Will Bravos be pro or anti Dany?

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

To entertain what you are saying about her legalizing slavery.

Even if thats true, it doesn't erase what she did and how many slaves she freed.

Your saying ending slavery in less than a year didn't work so she made it legal, she still did something to try to stop it, and clearly news of that reached across the continent, they know about Slavers Bay.

Clearly she didn't legalize slavery because she wants people to have slaves

For them to still think she's a dirty rotten slaver after that is very unlikely to me.

It doesn't matter her intentions. She legalized slavery. It is true. It's in the book.

It doesn't matter how many slaves you free if you still allow or create new slavery. If you legalize slavery, you are not anti-slavery. You're whatever is most convenient for you to get what you want.

The problem is she did stop slavery in less than one year. She ended slavery in Mereen. It worked. Then, she legalized it. She brought slavery back to Mereen which undercuts any anti-slavery cred she had. She didn't have to. It didn't solve the problem of people being too poor to eat.

And the Braavosi will hear about that too. That kinda kills any momentum from the hardliners. I do want to point out since your post was a response to me that I personally have not said that they would oppose Dany for being a slaver or even having dragons. I just stated the opposite is also not true. They would see too many questionable things (such legalizing slavery or allowing the market) to get the hardliners to push Braavos into a war that they have no interest in joining. My opinion is that with the exception of the Iron Bank which has chosen to side with Stannis for now Braavos will be neutral.

EDIT: I actually could see Braavos siding with Dany if she takes the war to Voltense. I just think it would more real politik than Dany getting support for being anti-slavery.

A note: SPOILERS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NOT READ THROUGH DoD

Bravos was formed by slaves. Dany frees slaves, for the most part. Within Meereen she has stopped the slave trade, much like the Bravosi did. Though she is the blood of Valyria of old, she is also of westeros, where there are no slaves. She has been sold as a slave, so on principle, they would not oppose her.

Let's consider some other forces at work in Bravos.

The temple of Black and White may oppose her. They give the "gift." They feel what they do is the word of the gods, as far as we can tell from Ayra's chapters. If there is corruption within their ranks, though, or if someone seeks to give the "gift" to her at great sacrifice, they may attempt to slay her. Dany, though, has dragons. If she surrounds herself with them, they will be able to tell who is false and she need not worry. After the poisoning attempt, she will doubtlessly have a taster. Killing her would be incredibly difficult if they were to attempt it.

The Iron Bank will oppose her as long as Stannis Lives. Stannis will give the Iron Bank it's due. He is just, and will see it as his duty to settle the iron throne's debts. They will give Stannis the coin to become King of Westeros. And he has a daughter. He could give his poor daughter to the flames to bring dany low. It seems unlikely that Mel will do this for him. The Temple of Black and White may grant his wish.

The Sealord of Bravos will not oppose her. This one is contigent on whether she tries to take bravos with fire and blood, which seems unlikely that dany would be that foolish. She gains nothing by fighting the bravosi. They are not slavers as the ghiscari are, nor are they a free city that trades in slaves. They have no conflict, and trade would prosper if the seven kingdoms were brought to peace, the sealord will not bestir himself. His actual power is hard to determine.

One might also include the red temple at bravos, but it seems unlikely they have the power to do anything.

Woo, first post!

Welcome to the board.

Quick note, you do not have to give any spoiler warnings for the first five books. Any Winds of Winter spoiler chapters of course must be put into spoiler brackets.

[DaarioKnowsBest]

So Dany didn't completely end slavery in Essos, I don't think that destroys any anti slavery credibility.

Nobody else ended slavery in the Bay, Stannis didn't stop it, neither did anybody in Braavos.

Dany is the one who did by FAR the most to stop it.

I'm not arguing that Braavos will love her for being against slavery, I'm saying that how Slavers Bay played out doesn't destroy her credibility in being against slavery, it certainly doesn't send a message that she will institute slavery into a place where slavery is already illegal like Westeros or Braavos.

And I don't think people there will have a fear or not align with her because they think she is a slaver.

Again I'm not saying her efforts against slavery will make anyone in Braavos support her.

I'm saying that nobody will be against her because they think she's a slaver

[Jackbelucky]

By the way let us not forget that Aegon the Conqueror brought Balerion to kick Volantene ass before the conquest. He sided with Tyrosh and Pentos. Although no intervention of Braavos in this conflict is mentioned, we know that Doran made a contract to marry Arianne to Viserys in Braavos, which is witnessed by the sealord. Doran is also a close friend of the Archon of Tyrosh. That is why I assume that Braavos will be in the anti-Volantene leauge.

The sealord who witnessed the contract is dead, as is Viserys. What would the bravosi gain by crushing the volantenes, something that Dany will do before her march west without their aid?

[Jackbelucky]

So Dany didn't completely end slavery in Essos, I don't think that destroys any anti slavery credibility.

Nobody else ended slavery in the Bay, Stannis didn't stop it, neither did anybody in Braavos.

Dany is the one who did by FAR the most to stop it.

I'm not arguing that Braavis will love her for being against slavery, I'm saying that how Slavers Bay played out doesn't destroy her credibility in being against slavery, it certainly doesn't send a message that she will institute slavery into a place where slavery is already illegal like Westeros or Braavos.

And I don't think people there will have a fear or not align with her because they think she is a slaver.

Agreed, but just by virtue of not being a slaver, do you think the sealord will send his swords to fight for her? Some may join voluntarily, but there will be no "call to banners," especially with the Iron bank supporting stannis.

[DaarioKnowsBest]

Agreed, but just by virtue of not being a slaver, do you think the sealord will send his swords to fight for her? Some may join voluntarily, but there will be no "call to banners," especially with the Iron bank supporting stannis.

I really don't think her slavery stance and history will sway Braavos in either way of support or resistance.

The dragons though, I can see being a red flag for the Braavosi. But I'm not totally convinced of that like some people are.

The dragons could sway Braavos to make deals with her just as easy as they could make them fight against her imo

I don't think Braavos will send its own army for any of it.

[Jackbelucky]

It doesn't matter her intentions. She legalized slavery. It is true. It's in the book.

It doesn't matter how many slaves you free if you still allow or create new slavery. If you legalize slavery, you are not anti-slavery. You're whatever is most convenient for you to get what you want.

The problem is she did stop slavery in less than one year. She ended slavery in Mereen. It worked. Then, she legalized it. She brought slavery back to Mereen which undercuts any anti-slavery cred she had. She didn't have to. It didn't solve the problem of people being too poor to eat.

And the Braavosi will hear about that too. That kinda kills any momentum from the hardliners. I do want to point out since your post was a response to me that I personally have not said that they would oppose Dany for being a slaver or even having dragons. I just stated the opposite is also not true. They would see too many questionable things (such legalizing slavery or allowing the market) to get the hardliners to push Braavos into a war that they have no interest in joining. My opinion is that with the exception of the Iron Bank which has chosen to side with Stannis for now Braavos will be neutral.

EDIT: I actually could see Braavos siding with Dany if she takes the war to Voltense. I just think it would more real politik than Dany getting support for being anti-slavery.

Welcome to the board.

Quick note, you do not have to give any spoiler warnings for the first five books. Any Winds of Winter spoiler chapters of course must be put into spoiler brackets.

I haven't spoiler anything from words of winter in this post, but that you for clarification. I couldn't glean current code of conduct from my lurkings.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

1 So Dany didn't completely end slavery in Essos, I don't think that destroys any anti slavery credibility.

2 Nobody else ended slavery in the Bay, Stannis didn't stop it, neither did anybody in Braavos.

Dany is the one who did by FAR the most to stop it.

I'm not arguing that Braavos will love her for being against slavery, 3 I'm saying that how Slavers Bay played out doesn't destroy her credibility in being against slavery, 4 it certainly doesn't send a message that she will institute slavery into a place where slavery is already illegal like Westeros or Braavos.

And I don't think people there will have a fear or not align with her because they think she is a slaver.

Again I'm not saying her efforts against slavery will make anyone in Braavos support her.

I'm saying that nobody will be against her because they think she's a slaver

1. Please read and respond to what I actually say. I never said anything about ending slavery all over Essos. I was specifically talking about a city she had absolute control over.

And yes. Legalizing slavery hurts her anti-slavery credibility.

2. Nor did Dany. Slavery exists in all three cities. Though in fairness, Astapor's slavery post-Dany is not her fault.

3. Please explain how legalizing slavery is anti-slavery.

4. Again, not even close to anything I wrote. I never suggested would create slavery in Westeros.

I haven't spoiler anything from words of winter in this post, but that you for clarification. I couldn't glean current code of conduct from my lurkings.

No problem. :cheers:

[DaarioKnowsBest]

To explain how legalizing slavery possibly doesn't destroy credibility.

Say I want to end starvation somewhere.

I make a law that no one is allowed to walk by a hungry person without giving them food.

Say this plan works to end people not having food, yet it makes the people who previously had enough food become malnourished because they now only have a small amount of food just the same as the previously starving people.

They riot and fight against me, I say ok I change that law, we can now go back to not feeding starving people.

Nobody who is being honest will think I'm actually in favor of people starving and that I have no credibility in wanting to stop people from starving.

They may think I'm a buffoon and a terrible leader but not that I want people to starve.

If you walk by a homeless person without food and don't give them anything does that make you be pro - starvation?

No, politics has been like that since the beginning.

Idk if you are American, but say Obamacare fails so badly if starts chaos and riots in the streets, then we are forced to go back to the old way. Congress unanimously votes it away, That doesn't ruin the credibility of people who want a more affordable and socialist type of health care system. People might still believe they want a government health system and maybe they just voted against it this time so people would stop rioting in the streets.

And nobody in their right mind will be against Dany because they think she's a slaver.

They may oppose her for other reasons, but saying they will hate her because she's a slaver who legalized slavery is ridiculous.

Even her harshest critics in the novels who are trying to smear campaign her are not accussing her of being a slaver.

I suspect since the interruption of slavery at Slavers Bay messed up A LOT of people's money that secretly a lot of people are wishing slavery operations return ASAP. So calling her a slaver might be good PR

[Whitering]

Danny may have legalized slavery temporarily but at the end of the book it looks like she's put on the war paint and from then on it will be her way or no way. She will go back into Meereen, kill the kids, kill every noble family, and put the whole place to the torch now if that's what it takes. She's going nuclear.

[Wouter]

There is definitely no slavery in Astapor right now (the city is dead now, Quentyn witnessed its ominious end) and I doubt Yunkai will survive Dany's wrath after they lose the current war badly. Meereen may be left standing, but with the Harpy very likely defeated and with the siege lifted and Dany's enemies in Slaver's Bay gone (at least the pro-slavery enemies, anyway) she has no reason to keep tolerating slavery there.

It is worth noting that Braavos couldn't stop de-facto slavery in Pentos, either (look at Illyrio's mance).

I agree with the stance that Dany now has such a reputation as being slaver public enemy #1 (what with Qarth, Volantis, Yunkai and New Ghis all falling down on her, possible along with a Dothraki khalasar or two), that it's rather fancy to think the Braavosis will somehow miss that over a few technicalities that most would not even be aware off.

The dragons is another matter, and as a potential dire threat to Braavos they could work both ways in Braavosi dealings with Dany. I don't know how Braavos will react (what would count more: the dragons or the anti-slavery crusade?), partially also because we don't know much yet about Braavosi internal politics.

[John of Mowsley]

You'd assume anti given the history of the city, But I'm going to say Pro Dany as she has acted different to any other ruler in the region.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

To explain how legalizing slavery possibly doesn't destroy credibility.

1 Say I want to end starvation somewhere.

I make a law that no one is allowed to walk by a hungry person without giving them food.

Say this plan works to end people not having food, yet it makes the people who previously had enough food become malnourished because they now only have a small amount of food just the same as the previously starving people.

They riot and fight against me, I say ok I change that law, we can now go back to not feeding starving people.

Nobody who is being honest will think I'm actually in favor of people starving and that I have no credibility in wanting to stop people from starving.

If you walk by a homeless person without food and don't give them anything does that make you be pro - starvation?

No, politics has been like that since the beginning.

2 Idk if you are American, but say Obamacare fails so badly if starts chaos and riots in the streets, then we are forced to go back to the old way. Congress unanimously votes it away, That doesn't ruin the credibility of people who want a more affordable and socialist type of health care system. People might still believe they want a government health system and maybe they just voted against it this time so people would stop rioting in the streets.

And nobody in their right mind will be against Dany because they think she's a slaver.

They may oppose her for other reasons, but saying they will hate her because she's a slaver who legalized slavery is ridiculous.

1. This is an entirely different situation. This law you made up to end starvation is stupid. It is a bad law. Forbidding slavery is not. Many places do it. More to the point, when the goal is ending slavery, people do not relegalize it because the situation sucks. When the American Civil War ended, the North did not allow Sourthern states to keep slavery in any form even if the former slaves were willing to sell themselves back into it. And ending slavery was just a bonus for them, not the cause.

2. I am American. Affordable Care Act is not going to fail so badly people literally riot in the streets. But again, it is a terrible comparison. The ACA is creating something, not ending a horrible practice (well, it did end some horrible practices). It can be taken away and replaced with a better law if it fails. But how does that compare to ending slavery? She can't repeal no slavery with a better no slavery.

Danny may have legalized slavery temporarily but at the end of the book it looks like she's put on the war paint and from then on it will be her way or no way. She will go back into Meereen, kill the kids, kill every noble family, and put the whole place to the torch now if that's what it takes. She's going nuclear.

I have already said that depending on what she does in the future, things can change. If she goes and reverses her earlier decisions (legalizing slavery, allowing the slave market), the anti-slavery hardliners very well may push to join her. I am strictly speaking of the current situation at the end of of ADWD.

[DaarioKnowsBest]

Nice post, still people in Braavos are not going to oppose Dany for being a slaver.

Other reasons to oppose her, sure very good possibilities.

But honestly thinking she's not anti-slavery is ridiculous

Even her enemies in Westeros aren't accussing her of being pro-slavery

Being anti-slavery may be bad campaigning at this point

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

1 Nice post, still people in Braavos are not going to oppose Dany for being a slaver.

Other reasons to oppose her, sure very good possibilities.

2 But honestly thinking she's not anti-slavery is ridiculous

Even her enemies in Westeros aren't accussing her of being pro-slavery

Being anti-slavery may be bad campaigning at this point

1. OK? I am not arguing that. In fact, I have specifically said I am not arguing that.

And the Braavosi will hear about that too. That kinda kills any momentum from the hardliners. I do want to point out since your post was a response to me that I personally have not said that they would oppose Dany for being a slaver or even having dragons. I just stated the opposite is also not true. They would see too many questionable things (such legalizing slavery or allowing the market) to get the hardliners to push Braavos into a war that they have no interest in joining. My opinion is that with the exception of the Iron Bank which has chosen to side with Stannis for now Braavos will be neutral.

What I'm actually arguing (besides that I apparently enjoy masochism) is......

2. No. What's ridiculous is to consider her some great anti-slavery crusader when the only constant to her view of slavery is what suits her best at the time. Gotta sell slaves so your husband can lead his Dothraki army to Westeros for your son's Throne? It sucks, but that's what you gotta do. Need an army after everyone deserted you? Go to Astapor to buy a slave army. Don't want to pay for the slave army? Decide slavery is bad and punish those who just sold you an army. It went well? Continue on to pillage the next couple of cities. Things are going shitty? Legalize slavery and make concessions to slavers.

Like you said before, just because someone says they're something doesn't mean they are. Just because Dany says she's anti-slavery crusader doesn't mean she is. If she was, she wouldn't have legalized slavery under any condition. She would keep searching for ways to get poor people fed without reinstituting the very thing she used as an excuse to war upon Slaver's Bay.

[DaarioKnowsBest]

I'm just saying there's no reason people in the novel will oppose her because they think she's a slaver.

I'm not making an argument that Braavos will embrace her for being an anti slavery crusader.

Arguing whether she gets too much credit for being an anti-slavery crusader should be on its own or another thread.

[Miss]

I think it's pretty great business, if you make a deal with all sides to get your loans repayed by whoever wins, that sounds pretty good to me.

Well that wont happen. Stannis is not going to agree to pay to hire sellswords for Dany. The Iron Bank has to chose a side, throw their weight behind it, and stick with them. They have done that now I think with Stannis. Before Dany even gets to Westeros, the Iron Bank will likely have spent a hell of a lot on Stannis. They will lose all that if they change sides.

That coupled with how the Braavosi banker was not very impressed by dragon jokes, I really don't think they are being set up for Dany's side. And if you are talking about the Iron Bank, you are talking about the richest and most powerful men in Braavos - the city will without a doubt fall in behind their decision.

Does anyone here think Daenerys would ever pay Robert's debts? And that anyone would ever deal with her with her reputation when it comes to the "art of trade".

Nope. Not for an instant. LOL

[Fire Eater]

I think Braavos will be set against Dany as they already picked a monarch to back: Stannis. I think they will find it unlikely that Dany would pay the debts incurred by the Usurper and his regime she plans to overthrow. They have already made a deal with Stannis besides, and he has agreed to resume payments to the IB.

Then there is also the issue of the dragons. As demonstrated in ADwD in a Jon POV, the Braavosi hold a deep cultural fear of dragons, one of the major tools of subjugation the Valyrians used. Fear has been known to interfere with critical thinking and reasoning. The bad rumors the Yunkai'i have been spreading about Dany likely won't help either. They may get the impression that she is a mad girl queen with three dragons.

[DaarioKnowsBest]

Well that wont happen. Stannis is not going to agree to pay to hire sellswords for Dany. The Iron Bank has to chose a side, throw their weight behind it, and stick with them. They have done that now I think with Stannis. Before Dany even gets to Westeros, the Iron Bank will likely have spent a hell of a lot on Stannis. They will lose all that if they change sides.

What if Stannis dies or doesn't win the IT???

That makes the Iron Banks Stannis plan worthless.

Why do they have to choose only one side?

There's no rule for that, it makes better business sense to cover as many possible outcomes as you can.

Remember Dany and Stannis aren't the only contenders. Currently, Dany isn't even a contender.

[Miss]

What if Stannis dies or doesn't win the IT???

That makes the Iron Banks Stannis plan worthless.

Why do they have to choose only one side?

There's no rule for that, it makes better business sense to cover as many possible outcomes as you can.

Remember Dany and Stannis aren't the only contenders. Currently, Dany isn't even a contender.

If Stannis dies, who knows. But thinking they would back two players against each other is the stupidest idea I have heard in a long time...

[Sansa_Stark]

I think Braavos will be set against Dany as they already picked a monarch to back: Stannis. I think they will find it unlikely that Dany would pay the debts incurred by the Usurper and his regime she plans to overthrow. They have already made a deal with Stannis besides, and he has agreed to resume payments to the IB.

Then there is also the issue of the dragons. As demonstrated in ADwD in a Jon POV, the Braavosi hold a deep cultural fear of dragons, one of the major tools of subjugation the Valyrians used. Fear has been known to interfere with critical thinking and reasoning. The bad rumors the Yunkai'i have been spreading about Dany likely won't help either. They may get the impression that she is a mad girl queen with three dragons.

they do not jape of dragons