Dany was smart to crucify some of the Mereen slave masters; but she did it the wrong way.

[Varysblackfyre321]

Let me, explain, conquerors often enacted sever punishment on those who'd refused to surrender as reason for their next opponent to surrender.

If Dany had kept conqueroring the cities of slaver's bay, the crucifixions could be a natural deterrent for any mistreatment of slaves to rile her up(whatever they inflict if they lose will be repaid), and may coax them to be more willing to surrender all together.

But she didn't.

That was dumb.

She did it sloppily too.

The practical thing wouldve been to wait a week and do some investigating on who exactly is likely to war to resit.

Than she could crucify all those warmongers, and work with those who have the sense to obey or at least don't have the balls to disobey.

[Stormking902]

I say she did the right thing not politically of course but still the right thing those slavers are all worthless scum who profit off the slavery of men, woman and children Danny is just ridding her new city of the scum that live there. 

[Tygett Lannister]

1 hour ago, Stormking902 said:

I say she did the right thing not politically of course but still the right thing those slavers are all worthless scum who profit off the slavery of men, woman and children Danny is just ridding her new city of the scum that live there. 

They were born into this position, it is part of their culture.

[The Sunland Lord]

163 for 163. That's justice.

[Tygett Lannister]

3 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

163 for 163. That's justice.

Justice is overrated.

[The Sunland Lord]

3 minutes ago, Tygett Lannister said:

Justice is overrated.

It might be, but the numbers still check.

 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

It may be that the slave masters deserved to die, and certainly from the perspective of those who abhor slavery that is the case, but it's not the only issue. One of the problems with acts of violence isn't just that it dehumanizes your opponents, but that it dehumanizes you. This is particularly problematic when discussing those with absolute power. Dany has the power of life and death over people in Meereen, and will do over those in the 7K if she wins. If she becomes accustomed to going on vengeful rampages once seizing power, this could lead to all sorts of abuses on her part. On a pragmatic basis, it could also harden opposition against her, or encourage those who fight against her to keep fighting, as they may not expect mercy.

There are all sorts of examples of regimes in history that start off killing the "right" people, i.e. those you could legitimately argue have it coming, but then continue to meet all opposition in that manner, as it has become "a habit" as it were. 

[cpg2016]

4 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

It might be, but the numbers still check.

 

An eye for an eye isn't justice.  Besides, the slavers were guilty of far more, and far worse, than 163 crucifixions.

Daenerys should have culled the entire slaver class, completely redistributed their wealth to the freed slaves, and actually empowered whoever she left behind to rule by leaving them with the ability to wield military force.

Dany's story isn't real-world imperialism.  It's historical analogue is American Reconstruction after the Civil War, where the Union nominally stripped the slavers of their power and enfranchised the slaves, but didn't actually economically empower them, or in fact break the basis of the slaveholding plantation system.  And once they withdrew federal military force, the KKK starts up (a.k.a. the Sons of the Harpy) and immediately begins terrorizing the nascent freedman population into becoming effective slaves once again, which happens extremely rapidly, much as it does in Slavers Bay.

[Dorian Martell's son]

9 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Let me, explain, conquerors often enacted sever punishment on those who'd refused to surrender as reason for their next opponent to surrender.

If Dany had kept conqueroring the cities of slaver's bay, the crucifixions could be a natural deterrent for any mistreatment of slaves to rile her up(whatever they inflict if they lose will be repaid), and may coax them to be more willing to surrender all together.

But she didn't.

That was dumb.

She did it sloppily too.

The practical thing wouldve been to wait a week and do some investigating on who exactly is likely to war to resit.

Than she could crucify all those warmongers, and work with those who have the sense to obey or at least don't have the balls to disobey.

Of course, but if you rewrite her you might as well write your own novels where the 15 year old queen with dragons and junk-less warriors does not make any mistakes. What will you call the book? 

[Traverys]

13 hours ago, Tygett Lannister said:

They were born into this position, it is part of their culture.

Yeah, I hate that this kind of opinion is often interpreted as a "pro slavery" position when it's not. When she orders the death of any male in a tokar above 12 in Astapor... that's plenty of innocent people who have no political or economic say in their society. Some may have one day sought to change the way their society functioned, but she ended that chance for them. I consider that just as "evil" as treating men and women like cattle.

“Slay the Good Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under twelve, and strike the chains off every slave you see.”.

More than just the Good Masters wore tokars.

The red brick streets of Astapor were almost crowded this morning. Slaves and servants lined the ways, while the slavers and their women donned their tokars to look down from their stepped pyramids.

and:

All wrapped themselves in tokars, a garment permitted only to freeborn men of Astapor.

It becomes a bit ironic when she herself dons tokars as her "floppy ears" when it was a condemnable act shortly before.

Anyways, to the topic at hand: I don't necessarily think crucifying an equal number of masters as revenge was the wisest move. But Daenerys has a (often righteous) temper and it's completely faithful to her characterization. I gave up on woulda, coulda, shouldas a long time ago because they are everywhere in the text.

[Ralphis Baratheon]

It seems like If you want to stop slavery in a region called "Slaver's Bay" your going to have your work cut out for you, no matter how smart or powerful you are. On top of that you have the whole Valyrian Dragon lord vs Ghiscari feud from thousands of years ago. It was never going to easy for Daenerys no matter what she did.

 

[GallowsKnight]

15 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

163 for 163. That's justice.

It's revenge, which can be a form of justice but it's not pure justice.

But 163 for 163 is sloppy, it means most likely one of two things, she executed "innocents" (innocent of the Crucifixions, not of the shitty culture) to make up the numbers or she let people off.

Westerosi justice would be finding the specific people who ordered the crucifixions of the children and those who carried out the crucifixions and executing them. Rope for the commoners, axe for the highborn. If this means only executing 40 people or executing more like 400 so be it. 

In Modern standards collective punishment is a war-crime which is what she did.

[Tygett Lannister]

11 hours ago, Traverys said:

Yeah, I hate that this kind of opinion is often interpreted as a "pro slavery" position when it's not. When she orders the death of any male in a tokar above 12 in Astapor... that's plenty of innocent people who have no political or economic say in their society. Some may have one day sought to change the way their society functioned, but she ended that chance for them. I consider that just as "evil" as treating men and women like cattle.

“Slay the Good Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under twelve, and strike the chains off every slave you see.”.

More than just the Good Masters wore tokars.

The red brick streets of Astapor were almost crowded this morning. Slaves and servants lined the ways, while the slavers and their women donned their tokars to look down from their stepped pyramids.

and:

All wrapped themselves in tokars, a garment permitted only to freeborn men of Astapor.

It becomes a bit ironic when she herself dons tokars as her "floppy ears" when it was a condemnable act shortly before.

Anyways, to the topic at hand: I don't necessarily think crucifying an equal number of masters as revenge was the wisest move. But Daenerys has a (often righteous) temper and it's completely faithful to her characterization. I gave up on woulda, coulda, shouldas a long time ago because they are everywhere in the text.

Thing is Dany is acting like a huge bigot. It is like you would invade muslim world and punish men because of how they treat their women. Then call it justice.

[The Sunland Lord]

9 hours ago, GallowsKnight said:

It's revenge, which can be a form of justice but it's not pure justice.

But 163 for 163 is sloppy, it means most likely one of two things, she executed "innocents" (innocent of the Crucifixions, not of the shitty culture) to make up the numbers or she let people off.

Westerosi justice would be finding the specific people who ordered the crucifixions of the children and those who carried out the crucifixions and executing them. Rope for the commoners, axe for the highborn. If this means only executing 40 people or executing more like 400 so be it. 

In Modern standards collective punishment is a war-crime which is what she did.

I think the author wants to emphasize the equality thing, since the matter is Slavers vs Slaves. It's symbolic. That's why it was 163=163.

By no means I think Daenerys is a perfect ruler, but this act alone is not unjust. 

In modern days even the more honourable Westerosi war commanders would end on a defendant's bench. What we call "good guys" would get a twenty years easily in Hague, for example. 

 

 

[Tygett Lannister]

8 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

By no means I think Daenerys is a perfect ruler, but this act alone is not unjust. 

It is unjust, those slavers weren't the ones that ordered slaves being crucified

[Lucius Lovejoy]

On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 8:27 AM, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

It may be that the slave masters deserved to die, and certainly from the perspective of those who abhor slavery that is the case, but it's not the only issue. One of the problems with acts of violence isn't just that it dehumanizes your opponents, but that it dehumanizes you. This is particularly problematic when discussing those with absolute power. Dany has the power of life and death over people in Meereen, and will do over those in the 7K if she wins. If she becomes accustomed to going on vengeful rampages once seizing power, this could lead to all sorts of abuses on her part. On a pragmatic basis, it could also harden opposition against her, or encourage those who fight against her to keep fighting, as they may not expect mercy.

There are all sorts of examples of regimes in history that start off killing the "right" people, i.e. those you could legitimately argue have it coming, but then continue to meet all opposition in that manner, as it has become "a habit" as it were. 

This is one of the reasons I long believed the Danerys would end up as the primary antagonist at the end of the series.  One can even argue her crusade against slavery is as much about her playing out a revenge fantasy for being sold to Khal Drogo.

13 hours ago, Traverys said:

Yeah, I hate that this kind of opinion is often interpreted as a "pro slavery" position when it's not. When she orders the death of any male in a tokar above 12 in Astapor... that's plenty of innocent people who have no political or economic say in their society. Some may have one day sought to change the way their society functioned, but she ended that chance for them. I consider that just as "evil" as treating men and women like cattle.

“Slay the Good Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under twelve, and strike the chains off every slave you see.”.

More than just the Good Masters wore tokars.

The red brick streets of Astapor were almost crowded this morning. Slaves and servants lined the ways, while the slavers and their women donned their tokars to look down from their stepped pyramids.

and:

All wrapped themselves in tokars, a garment permitted only to freeborn men of Astapor.

It becomes a bit ironic when she herself dons tokars as her "floppy ears" when it was a condemnable act shortly before.

Anyways, to the topic at hand: I don't necessarily think crucifying an equal number of masters as revenge was the wisest move. But Daenerys has a (often righteous) temper and it's completely faithful to her characterization. I gave up on woulda, coulda, shouldas a long time ago because they are everywhere in the text.

Extremely well put.

1 hour ago, Tygett Lannister said:

Thing is Dany is acting like a huge bigot. It is like you would invade muslim world and punish men because of how they treat their women. Then call it justice.

I'm totally on board with @Tygett Lannister here.  Moral truth, even if absolute, is not always self-evident.  Moral truth may be revealed in many ways - it is unfair to expect that someone who has never been exposed to such a truth is hesitant to understand or accept it immediately.

[Traverys]

5 hours ago, Lucius Lovejoy said:

I'm totally on board with @Tygett Lannister here.  Moral truth, even if absolute, is not always self-evident.  Moral truth may be revealed in many ways - it is unfair to expect that someone who has never been exposed to such a truth is hesitant to understand or accept it immediately.

We see this most evidently when a butcher usurps the council of three Daenerys left to rule (claiming they were going to re-enslave everyone) and then rounds up all the highborn boys to make new unsullied... she broke the rule of the Masters over slaves, but slavery is all their culture knows so it just comes back with different people on top. It's a fundamental misinterpretation of human nature and the influence of culture, and I don't necessarily think she learned from that lesson as she repeats it again and again.

In Meereen she's successful in ending slavery there because she sticks around and uses her dragons and army as a stick to shake at those that oppose her... but it clearly was much more difficult of a transition than she bargained for.

People often say that this is just Daenerys learning to rule in Slaver's Bay, but I think that's an optimistic interpretation. If I put myself in her shoes I would interpret it as Daenerys learning to be a tad more like Tywin: there can be no half measures. In the future, if she doesn't want to struggle to enforce her rule, laws, and beliefs like she had to in Meereen, she will need to wipe out those that would oppose her. Not just a few of them.

Not saying I agree with her methods and brand of "justice," but 163 Masters was not enough if she wants to assert herself quickly. It's Machiavellian, obviously. The slaves are the working class, the slave owners are the class that maintained the cultural status quo (i.e., slaves). Want to get rid of the cultural status quo? "Kill the masters."

Is this in tune with her characterization? That's obviously up for each person to decide. I would say yes. She often steels herself to be a "dragon," and she can see firsthand how merciless dragons can be to those they don't see as friends. She has quite a temper when opposed or defied, though she's not the only one in Planetos with this trait. I think the fundamental error she'll make in Westeros is that she will treat Westerosi highborn like they were Essosi slavers. She's not looking to make as dramatic of a change that she did in Slaver's Bay, but the lessons she's learned there will likely have her choose to do things that are fairly common and normal in Essos, but barbaric and horrifying in Westeros.

[Skahaz mo Kandaq]

The men who were crucified were guilty of nailing children to crosses.  It is just punishment. 

I don't believe anything short of death will deter the slavers because practicing slavery is something they hold dear in their wicked hearts.  More of those wicked people should have been executed.  Not nearly enough were executed.

The only mistake that Dany made is being too soft.  She freed the slaves but allowed the old masters to keep the ability to fight back.  They kept their resources.  That's similar to cutting the weed but leaving the roots intact. 

Here's what I would have done.

1. Execute a significant percentage of the masters over a certain age.  Say 25% of all the masters over the age of 12.  Castrate all the remaining males.
2. Confiscate all of the wealth from the masters.  All of it. 
3. Destroy the culture. 

The masters have enjoyed the benefits of slaving for thousand of years.  There are no innocents, only volunteers.  Slavery is more than a business and source of wealth.  Owning slaves is status and it is part of the sadistic culture that those monsters cherish.  Trying to play nice with them is not going to work.  Don't just pull the weeds above the ground.  Pull everything down to the roots.  That means destroying the culture. 

 

[Skahaz mo Kandaq]

13 hours ago, Tygett Lannister said:

It is unjust, those slavers weren't the ones that ordered slaves being crucified

Those masters were guilty and have been guilty all of their lives.  It is justice. 

[Darth Sidious]

The sins of the Meereenese are so great stretching back to their early days that Dany is fully justified if she passed judgment and did to them what God did to Sodom and Gommorah.  Slaving is not just stealing away someone's freedom and making them work for free.  The fighting pits are hell.  The plaza of punishment is a place of pain, torture, and death.  The temptation to reduce that hellish city to ashes is tempting but there will be nowhere to go.  Mass execution of the master class is the second best move and what I would counsel to do.