Daenerys and the Usurper's Other Dogs

[Risha]

She's also convinced that Rhaegar LOVED Lyanna and Lyanna loved him...so consider how she feels about the Starks denying their love, and chasing her brother down for 'following his heart'.

Yes, they're the usurper's dogs, but they're also the family, in her head, that denied her brother his happiness (and life).

She's a young girl - as we're constantly reminded of - and hasn't had time to form many opinions on love, life, and battles...her own love for Drogo grew out of a fairly hairy situation (being sold to a man much older than you), and let's not even get into the Daario situation, so maybe she considers what the Starks did in denying Rhaegar to be just as bad as Robert meeting him on the Trident. She knows what it's like, now, to experience love and loss.

That doesn't make her an idiot, it just means that she has plenty of things going on in her head at once about plenty of people!

Her reaction to stories about Westeros from Barristan and Mormont are a great illustration of her maturing process throughout the books. When she hears about Ned, she is not yet a leader: she is still a lost little girl with big dreams. She reacts just like any child would when told something that doesn't fit into their current world model. Later, in Meereen, she asks Barristan his opinion of Aerys' madness, indicating that she is now open to the idea that perhaps he wasn't all that stable and that Viserys may have had his own biases when it came to their father. Her experience as a leader in Meereen with the Sons of the Harpy has also shown her that there are no "right" answers--no "correct" positions--that everything is a matter of choices and consequences. A leader must make difficult choices, but others may not choose to make those same choices, and often there is no convincing others that your choice is the best. Each must choose his/her own path, and live with the consequences of those choices. A central theme in the books.

E-Ro: If you think the Targs are entirely to blame for everything and that all of the Westerosi history that we've been fed is irrefutable, then you are missing the point of the story entirely. The 'truth" of most of what you cite above is in question.

[Gorubahn]

I definitely noticed that conversation between Barristan and Daenarys. How exactly does she intend to rule Westeros when every major house is just another one of the "usurper's dogs"? Dragons might be good at knocking out infrastructure but then there is the matter of actually RULING the continent which will require more than her fiery lizards. Pretty much the only house that wouldn't be alienated would be the Martells and she kissed that one bye-bye when she turned him away and he ended up dead at the hands of her "children". If she plans to do it with her foreign hosts, I really can't see much time going by before major rebellions start popping up all over the place. That would make her rule akin to a foreign occupation.

Dany doesn't think things through. You can see it again in Slaver's Bay. She steamrolls into this landmass where slavery is their primary source of revenue, followed closely by freaking OLIVES, bans it... and then what? If she leaves then slavery will come back immediately and the freedmen that she was trying to help would be massacred. If she stays then she can forget about returning to Westeros with all her "fire and blood". Not to mention the fact that their economy is in ruins. And then she gets all huffy when a dead child's dragon-burnt bones are delivered to her, but wasn't the plan always to have her dragons raining down death over her enemies' strongholds? Guess what, Dany! Kids will be in there, too!

So no, I don't think it's a stretch to call her an idiot. And this is what we're putting on the Iron Throne?

[Gheimhridh ag teacht]

Her reaction to stories about Westeros from Barristan and Mormont are a great illustration of her maturing process throughout the books. When she hears about Ned, she is not yet a leader: she is still a lost little girl with big dreams. She reacts just like any child would when told something that doesn't fit into their current world model. Later, in Meereen, she asks Barristan his opinion of Aerys' madness, indicating that she is now open to the idea that perhaps he wasn't all that stable and that Viserys may have had his own biases when it came to their father. Her experience as a leader in Meereen with the Sons of the Harpy has also shown her that there are no "right" answers--no "correct" positions--that everything is a matter of choices and consequences. A leader must make difficult choices, but others may not choose to make those same choices, and often there is no convincing others that your choice is the best. Each must choose his/her own path, and live with the consequences of those choices. A central theme in the books.

E-Ro: If you think the Targs are entirely to blame for everything and that all of the Westerosi history that we've been fed is irrefutable, then you are missing the point of the story entirely. The 'truth" of most of what you cite above is in question.

Exactly - every time we hear about something in history it's from a biased point of view...that's not to say that we shouldn't believe the characters to a certain extent, but they are 'unreliable narrators' for the history of their families. Eddard is the only one who admits fault with his family - apart from, perhaps, Tyrion (who even still falls into the belief that being a Lannister means more than it should) - but Ned tells us his brother Brandon's faults, as well as Lyanna's, even though he loves them. Everyone else has something to gain by what they say.

To reduce people's arguments to 'oh, now we're saying the Targs were great' is as bad as just blankedly dismissing Dany as crazy...there's way more going on in her story than she's given credit for.

And the question was about Dany, and what she believes. She's becoming more open to the fact, now, that her father was not the great man she thought he might have been, as well as Rhaegar - it's taken her a long time to get there because she hasn't had the benefit of hearing everyone else's point of view, like we have.

I have found Dany quite boring the last while, but the more I read of her, the more fascinating she becomes. She's built a wall around her that's slowly being chipped away - even the power she assumed would be rightfully hers with her dragons is becoming less likely.

It's only going to get better! ;-)

[Chaircat Meow]

Seriously? Now we have people claiming the targs were right? This is a new low. Rhaegar kidnapped a woman who was to be married, Brandon called him on it and Aerys had him his father and all their companions killed. He then called for Ned and Robert to be killed for no reason. It is also widely known that Aerys was mad. Unless you consider every single source of Information on the subject inaccurate.

Devil's advocate hat.

Is it ever said Aerys had no pretext whatsoever for this? I can't recall the incident was ever described in detail.

Presumably he accused Brandon and Rickard of treason and conspiracy, else why offer Rickard a trial, even if only to make a mockery of it. Aerys had long known Rickard may have been planning to depose him. We hear that Varys told Aerys the HH tourney was being used to allow Rhaegar to meet with the great lords, to drum up consent to do something about Aerys. Aerys acted to preempt this by going himself. So, for a while before the Brandon incident Aerys knew his lords were after him and was trying to nip the threat in the bud. We also know Rickard had southern ambitions and was constructing powerful alliances with the Tullys and Baratheons. After he killed Rickard and Brandon Aerys tries to bully Jon into surrendering the only other capable Stark male (Benjen is still too young) and the Baratheon lord whom he has reason to believe Rickard was trying to ally with. It seems reasonable to suppose Aerys actually suspects these two of collusion with the traitorous Rickard and/or thinks they will start a revolt anyway when they hear what he did in KL. We also don't know whether there was a trial, like Ned performed when ordering Gregor killed. Aerys was still a legal judge at this time, so for all we know the demand for heads could have been legal. Sooo ... in conclusion I don't think it is that clear cut or that Aerys could be said to be acting for no reason.

Hat removed.

[Kosh Naranek]

_{Duskendale - Everyone knows that Aerys was not right after that point in time. The confinement and treason obviously shook him to his core and sent him down a slippery slope. If he had not been on a donward spiral (something his oldest child even seems to acknowledge) then I could accept his actions.}

_{Does a reasonable ruler have a man choke himself to death while slowly roasting his father? If Rickard and Brandon were guilty of treason by his judgment, execute them. His very penchant for cruelty is something that needs to be noticed. (I also fault Stannis for the burnings. - In my mind it is a singularly cruel way to kill anyone.)}

_{I don't think the rebellion is a cut and dry good vs. evil story. I think they all made choices and mistakes that led to the Targaryens being ousted.}

_{1. Rhaegar ran off with/abducted the daughter of the Warden of the North. (No one disputes that the chick was missing.)}

_{2. Rhaegar never appeared until Robert and his forces had joined up. (It takes a long time to marshal forces and march. Why did he not try to nip it in the bud before?)}

_{3. Brandon's storming up to the Red Keep was a massive folly. Only an idiot would threaten the crown prince of an unstable ruler in that fashion.}

_{4. What if Jon Arryn did not love Ned and Robert like sons?}

_{5. What if Jon Connington has just burnt the place to the ground and slew those fleeing like rats?}

_{I could go on....}

_{I think they all contributed to the final outcome. Dany needs to learn as much as she can from all sources, and I am not just talking about the rebellion.}

_{She needs to learn from M. You can't charge into a society and start implementing changes from the top down without understanding how the society works. Plus, you need a clear plan of action. If you are taking out the old, how do you replace it?}

_{If she learns from M, I shall re-evaluate her. Right now - I declare her a disaster for Westeros. Woe to the people if she lands.}

[Mulled Wino]

Devil's advocate hat.

Is it ever said Aerys had no pretext whatsoever for this? I can't recall the incident was ever described in detail.

Presumably he accused Brandon and Rickard of treason and conspiracy, else why offer Rickard a trial, even if only to make a mockery of it. Aerys had long known Rickard may have been planning to depose him. We hear that Varys told Aerys the HH tourney was being used to allow Rhaegar to meet with the great lords, to drum up consent to do something about Aerys. Aerys acted to preempt this by going himself. So, for a while before the Brandon incident Aerys knew his lords were after him and was trying to nip the threat in the bud. We also know Rickard had southern ambitions and was constructing powerful alliances with the Tullys and Baratheons. After he killed Rickard and Brandon Aerys tries to bully Jon into surrendering the only other capable Stark male (Benjen is still too young) and the Baratheon lord whom he has reason to believe Rickard was trying to ally with. It seems reasonable to suppose Aerys actually suspects these two of collusion with the traitorous Rickard and/or thinks they will start a revolt anyway when they hear what he did in KL. We also don't know whether there was a trial, like Ned performed when ordering Gregor killed. Aerys was still a legal judge at this time, so for all we know the demand for heads could have been legal. Sooo ... in conclusion I don't think it is that clear cut or that Aerys could be said to be acting for no reason.

Hat removed.

If this were just an isolated incident, I would like your point.

[Independent George]

Here's the hypothetical I use when evaluating Dany.

Suppose there were a granddaughter of Idi Amin living in exile in Europe. Suppose this granddaughter proves to be smart, industrious, and humane. And suppose Uganda underwent another massive civil just as she finishes her first year at University, and she returns to her home country to try and unify the warring factions and bring peace to her homeland.

Does it make her more, or less of a leader if she immediately starts spouting off about the Usurpers' dogs? Do you think better of her, or worse, if she acts humanely while talking about her rights as the descendant of Idi Amin?

[Gheimhridh ag teacht]

Here's the hypothetical I use when evaluating Dany.

Suppose there were a granddaughter of Idi Amin living in exile in Europe. Suppose this granddaughter proves to be smart, industrious, and humane. And suppose Uganda underwent another massive civil just as she finishes her first year at University, and she returns to her home country to try and unify the warring factions and bring peace to her homeland.

Does it make her more, or less of a leader if she immediately starts spouting off about the Usurpers' dogs? Do you think better of her, or worse, if she acts humanely while talking about her rights as the descendant of Idi Amin?

But your hypothetical is based on a world where information is freely distributed - newspapers, internet, etc. - and people are aware of her place in the lineage.

The Westerosi, as Jorah pointed out, don't care who's in charge as long as the kingdom is peaceful. The last time the kingdom was truly peaceful, for the commoners, was when the Targs were in charge.

I think the dragons are what makes her stand out to the smallfolk, who would see that as epic and fantastical - and so support her taking over - and her bloodline makes her claim stronger based on her 'right' to the throne in the eyes of noble-men and women.

Remember, Robert was terrified of her CLAIM, not of her being a mad Targ...

[Dunk tha Lunk]

Thats a very good question also it realy doesnot matter anymore because do be frank there are hardly any tullys and arryns left in power...

or Starks or Baratheons ......

[Arland]

_{She needs to learn from M. You can't charge into a society and start implementing changes from the top down without understanding how the society works. Plus, you need a clear plan of action. If you are taking out the old, how do you replace it?}

Please reread ASOS chapters, describing Slaver's Bay type of slavery. Sometimes old is soo awfull that anything else is better. Dany was completely right to do what she did, and if I were in her place I (hopefully) would have done the same, even knowing the price.

[E-Ro]

So let me get this straight, eddard, Robert, baristan,catelyn, cercei, and every other charrcterised that ever made a comment or had a thought about Roberts rebellion is lying? And we even have povs were they think about it are they lying to themselves? Whenever Ned thinks about the rebellion he is not thinking of what really happened? What? That is a massive conspiracy. I guess honorable Ned was not so honorable after all. And baristan, what's your argument for what he says on the matter? The targa have no one to blame for Roberts rebellion but themselves. Rhaegar stole lyanna and thought he could get away with it, but he didn't. The Starks called him on it so he had them killed in a brutal horrible way. Jon arryn stood up for what was right and the targs got what was coming to them. There is no huge conspiracy involving every single person that lives in westeros, I understand you might like the targs but you must admit when they were at fault. The family has a history of violence and torture, why many feel the need to make random things up to whitewash them is odd, and disturbing.

Eta spelling sorry.

[Gheimhridh ag teacht]

So let me get this straight, eddard, Robert, baristan,catelyn, cercei, and every other charrcterised that ever made a comment or had a thought about Roberts rebellion is lying? And we even have povs were they think about it are they lying to themselves? Whenever Ned thinks about the rebellion he is not thinking of what really happened? What? That is a massive conspiracy. I guess honorable Ned was not so honorable after all. And baristan, what's your argument for what he says on the matter? The targa have no one to blame for Roberts rebellion but themselves. Rhaegar stole lyanna and thought he could get away with it, but he didn't. The Starks called him on it so he had them killed in a brutal horrible way. Jon arryn stood up for what was right and the targs got what was coming to them. There is no huge conspiracy involving every single person that lives in westeros, I understand you might like the targs but you must admit when they were at fault. The family has a history of violence and torture, why many feel the need to make random things up to whitewash them is odd, and disturbing.

Eta spelling sorry.

I think that may be a bit of an overreaction - certainly to what I said. I never pretend to love the Targs, I'm just saying that Dany is going on a set of information that is different to what we get. And even the information WE get is tainted by the fact that everyone wants to paint themselves well in battle.

Just look at the recent findings for the JFT96 campaigns in Liverpool - 23 years of everyone being SURE that Liverpool fans had been at fault, then suddenly it's shown the authorities were the ones at fault. This kind of thing happens all the time - we believe what we read in the papers, and so we're believing what we read in the books, from so many different characters, forgetting that they have their own agenda too.

I'm not saying the Targs were great and Robert had no reason to rebel, I'm saying that we have to take the history of Westeros as told to us by the characters with a grain of salt...and question things a bit more, and look beneath the surface.

After all, I started out thinking for sure that Rhaegar had raped Lyanna, and Robert was her saviour...now I'm not so certain, and have begun to question the whole thing.

That's the frustration of being told things through characters' point of view - but it's also the joy of it aswell. Otherwise, why would forums like this exist?!?!

[Chaircat Meow]

So let me get this straight, eddard, Robert, baristan,catelyn, cercei, and every other charrcterised that ever made a comment or had a thought about Roberts rebellion is lying? And we even have povs were they think about it are they lying to themselves? Whenever Ned thinks about the rebellion he is not thinking of what really happened? What? That is a massive conspiracy. I guess honorable Ned was not so honorable after all. And baristan, what's your argument for what he says on the matter? The targa have no one to blame for Roberts rebellion but themselves. Rhaegar stole lyanna and thought he could get away with it, but he didn't. The Starks called him on it so he had them killed in a brutal horrible way. Jon arryn stood up for what was right and the targs got what was coming to them. There is no huge conspiracy involving every single person that lives in westeros, I understand you might like the targs but you must admit when they were at fault. The family has a history of violence and torture, why many feel the need to make random things up to whitewash them is odd, and disturbing.

Eta spelling sorry.

Eh. All I said was Aerys did have some reason to suspect Rickard was out to get him. I'm not arguing the judgments he might have made, say, about the hostility towards his house inherent in the Stark-Tully-Baratheon match-ups, were justified. Aerys was paranoid and delusional. But are you denying the lords wanted to meet at HH to discuss removing him? I can't recall the location of the quote now but I'm not making things up. Are you also denying Rickard had southron ambitions, whatever that might mean and was connecting himself by marriage to the house that had the best claim aside from the direct Targ line (the Baratheons)? I wasn't saying I support Aerys though, just questioning your claim that there was no reason at all behind his actions and that they had to be, as a result, a product of utter madness and derangement. The truth is we do lack details about exactly what was going among the high lords at this time, and we got some hints in DwD. Yet there are loads of things we don't know such as: what was said between Rickard and Aerys, what rumours Varys brought to the ears of the king, how advanced the plot was to put Rhaegar in Aerys' place or even what Aerys thought Rhaegar was doing with Lyanna. Did he assume he was trying to break a threatening dynastic alliance and foil the plans of his enemies?

None of this speculation contradicts anything Ned or Barristan say as far as I can see.

Edit: Um, just realized your comment might not have been directed at me. Was it?

[E-Ro]

Sorry if I'm not being clear enough guys. I am on a phone and its hard for me to properly quote and respond to everyone. I understand what you guys are saying, what I am saying is that Danny's source of information on the subject,her insane brother, could not possibly have an accurate version of what happened considering he is insane and was so young when it a happened.Also he is hardly an unbiased source. Dany has not heard the story from anyone other then her brother. The rebels version might be changed to better suit them but Danny's version is definetly not correct. Sorry if I'm not being clear, I will be back later to better explain things.

[Chaircat Meow]

I understand what you guys are saying, what I am saying is that Danny's source of information on the subject,her insane brother, could not possibly have an accurate version of what happened considering he is insane and was so young when it a happened.Also he is hardly an unbiased source. Dany has not heard the story from anyone other then her brother. The rebels version might be changed to better suit them but Danny's version is definetly not correct.

I've got no argument with that.

[Gheimhridh ag teacht]

Sorry if I'm not being clear enough guys. I am on a phone and its hard for me to properly quote and respond to everyone. I understand what you guys are saying, what I am saying is that Danny's source of information on the subject,her insane brother, could not possibly have an accurate version of what happened considering he is insane and was so young when it a happened.Also he is hardly an unbiased source. Dany has not heard the story from anyone other then her brother. The rebels version might be changed to better suit them but Danny's version is definetly not correct. Sorry if I'm not being clear, I will be back later to better explain things.

I've got no argument with that.

Ditto! Just clarifying my own position...and actually, Bran the Cute, we might be coming across as a little paranoid here...! ;-)

:grouphug:

[Kosh Naranek]

_{Please reread ASOS chapters, describing Slaver's Bay type of slavery. Sometimes old is soo awfull that anything else is better. Dany was completely right to do what she did, and if I were in her place I (hopefully) would have done the same, even knowing the price.}

_{I am not saying that she was wrong for ending slavery. Geesh! I applaude her for that. Rather, I am pointing out that she had no clear plan of action. She decided on her course of action in Slaver's Bay after one night. Ending slavery is laudable. I agree.}

_{However, if she heads into Westeros willy nilly it will probably end badly there as well.}

[SeanF]

Aerys had certainly proved his unfitness to rule, prior to the rebellion, however much self-justification there may be on the part of those involved in the rebellion.

After Duskendale, he didn't just revenge himself on his captor, but wiped out his entire family. And that revenge involved ripping out his wife's tongue, breasts, and private parts with pincers, and then burning her alive. He thought that Rhaegar was plotting against him, and then burned Rickard Stark in his armour, while slowly strangling Brandon.

Then, during the rebellion, he planned to burn the entire population of King's Landing with wildfire. He burned Lord Chelstead for opposing this. We know this to be true, rather than rebel propaganda, because of the vision that Daenerys had in the House of the Undying.

[Nuncle Kraken]

So far I've heard Dany's advisors called "cravenly", and "spineless". lmao. If part of your reasoning involves Ser Barristan Selmy being either, you're doing it wrong.

[Chaircat Meow]

Then, during the rebellion, he planned to burn the entire population of King's Landing with wildfire. He burned Lord Chelstead for opposing this. We know this to be true, rather than rebel propaganda, because of the vision that Daenerys had in the House of the Undying.

When was Chelstead Hand? Was he the last hand before Rossart, who was only hand for a couple of weeks? Cos Ned doesn't know about the wildfire did he (which I always thought a bit strange) so it seems like it could be something Aerys came up with as a last desperate piece of folly, not a long term contingency plan everyone knew of.