chicks. who all are themselves ursurpers), and has threatened or actually murdered those who are not even really her enemies -- the Tarley/Lannister force was an opponent of the Tyrells, not Dany. As of yet nobody has even apparently counter-attacked her for invading Westerosi territory, namely Dragonstone.

Daenerys is the member of house Targaryen. The House that Lord Tarly fight for a few years ago.. She was exiled from her home and have to live in the foreign lands of Essos.

Daenerys is there to retake the throne that her ancestors created. Lannisters hold the throne and Tarlys backed them so they are her enemies. She had the support of Dorne, many people from the Iron islands, and also the support of the house Tyrell. The Dornish murdered the Martells but Dorne people are asking for vengeance(the Dorne storyline is a bit non-sense though). The Iron Islands chose Euron Grejoy for their King. But many people didn't like the idea of serving the murderor of their previous king so they left with Yara. Cersei Lannister extinguished house Tyrell. Btw how is Lannister/Tarly forces enemies to house Tyrell? Who is left in house Tyrell? Also House Tyrell(Ollena who is not exactly a Tyrell) is Daenerys ally. If you atk my ally you are my enemy.. No one atked her in Dragonstone because suicide is a great sin according to the 7 pointed star book.. I mean who could try to atk a land with a large army and three dragons? Also Dragonstone "belonged" to the Targaryens even before the Doom of Old Valyria..even before Aegon the conqueror was born.

But yes.. Her army are foreigners salvages and eunuchs. She has three children but people like to call them beasts.

Her army are foreigners.. But she is not. She was exiled.. She is not a foreigner because she grew up with Viserys... Viserys make her understand that their Home is in Westeros. Ofc in the eyes of many people she is just a foreign invader. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Donaldys I Trumpagar said:

The words of Tarley have moral and logical force behind them: Dany is simply a foreign invader with a horde of literal, actual savages and fell beasts from the abyss. She has 0 support in Westeros, and apparently has not even made an attempt at obtaining support. She has not reached out diplomatically, has not attempted to win over anyone (except the Greyjoy siblings, and the Dorne chicks. who all are themselves ursurpers), and has threatened or actually murdered those who are not even really her enemies -- the Tarley/Lannister force was an opponent of the Tyrells, not Dany. As of yet nobody has even apparently counter-attacked her for invading Westerosi territory, namely Dragonstone.

Lol, idk if you're kidding or not. She had allies with 3 of the 7 kingdoms and she was brokering a peace with the North, which would then include the Eeryie.  Riverlands and Stormlands are out, so there isn't much to discuss outside of the fact that the last known Baratheon (even though a bastard) is currently working with Jon and might as well be Danny as well. Tarley/Lannister force are enemies of the Tyrells which are an ally of Danny. So, typically allies aide other allies with their enemies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Donaldys I Trumpagar said:

The words of Tarley have moral and logical force behind them: Dany is simply a foreign invader with a horde of literal, actual savages and fell beasts from the abyss. She has 0 support in Westeros, and apparently has not even made an attempt at obtaining support. She has not reached out diplomatically, has not attempted to win over anyone (except the Greyjoy siblings, and the Dorne chicks. who all are themselves ursurpers), and has threatened or actually murdered those who are not even really her enemies -- the Tarley/Lannister force was an opponent of the Tyrells, not Dany. As of yet nobody has even apparently counter-attacked her for invading Westerosi territory, namely Dragonstone.

You have to be a bit insane to atack an island with a huge army and 3 big fucking dragons.She has allies but she lose them because Tyrion plans 

But if you look back,her ancestor Aegon the Conquerer,also has 3 dragons and a small army and nobody could fight with him.He give the lords of Westeros same choice:bend the knee and keep your lands and castle or refuse and die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Donaldys I Trumpagar said:

The words of Tarley have moral and logical force behind them: Dany is simply a foreign invader with a horde of literal, actual savages and fell beasts from the abyss. She has 0 support in Westeros, and apparently has not even made an attempt at obtaining support. She has not reached out diplomatically, has not attempted to win over anyone (except the Greyjoy siblings, and the Dorne chicks. who all are themselves ursurpers), and has threatened or actually murdered those who are not even really her enemies -- the Tarley/Lannister force was an opponent of the Tyrells, not Dany. As of yet nobody has even apparently counter-attacked her for invading Westerosi territory, namely Dragonstone.

Genuinely think this is a level, says that she hasn't reached out then confirms her alliances ..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Styl7 said:

Her army are foreigners.. But she is not. She was exiled.. She is not a foreigner because she grew up with Viserys... Viserys make her understand that their Home is in Westeros. Ofc in the eyes of many people she is just a foreign invader. 

Dunno. She's in a similar situation to Bonnie Prince Charlie - and in the Jacobite rising, it is often forgotten that more Scots fought in the Royal Army than in his and four King's Scottish regiments were present at Culloden. Bonnie Prince Charlie was also made to understand his home is Britain and he was seen by a large part of society as a foreign invader... And he had just the French with him, not the Dothraki ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nerevanin said:

 A better comparison would be Cersei blowing up the Sept and Daenerys killing the Dothraki leaders last season. Both Daenerys and Cersei did what they had to to stay alive and free. They acted exactly the same way.

This is an incredibly evil moral philosophy.  Dany is in a position where she is a captive, and is being threatened.

Cersei has been actively killing and conspiring.  She deserves her punishment; as much as fanatics suck and the Tyrells have their own agenda, Cersei is legitimately guilty.  Daenerys isn't, or not in a way as to make her equally morally culpable.

I think what Dany did to the Tarly's was perfectly justified.  These men had just taken up arms against her, betraying many of their own sworn oaths and loyalties in the process.  She gave them a second chance to swear fealty.  And she seems willing to send them to the Wall until Randyll insists that isn't possible/legal (which... makes about as little sense as anything the writers have shat out over the last couple seasons).  What is she supposed to do?  She has no system of mass incarceration to hold them, all those men, and all the other people who will presumably see an easy out if they get caught fighting for Cersei.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Donaldys I Trumpagar said:

The words of Tarley have moral and logical force behind them: Dany is simply a foreign invader with a horde of literal, actual savages and fell beasts from the abyss. She has 0 support in Westeros, and apparently has not even made an attempt at obtaining support. She has not reached out diplomatically, has not attempted to win over anyone (except the Greyjoy siblings, and the Dorne chicks. who all are themselves ursurpers), and has threatened or actually murdered those who are not even really her enemies -- the Tarley/Lannister force was an opponent of the Tyrells, not Dany. As of yet nobody has even apparently counter-attacked her for invading Westerosi territory, namely Dragonstone.

Nope. Their words do not have any logic behind them. She had the support of their liege lady Olenna, who they betrayed after they were dangled the sweet carrot of becoming Wardens of the Reach by a usurper queen Cersei. Cersei has no claim to the throne via lineage, she's not a regent anymore, and she's failing to hold her power together, let alone conquer anything. Dany, on the other hand, is both descended from a line of royalty, and has means to conquer the land even if we discount the royal bloodline. There is a reason it was King Bob Baratheon and not King Ned Stark, or King John Arryn, Bobby B had a Targaryen granny, and thus had more claim. This is also why Ramsay needed a Stark wife- so his heirs would have Stark blood in them, and thus Northern lords would be less likely to rebel against the kid. 

The point about savages holds water in some way- Westeros is a conservative society, after all. But given how Tarly and Co happily forgave Cersei an incestual relationship with her brother, dubious claim to the throne, committing an act of terrorism against the main religion of the continent (imagine anyone blowing up the Vatican and then commanding the support of European countries without contest), an alliance with Ironborn, who are rapists and pillagers (though I guess they are native rapists and pillagers, and to someone like Tarly that would be ok), it's really really hypocritical to use it against Dany. Guess what Lannister army was doing from the start of the show? Supporting a usurper and raping and pillaging their neighbours. 

And yes, they are her enemies. Again, they have turned against their liege lady and the main house in the region. Cersei has declared war on the Tyrells the minute she blew up almost all of them, and Olenna had every right to rebel against a woman who is batshit crazy and has no claim to ruling the country, and support an exiled heir to the previous dynasty. Lady Tyrell has declared for House Targaryen and Dany, which means that any attack on Highgarden was an attack on her, not just Olenna. 

And lastly, she did reach out to most Westerosi Great Houses by sending ravens. Granted, she presented terms as "either bend the knee, or die" but guess what, that's what conquerors do. Aegon did the same when he came to Westeros and established the Targaryen dynasty, and Cersei did the same when she took the throne. Jon Snow came and treated with her- and managed to wrangle something out of her without bending the knee, so she's clearly open to negotiation. Tarly was offered a choice, two, in fact, and he made his. His reasons amount to xenophobia, hypocrisy and treason, and he deserved to die. I agree that dragon fire was an overkill, but he was a dead man, one way or another. Although it would have been infinitely more fun if Dany let them go- sans their forces of course, and let Cersei punish them for failure. Qyburn needs more test subjects I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What she did to Randyll and Dickon Tarly was justified, Randyll refused to bend the knee and his stupid idiotic son followed too. There were given a choice, they refused so were executed. Regardless of how they died they died, war is war. Randyll's excuse was stupid but the old boy is set in his stubborn ways. Burning them two provided a perfect opportunity to put tremendous amounts of fear into the soldiers so they fight for her as that really was as she could do. 

He refused to acknowledge the offer of the black, saying she is not his queen, its not her role to keep on trying to make him change his mind. Tyrion arguing was stupid, it made him look stupid. He tried to help Randyll and he shoved it in his face, That should have been the end of Tyrions plea.

Daenerys is not like Cersei, Cersei caused her own problems which stemmed from trying to get rid of her ''enemies'', her blowing up the Sept was because of her own doing not because she had to. Daenerys has tried and succeeded in making people lives better,i.e abolishment of slavery. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the context of Westeros her actions were justified.

If it had been Eddard Stark in her place using Ice to behead them instead then I doubt many people would be calling him "evil" or "mad".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She should've force them into taking the black after Tyrion proposed it. Who cares if Randyll refuses her?  

She could've used the excuse of need for NW more men to fight the Others (if we presume she believes Jon), or just anything. Randyll taking the black would be perfect justice for his treatment towards Sam and forcing him into taking the black under threat. 

I was disturbed by this scene, reminded me of Rickard and Brandon. Different circumstances, different motives, she gave them a choice and all that, but one couldn't help it. Jaime even wrongly called Dickon for Rickard once (although Rickard was the father and Dickon was the son).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

36 minutes ago, Princess_of_Sunspear said:

Nope. Their words do not have any logic behind them. She had the support of their liege lady Olenna, who they betrayed after they were dangled the sweet carrot of becoming Wardens of the Reach by a usurper queen Cersei. Cersei has no claim to the throne via lineage, she's not a regent anymore, and she's failing to hold her power together, let alone conquer anything. Dany, on the other hand, is both descended from a line of royalty, and has means to conquer the land even if we discount the royal bloodline. There is a reason it was King Bob Baratheon and not King Ned Stark, or King John Arryn, Bobby B had a Targaryen granny, and thus had more claim. This is also why Ramsay needed a Stark wife- so his heirs would have Stark blood in them, and thus Northern lords would be less likely to rebel against the kid. 

The point about savages holds water in some way- Westeros is a conservative society, after all. But given how Tarly and Co happily forgave Cersei an incestual relationship with her brother, dubious claim to the throne, committing an act of terrorism against the main religion of the continent (imagine anyone blowing up the Vatican and then commanding the support of European countries without contest), an alliance with Ironborn, who are rapists and pillagers (though I guess they are native rapists and pillagers, and to someone like Tarly that would be ok), it's really really hypocritical to use it against Dany. Guess what Lannister army was doing from the start of the show? Supporting a usurper and raping and pillaging their neighbours. 

And yes, they are her enemies. Again, they have turned against their liege lady and the main house in the region. Cersei has declared war on the Tyrells the minute she blew up almost all of them, and Olenna had every right to rebel against a woman who is batshit crazy and has no claim to ruling the country, and support an exiled heir to the previous dynasty. Lady Tyrell has declared for House Targaryen and Dany, which means that any attack on Highgarden was an attack on her, not just Olenna. 

And lastly, she did reach out to most Westerosi Great Houses by sending ravens. Granted, she presented terms as "either bend the knee, or die" but guess what, that's what conquerors do. Aegon did the same when he came to Westeros and established the Targaryen dynasty, and Cersei did the same when she took the throne. Jon Snow came and treated with her- and managed to wrangle something out of her without bending the knee, so she's clearly open to negotiation. Tarly was offered a choice, two, in fact, and he made his. His reasons amount to xenophobia, hypocrisy and treason, and he deserved to die. I agree that dragon fire was an overkill, but he was a dead man, one way or another. Although it would have been infinitely more fun if Dany let them go- sans their forces of course, and let Cersei punish them for failure. Qyburn needs more test subjects I guess.

 

2 hours ago, Styl7 said:

 

Bend the knee or die is still a choice.. War is war... In recent times, when the Turkish invaded Cyprus, did they Cypriots have a choice?

Cersei didn't kill Ned because she didn't want war. Dany is already in a war and the Tarly chose the other side.. She could just let them all die... If she gave a 3rd option then who would stay like the Nights Watch, who would stay near Daenerys and the dragon. As you saw these 2 deaths saved a lot of lifes...many bend the knee after that.. 

As I said before, war is war.. She gave them a choice.. In the wars we have now people have no choice at all

Are you sure of that? Even the IS would stop killing people if everyone accepted their leadership and adopted their religion. That most certainly goes for Bashar al-Assad as well. 

 

36 minutes ago, Princess_of_Sunspear said:

Nope. Their words do not have any logic behind them. She had the support of their liege lady Olenna, who they betrayed after they were dangled the sweet carrot of becoming Wardens of the Reach by a usurper queen Cersei. Cersei has no claim to the throne via lineage, she's not a regent anymore, and she's failing to hold her power together, let alone conquer anything. Dany, on the other hand, is both descended from a line of royalty, and has means to conquer the land even if we discount the royal bloodline. There is a reason it was King Bob Baratheon and not King Ned Stark, or King John Arryn, Bobby B had a Targaryen granny, and thus had more claim. This is also why Ramsay needed a Stark wife- so his heirs would have Stark blood in them, and thus Northern lords would be less likely to rebel against the kid. 

The point about savages holds water in some way- Westeros is a conservative society, after all. But given how Tarly and Co happily forgave Cersei an incestual relationship with her brother, dubious claim to the throne, committing an act of terrorism against the main religion of the continent (imagine anyone blowing up the Vatican and then commanding the support of European countries without contest), an alliance with Ironborn, who are rapists and pillagers (though I guess they are native rapists and pillagers, and to someone like Tarly that would be ok), it's really really hypocritical to use it against Dany. Guess what Lannister army was doing from the start of the show? Supporting a usurper and raping and pillaging their neighbours. 

And yes, they are her enemies. Again, they have turned against their liege lady and the main house in the region. Cersei has declared war on the Tyrells the minute she blew up almost all of them, and Olenna had every right to rebel against a woman who is batshit crazy and has no claim to ruling the country, and support an exiled heir to the previous dynasty. Lady Tyrell has declared for House Targaryen and Dany, which means that any attack on Highgarden was an attack on her, not just Olenna. 

And lastly, she did reach out to most Westerosi Great Houses by sending ravens. Granted, she presented terms as "either bend the knee, or die" but guess what, that's what conquerors do. Aegon did the same when he came to Westeros and established the Targaryen dynasty, and Cersei did the same when she took the throne. Jon Snow came and treated with her- and managed to wrangle something out of her without bending the knee, so she's clearly open to negotiation. Tarly was offered a choice, two, in fact, and he made his. His reasons amount to xenophobia, hypocrisy and treason, and he deserved to die. I agree that dragon fire was an overkill, but he was a dead man, one way or another. Although it would have been infinitely more fun if Dany let them go- sans their forces of course, and let Cersei punish them for failure. Qyburn needs more test subjects I guess.

What? Are you actually saying a person deserves to die because he decides to protect his homeland against an army of murderers and rapists?

Then I take it every soldier all over the world opposing foreign forces deserve to die as well? Or just the ones opposing the side you support?

I understand how wars work, and am not condemning Danaerys in any way. She did what she had to do, but to say that Randyll deserved to die is just ... evil, and immoral. A soldier dieing for his country deserves respect, not death.

You're displaying huge levels of hypocrisy by deciding one soldier deserves to die and another doesn't, even though they both play by the same rules, just for opposing teams.

Edited by Ser Meryn Frey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now