Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
EddardSnow

Is The Targ Merrying Targ Really Incest.

42 posts in this topic

3 hours ago, MinscS2 said:

My comments in bold. :)

This. 

The only thing i would add is:

The fact that she learns is super important. A big part of her arc in season 5 is how she learns from her mistakes. In episode 2 of that season she executed the person who followed her. She realized that was a huge mistake at some point in the season which is why she lets Jorah live. 

The whole freeing slaves thing and changing dothraki culture is kind of a big deal. No other chacaracter we are introduced to have ever used or wanted to use their power for greater good than she did with those two acts. 

Also, what Jon said to you Karstark and Umber will you stand beside me now and always was a pretty thing to say. But lets not kid ourselves. Those kids did not have a choice. They either stood beside him or they were going to get stripped of all their familial holdings. They just made the right choice unlike the stupid Tarlys. The Tarlys merited firmer trestment as well because they betrayed their oaths to their rightful leige lords. 

Finally, did we not see Season 7? Daenerys could have conquered Westeros easily. She didn't because she was looking for a more noble way. She also decided to act as protector of the realm by saving the northern most Kingdom from the undead once she came to believe in the threat. Not really the actions of someome who is mad. And the character you hold up as a paragon of virtue, even though he is an idiot and reckless, clearly believes in her so there is that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jcmontea said:

Also, what Jon said to you Karstark and Umber will you stand beside me now and always was a pretty thing to say. But lets not kid ourselves. Those kids did not have a choice. They either stood beside him or they were going to get stripped of all their familial holdings. They just made the right choice unlike the stupid Tarlys. The Tarlys merited firmer trestment as well because they betrayed their oaths to their rightful leige lords.

Yes, they had only one choice. But "stand beside" still rings better than "kneel". Their father lost, chose the wrong side. They were now unable to defend themselves. Accepting Jon's offer was in fact a victory. Keeping their Bannermen rank. See how they were happy. Daenerys had only surrender and humiliation for the Tarlys. Sadly it was her allies' former Bannermen she burned. Those who should be on her side. Do you think the Lannisters soldiers who knelt will follow her?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

Yes, they had only one choice. But "stand beside" still rings better than "kneel". Their father lost, chose the wrong side. They were now unable to defend themselves. Accepting Jon's offer was in fact a victory. Keeping their Bannermen rank. See how they were happy. Daenerys had only surrender and humiliation for the Tarlys. Sadly it was her allies' former Bannermen she burned. Those who should be on her side. Do you think the Lannisters soldiers who knelt will follow her?

Do you think Jon would have been so nice had it been SmallJon Umber and Harald Karstark? 

SANSA: So there's no punishment for treason and no reward for loyalty?

JON: The punishment for treason is death. Smalljon Umber died on the field of battle. Harald Karstark died on the field of battle.

Based on the above quotes the SmallJon and Harald Karstark would not have even been given the choice Dany gave Randly and Dickon for the treason they commited against their liege lord Olena (who rightfully rebelled against the Iron Throne for the destruction of her family, the same reason why the starks rebelled against the mad king.) Randle and Dickon commited the same treason commited by smalljon umber and harald karstark in the eyes of Jon and Sansa. 

You are trying to make an equivalency when there is none. If Dany were to treat with Sam and his sister than the situations would be comparable. Given the situations, Dany was being magnanimous by even giving them a choice - one Jon would not have extended those who commited treason against House Stark if we take his words at face value.

Edited by jcmontea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, jcmontea said:

Do you think Jon would have been so nice had it been SmallJon Umber and Harald Karstark?

No, he would not. They sided with a monster. They betrayed the Starks. They were criminals themselves. The sentence was death. There would be no offer of a new pledge. The Tarlys betrayed the Tyrells. Because the Tyrells betrayed the Lannister queen. Daenerys could also have sentenced them to death without an offer of a pledge. My point was Jon won allies while Daenerys won enemies. Easier for Jon who is accepted in the North, while Daenerys is not in the south. The Tarlys preferred an awful queen to an invader. And were ready to die for it. I don't know exactly why, but I respect the Tarlys decision, while I don't respect the Umbers and Karstaks for killing Rickon and siding with Ramsey.

Edited by BalerionTheCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jcmontea said:

Also, what Jon said to you Karstark and Umber will you stand beside me now and always was a pretty thing to say. But lets not kid ourselves. Those kids did not have a choice. They either stood beside him or they were going to get stripped of all their familial holdings.

Still way better than being burnt alive, don't you think? And no, they were not going to get stripped of anything, Jon had already said that he wouln't do that, and that his word was final, before asking the question.  

11 hours ago, jcmontea said:

The Tarlys merited firmer trestment as well because they betrayed their oaths to their rightful leige lords. 

So did the Karstarks and Umbers. Particularly the Umbers, who got Rickon killed by giving him to Ramsay as a gift. It is to note that at the moment he did that, to all accounts and as far as he knew, Rickon was the true King in the North as Robb's only surviving trueborn male brother and heir. Anyway,  Jon sparing of House Karstark and Umber was because the remaining members had not have decision power in what the heads of the Houses did; Jon would  most likely have had those 2 executed for treason had they survived the battle. 

And no, the Tarlys did not deserve firmer treatment, they were defeated and unarmed, it was cruel and unjustified to kill them like that. She did not say "For treason to your liege Lady, I sentence you to death," she said  "bend the knee or die" , those are two very different things,

Edited by LucyMormont

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, LucyMormont said:

And no, the Tarlys did not deserve firmer treatment, they were defeated and unarmed, it was cruel and unjustified to kill them like that. She did not said "For treason to your liege Lady, I sentence you to death," she said  "bend the knee or die" , those are two very different thing,

What should Daenerys have done instead then? Let's examine her options:

- Let Randyll go? Bad decision to let an experienced battlefield commander return to his (new) queen. It will only be a matter of time before he has a new army at his command and is ready to fight her again in the future. 
- Imprison Randyll? Normally an option, but not for Daenerys. She's the breaker of chains, she doesn't imprison people. Neither does she have food to feed an increasing numbers of PoW's. 
- Make Randyll join the Nightswatch? Daenerys was actually ready to do this, but Randyll himself refused this option.
- Make Randyll swear allegiance to her instead? Daenerys tried, but yet again Randyll refused.

So she can't let him go, she can't banish him, she can't imprison him and she can't convince him to join her cause. Ergo she had him executed. 

As for the "I execute you for treason against your liege Lady" vs "Bend the knee or die", this is really just semantics.
It's war, and he was a defeated enemy commander, she really doesn't need to justify the execution beyond that, even though she had plenty of reasons to execute him:
Randyll was not only an asshole, but a turncoat: He willingly served Daenerys father Aerys during Roberts rebellion, then he served the Tyrells, then he betrayed the Tyrells, joined Cersei and played a big part in the elimination of the Tyrells; Dany's allied. Tyrion points out this as well, that his allegiances are "somewhat flexible".
He called Daenerys an "invading foreigner" when she's not only the daughter the king he was previously loyal too, but Daenerys is by no means a foreigner, she was born in Westeros.

I personally have no sympathy what so ever for Randyll, and that's before considering what he did to Samwell, his own son. 
Randyll was given some very generous options from Daenerys, but he refused them and so made his choice.
If Jon and Cersei was in Daenerys position, they would've both executed Randyll without hesitation and without giving him the options that Daenerys gave him.

Dickons death was tragic and a bit unnecessary, but ultimately he too has no one to blame than himself.
I find it strange that he chose to end his own life when he has a mother, a sister and a title waiting for him back at Horn Hill.
 

Edited by MinscS2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

No, he would not. They sided with a monster. They betrayed the Starks. They were criminals themselves. The sentence was death. There would be no offer of a new pledge. The Tarlys betrayed the Tyrells. Because the Tyrells betrayed the Lannister queen. Daenerys could also have sentenced them to death without an offer of a pledge. My point was Jon won allies while Daenerys won enemies. Easier for Jon who is accepted in the North, while Daenerys is not in the south. The Tarlys preferred an awful queen to an invader. And were ready to die for it. I don't know exactly why, but I respect the Tarlys decision, while I don't respect the Umbers and Karstaks for killing Rickon and siding with Ramsey.

Jon won allies because its not the same situation. It's easy to win allies when your not dealing with the actual people who were disloyal. 

You should respect the Umbers and Karstarks just as much as the Tarlys. Small Jon betrayed the Starks because Jon Snow brought wildlings over the wall. Pretty similar to why Randly ends up betraying Olena - for bringing Dothraki over. Harold betrayed the Starks because Robb beheaded his dad, a more real reason than why Randyl betrays Olena. In both cases they sided with a monster responsible for horrific crimes - Ramsey and Cersei respectively.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MinscS2 said:

What should Daenerys have done instead then? Let's examine her options:

- Let Randyll go? Bad decision to let an experienced battlefield commander return to his (new) queen. It will only be a matter of time before he has a new army at his command and is ready to fight her again in the future. 
- Imprison Randyll? Normally an option, but not for Daenerys. She's the breaker of chains, she doesn't imprison people. Neither does she have food to feed an increasing numbers of PoW's. 
- Make Randyll join the Nightswatch? Daenerys was actually ready to do this, but Randyll himself refused this option.
- Make Randyll swear allegiance to her instead? Daenerys tried, but yet again Randyll refused.

So she can't let him go, she can't banish him, she can't imprison him and she can't convince him to join her cause. Ergo she had him executed. 

As for the "I execute you for treason against your liege Lady" vs "Bend the knee or die", this is really just semantics.
It's war, and he was a defeated enemy commander, she really doesn't need to justify the execution beyond that, even though she had plenty of reasons to execute him:
Randyll was not only an asshole, but a turncoat: He willingly served Daenerys father Aerys during Roberts rebellion, then he served the Tyrells, then he betrayed the Tyrells, joined Cersei and played a big part in the elimination of the Tyrells; Dany's allied. Tyrion points out this as well, that his allegiances are "somewhat flexible".
He called Daenerys an "invading foreigner" when she's not only the daughter the king he was previously loyal too, but Daenerys is by no means a foreigner, she was born in Westeros.

I personally have no sympathy what so ever for Randyll, and that's before considering what he did to Samwell, his own son. 
Randyll was given some very generous options from Daenerys, but he refused them and so made his choice.
If Jon and Cersei was in Daenerys position, they would've both executed Randyll without hesitation and without giving him the options that Daenerys gave him.

Dickons death was tragic and a bit unnecessary, but ultimately he too has no one to blame than himself.
I find it strange that he chose to end his own life when he has a mother, a sister and a title waiting for him back at Horn Hill.
 

This. 

Also, Dickon's death is another example of how monstrous Randyl is. Knowing his son was going to follow him to the grave he still decided to die out of pride. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

I don't know exactly why, but I respect the Tarlys decision, while I don't respect the Umbers and Karstaks for killing Rickon and siding with Ramsey.

Probably for the same reason that I respected Alliser Throne.
Alliser and Randyll were both traitorous assholes, but ultimately they did what they themselves believed to be right, failed in their actions, admitted defeat and stood upright during their executions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jcmontea said:

This. 

Also, Dickon's death is another example of how monstrous Randyl is. Knowing his son was going to follow him to the grave he still decided to die out of pride. 

Good point, I never really reflected over this, but when Randyll realized that Dickon was going to follow him into the grave, he could've and should've reconsidered the choice he made. 

He could've saved both himself and his son, but instead he chose his own pride over not only his own life (understandable to some extent) but also his sons life. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MinscS2 said:

Probably for the same reason that I respected Alliser Throne.
Alliser and Randyll were both traitorous assholes, but ultimately they did what they themselves believed to be right, failed in their actions, admitted defeat and stood upright during their executions.

Great comparison. Very similar indeed. 

This is why this series is so good. Even with most of the "evil" characters you can understand the choices they make and why they do what they do. 

"There are no easy choices in war" and ultimatley the difference between our good characters and bad ones are how they handle those difficult choices. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MinscS2 said:

Imprison Randyll? Normally an option, but not for Daenerys. She's the breaker of chains, she doesn't imprison people. Neither does she have food to feed an increasing numbers of PoW's. 

Yes, she should have imprisoned them. That's the Westerosi ways, it was shown to us since season 1, in all the battles of the different factions.  You win, and those of your enemies who haven't died in the battlefield, you take them prisoners. Two more mouths to feed does not make much of a difference, and in the show anyway this isn't a point because actually she can not feed anyone  but this was conveniently overlooked... if this was an issue, she should have not army left, everyone should have starved to death already.:huh:

 What does "breaker of chains" mean in this context?  She was no breaker of chains to all the soldiers who actually bent the knee just to not die, quite the contrary... unless you take the chain metaphor too literally.

3 hours ago, jcmontea said:

As for the "I execute you for treason against your liege Lady" vs "Bend the knee or die", this is really just semantics.

I don't see it as just semantics. 

3 hours ago, jcmontea said:

I personally have no sympathy what so ever for Randyll, and that's before considering what he did to Samwell, his own son.

I do not have any sympathy for him either.. But he did not deserve to die that way

3 hours ago, jcmontea said:

Randyll was given some very generous options from Daenerys, but he refused them and so made his choice.
If Jon and Cersei was in Daenerys position, they would've both executed Randyll without hesitation and without giving him the options that Daenerys gave him.

Cersei is not example of anything, she is just a psycho power grabber. Jon maybe would have had him executed for treason, maybe not. I can picture Jon trying to convince Lord Tarly that "the dead are coming for us all" and letting those 2 meditate a bit in cells,  just  the solution  Tyrion thought was the best. That would have been the right thing to do.  But what Jon  certainly would not have done, is to require them to accept him as their king in exchange for not killing them.

Do not get me wrong. I like Danaerys. I do not think that she is mad, nor that she is evil. But she has done wrong things, and has been unnecesarily ruthless in the past, and this is one of those things. She has still plenty to learn.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree ;)

Edited by LucyMormont

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LucyMormont

When you say he didn't deserve to die that way are you obecting to him being killed or to being killed by dragon fire?

also, i don't think Jon would have spared him. Jon would have killed small jon umber and harold karstark if he could have. He said so himself. What the Tarlys did was the same.

Now maybe Jon wouldn't have said accept me as your ruler or die? That i agree. He would have said you have committed treason and the penalty for treason is death.

But is it really better to just kill someone for treason instead of giving them a chance to live if they accept you as their ruler? I personally would rather have the choice to bend the knee.

Edited by jcmontea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jcmontea

I am objecting to him being killed because he did not bend the knee to Danaerys Targaryen.

I am not sure whether Jon would have spared  the Tarlys  or not basically because what SmallJon and Harold did was not the same, in the sense that they did not have conflictings oaths to keep, a liege Lord and a King. They only had their oath to the King in the North to keep, and they betrayed that. I agree that Jon would have had Small Jon and Harold  executed,

But the Tarlys are not in the same situation.  In the case of Lord Tarly, he had 2 conflicting loyalties to keep. Here it is pertinent to recall other very alike situations in the past.  When Robb's army needed the Freys to open the gates so they could arrive to Riverun in time, Cat was the one in charge of the negotiation. She first recalls what happend with his father's bannermen in the times of Robert's rebellion:

Quote

The Darrys and Rygers and Mootons had sworn oaths to Riverrun as well, yet they had fought with Rhaegar Targaryen on the Trident... AGOT- Catelyn V

 And why did those bannermen fight with Rhaegar, despite their liege Lord fighting in the opposite side? That was answered by Walder Frey himself

Quote

 

“You swore an oath to my father,” Catelyn reminded him.

He bobbed his head side to side, smiling. “Oh, yes, I said some words, but I swore oaths to the crown too, it seems to me...

AGOT-Catelyn IX

 

This is the situation here for Lord Tarly, he can not win, because if he goes with Ollena against the Crown, he would still be breaking an oath. And I think that Jon would take that into account,  that Randyl Tarly had not a black/white choice to make.  

One could argue that it was Cersei who broke the fealty pact between the Crown and  House Tyrell (it goes both ways), so  they and their bannermen owed nothing to the crown anymore, and it would be a strong argument, but anyway, I charge this to the poor writting and not to the Tarlys.

The other reason I think Jon would have spared them, is that I can not see Jon killing Sam's family, unless he has very good and indisputable reasons, which in this case, he has not.

Edited by LucyMormont

Share this post


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

@jcmontea

I am objecting to him being killed because he did not bend the knee to Danaerys Targaryen.

I am not sure whether Jon would have spared  the Tarlys  or not basically because what SmallJon and Harold did was not the same, in the sense that they did not have conflictings oaths to keep, a liege Lord and a King. They only had their oath to the King in the North to keep, and they betrayed that. I agree that Jon would have had Small Jon and Harold  executed,

But the Tarlys are not in the same situation.  In the case of Lord Tarly, he had 2 conflicting loyalties to keep. Here it is pertinent to recall other very alike situations in the past.  When Robb's army needed the Freys to open the gates so they could arrive to Riverun in time, Cat was the one in charge of the negotiation. She first recalls what happend with his father's bannermen in the times of Robert's rebellion:

 And why did those bannermen fought with Rhaegar, despite their liege Lord fighting in the opposite side? That was answered by Walder Frey himself

This is the situation here for Lord Tarly, he can not win, because if he goes with Ollena against the Crown, he would still be breaking an oath. And I think that Jon would take that into account,  that Randyl Tarly had not a black/white choice to make.  

One could argue that it was Cersei who broke the fealty pact between the Crown and  House Tyrell (it goes both ways), so  they and their bannermen owed nothing to the crown anymore, and it would be a strong argument, but anyway, I charge this to the poor writting and not to the Tarlys.

The other reason I think Jon would have spared them, is that I can not see Jon killing Sam's family, unless he has very good and indisputable reasons, which in this case, he has not.

Technically the Umbers and Karstark's did have conflicting oaths. They had sworn themselves to House Stark. But they also swore themselves to the Crown who named a new Warden in the North - the Boltons, although maybe you could say that the crown was against the Boltons at that point because they married Ramsey to Sansa, but the crown never named a new Warden of the North publicly so as far as they knew the Crown still suported the Boltons.

I don't think Jon would have spared them though by them invoking their loyalty to the crown. 

Edited by jcmontea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, jcmontea said:

Technically the Umbers and Karstark's did have conflicting oaths. They had sworn themselves to House Stark. But they also swore themselves to the Crown who named a new Warden in the North -

No, I don't think they have. No Northen House  owed  any fealty to the Crown,  just from the very moment they declared the North independency by naming a King in the North. Until that moment, some of them could have had conflicting loyalties, but we know that in fact they hadn't, all Northen houses chose to follow Robb,  broke with the Crown (the Iron Throne),  and since then their only oath was to the King in the North.

Edited by LucyMormont

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, LucyMormont said:

No, I don't think they have. No Northen House  owed  any fealty to the Crown,  just from the very moment they declared the North independency by naming a King in the North. Until that moment, some of them could have had conflicting loyalties, but we know that in fact they hadn't, all Northen houses chose to follow Robb,  broke with the Crown (the Iron Throne),  and since then their only oath was to the King in the North.

Sounds like your describing a bunch of oatbreakers who broke their oath to the crown to keep their oath to their liege lord. Then some of those decided to honor their oath to the crown and abandon their old liege lord. 

Umbers and Karstarks could be different from the Tarley's, but its not because they don't having conflicting oaths. 

Edited by jcmontea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, jcmontea said:

Sounds like your describing a bunch of oatbreakers who broke their oath to the crown to keep their oath to their liege lord. Then some of those decided to honor their oath to the crown and abandon their old liege lord. 

Umbers and Karstarks could be different from the Tarley's, but its not because they don't having conflicting oaths. 

 We are off topic in this debate, and I've already said what I had to say, If you can not see th difference,  then there's nothing more I can say. You and I  have two very different takes on this, so we'll have to agree to disagree.  Anyway, it would be very boring if everybody agreed on everything :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jcmontea said:

You should respect the Umbers and Karstarks just as much as the Tarlys. Small Jon betrayed the Starks because Jon Snow brought wildlings over the wall. Pretty similar to why Randly ends up betraying Olena - for bringing Dothraki over.

The Free Folk are refugees. The Dothrakis are invaders, with nothing to do in Westeros.

9 hours ago, MinscS2 said:

Probably for the same reason that I respected Alliser Throne.
Alliser and Randyll were both traitorous assholes, but ultimately they did what they themselves believed to be right, failed in their actions, admitted defeat and stood upright during their executions.

I've seen Ramsey and Throne supporters before. We can't agree on anything.

8 hours ago, jcmontea said:

"There are no easy choices in war" and ultimatley the difference between our good characters and bad ones are how they handle those difficult choices. 

But I can't agree more on that.:thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

I've seen Ramsey and Throne supporters before. We can't agree on anything.

I'm not a Throne-supporter. I just couldn't help but feeling some respect for his decision and how he ultimately faced his death. :)

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0