Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Aldarion

  • Rank
    Landed Knight

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

1,301 profile views
  1. You are not following because you are not understanding my standards. It is not just a question of killing masters - in fact, that part is what I have the least problem with. It is more of a question of how she did it. Butchering peasants is done in order to wipe out enemy's economic base. It is not midless cruelty or angry revanche; it has military logic to it. When Daenerys crucified Masters, she did so as an act of revenge, with no logical or practical basis. These decisions by Daenerys are not logical, they are emotional - no matter how you try to justify them. And we see Daenerys be ruled by her emotions on multiple occasions. But what is worrying here - and I also pointed out that to Hodor - is that she has had time to go back on these decisions, yet she did not. Not only did she not go back on them, she did not even modify them at all. Yes, I do think she will attempt to muscle everyone to her views. That is why she has dragons. Forced goodness is no better than innate evil. First, you can only force somebody to do something by either a) forcing or b) brainwashing them, which in itself is evil. Second, it depends on one person's view of good and evil. And when you conclude that a group is evil, what is stopping you from slaughtering them? That is how Nazis and Communists did things. There is difference between outburst in anger and actual cruelty - literally everything you have listed belongs to former category, not latter. If Daenerys had killed a Master in anger, that would be former; crucifixion however is latter. She had time to reconsider and modify her decision - even just to hanging or beheading - yet she did not. Those situations you listed have absolutely nothing in common with what Daenerys did. If he had dragons, those dragons would be inherited by his successors. End result would be that instead of power concentrated in hands of lords you would have power concentrated in hands of a king. At least lords get in each other's way; but who will get in the way of a King able to enforce his will with dragons? Why so many people here think that dictatorship is solution to all world's problems? I have already shown how the Throne can counter great lords without relying on dragons: by relying on commoners and on minor nobility. That was done by Basil II in Byzantine Empire, by Matthias Corvinus in Hungary, by Vlad III Tepes in Wallachia, by Ivan III in Russia. All of them were very good rulers. And the reason why they were good rulers was precisely because they were forced to rely on commoners and minor nobility to counter the magnates. If it weren't for that imperative - say, if they had dragons - chances are that none of them would have made half the good things they did, and would have ended up more similar to Tamerlane than anything else. The only question is why such a thing had not happened alredy. Logically, the Iron Throne - with very limited lands - should be rather worried about the power of Lords Paramount. And it should be able to count on support by commoners and minor nobility against lords paramount. The only answer I can think of is that it worked because of dragons, and it kept working after dragons died out because of inertia. Which reinforces my case that dragons are, socially speaking, not a good thing. Check this list, and see what all of these leaders have in common: https://www.valuewalk.com/2018/11/top-10-cruelest-rulers/ Hint: it is not feudalism. Speeches are part of diplomacy, not entirety of it. At any rate, my point was that Aegon has to rely on diplomacy or he will not get the Iron Throne (let alone last on it for any amount of time), unlike Daenerys who will be coming with dragons and a huge army. That automatically makes him better option. Dragons are never a good thing, and as far as I am concerned, Daenerys can be a saint but possession of dragons still makes her the worst choice for a ruler. That is simply too much of concentration of power. My ideal option would be Aegon + Daenerys w/o dragons, but well... Aegon may well become a tyrant from nobles' perspective - after all, if there is opposition, it will most likely come from nobles. But at the same time, that opposition may well force him to make some very necessary reforms. I guess we'll have to wait and see. Look at how her anger is described. She doesn't feel just angry, but also righteous. This: Look at her thought process: She sees slaves crucified by the Masters. She gets angry and vengeful. She has randomly-selected Masters crucified afterwards. She feels good doing it. She regrets her previous decision. She justifies her ordering crucifixion. It is not just that she made cruel decision when she was angry; but also that she later justified it as "just" and "for the children" when she started feeling uncomfortable. She did something cruel on impulse, and then ran away from responsibility by justifying it instead of facing it. It may be bit unjust of me towards Daenerys, but the scene and that thought process immediately reminds me of Communists killing millions for "good of the people". And it is not the only time she ran away either: whenever ser Barristan tries telling her about Aerys' madness, she either gets insulted or runs away: I am talking about moral standards here. Greater power means greater potential for evil, which means that person with more power should be judged more strictly. Unless some decide to opt out of the system. Though that is less likely under Targaryens, true. Actually, that would make her a bad ruler. Unless it is something which cannot be avoided at all. That I actually agree with. I just wanted to point out that he had reasons for doing what he did: he did not believe Robert would believe him with Jon Arryn dead, so he decided to ensure his own safety first and foremost. And Stannis offered to make Renly his heir. How is that any less nice? Fact is, Renly's whole argument was based on "I have a bigger army, s*** my d***". IS. Doesn't mean she will stay that way. And there is foreshadowing of her going Maegor-like: See the citation I have provided before. She directly compares herself to an "avenging dragon". It also has to do with her not understanding Meereenese customs, helping slaves but then not addressing underlying issue... She will have an army of barbarians. That will kinda counter the propaganda claim of three dragons. I do agree that many will flock to her banner, simply because without it she will not have conventional forces capable of achieving anything in Westeros. But it will not be a walkover, and she will not get overwhelming support just based on her having dragons. Aegon the Conqueror forged the throne with dragonfire, but he held onto it with diplomacy. Again, conquering is one thing, ruling is completely another. I am not saying that "Aegon just expressed something they all wanted to at that point". I am saying that he was the only one who provided an actually doable proposition which was not "sit tight and pray that Daenerys decides to come to us". I am aware of the original conception -and you will notice that 2/3 of story is fight for the Throne. It may not be the endgame, but it is far from pointless. And now I have to explain Tolkien to you... 1) Ring of Power and Iron Throne are essentially the same, story-wise: both are a "reward" to which power-hungry people flock to like moths to a flame, but which destroys them in the end. Both represent power, and both serve to bring out darkest in people. 2) Tolkien rooted his story in mythology. That is true. But you are only half-correct here: yes, Aragorn is a good king because he is "the rightful king, the one with the dragons healing hands, longevity, special palantír control, magical blood and divine ancestry". But he is also a good king because of his choices: he chooses to resist temptation of the Ring and instead help Frodo, he chooses not to push his claim until it could be done without bringing Gondor into massive peril, he chooses to prioritize his people over the throne (he was ready to go with Frodo to Mordor), he chooses to only crown himself after Sauron is defeated. He is a good king because of his character, and his upbringing as much as anything else. If your argument was correct, Castamir would have been a good king, yet he turned tyrant, while half-Numenorean Eldacar, his son and especially grandson (Hyarmendacil II) all proved to be capable kings. Because he was a good person? But: 1) how do you know he would have stayed a good person if he had had dragons? 2) how do you know next dragonrider(s) would have been a good person? Dragons live longer than humans. Aerys II had been ruling for a long time before he became a tyrant, and was eventually deposed. Who will depose a dragonrider? What I'm saying is that if a king has no dragons, he either rules well enough or is deposed. When a king has a fuck-off-big fire-breathing reptile, deposing him becomes much more difficult. Yes, cruelty and brutality can give people pause. But they still need to be opposable.
  2. Everyone being an idiot does not make being an idiot right choice. And basic reason you (and everyone else) gave why it is good for Daenerys to have dragons is "she will make everything oh so much better". But 1) there is no evidence she will make things better, at least for Westeros, and 2) again, dragons are simply too much of a concentration of power. Actually, we do. She agrees to torturing man's daughters in front of him simply to extract evidence: “I could. Or I could question the daughters sharply whilst the father looks on. That will wring some names from him.” “Do as you think best, but bring me names.” Her fury was a fire in her belly. And then there is this: She had them nailed to wooden posts around the plaza, each man pointing at the next. The anger was fierce and hot inside her when she gave the command; it made her feel like an avenging dragon. But later, when she passed the men dying on the posts, when she heard their moans and smelled their bowels and blood... You can argue all day long that "these were Masters, they deserved it", but that is not the point. Point is, Daenerys clearly has propensity of making cruel decisions when she is angry. And crucifixion in particular can hardly be anything but "scaring people into obedience". We clearly see that torture gives no usable information, and anyone with any experience in the matter would have been able to tell so to Daenerys. So either she doesn't listen to advisors, is surrounded by idiots, or allows her anger to rule her. And again, Daenerys has dragons and what is (purpoted to be) fanatically loyal army. Thus standards must be stricter for her, because she has less external limitation. Because that is her goal? Iron Throne is merely a symbol of Targaryen conquest of Westeros. Having Iron Throne yet not ruling is worthless. Irrelevant; if they follow her, she is responsible for them. Especially if it is not just warriors. Robert at that point didn't know anything about twincest. In such a situation, making a move to kill Robert would actually be illogical for Cersei, as if it failed it would make succession less likely than if she just sat tight. Point is, Stannis had no reason to think Robert is in danger - of course, that depended on nobody else continuing Arryn's investigation. Stannis is the older brother and therefore one in line for the throne. By accepting Renly's offer he would undo the entire fabric of feudal society. Do you have any clue about what that would lead to? All of which mean basically one thing: Daenerys' whole plot is superfluous, or at least her possession of dragons is. And people complain about Young Griff's plot being a waste of time... And now you are the one forgetting we are talking about a story here. Those "good feelings" are there for a reason. They show that she has at least potential for Maegor-like behaviour. They don't have to go through. Daenerys is one focusing on her Targaryen identity, "being a dragon" or "blood of a dragon"; though Aegon may think so as well - we don't know. It is part of her choice, but dragons themselves specifically symbolize "fire and blood". Yes, I get it. Problem is that you are in a contradiction: you want her to be a warlord, yet you also want her to be a ruler. You want her to rule in a way that will destroy slaver's society, yet you also expect her to perform well in Westerosi feudal society. But these are contradictory expectations: you will get one, or another. Not both. Which also means that she has less need to restrict her cruelty, as she has organic power base and thus does not to rely as much on Westerosi support. You won't hold onto the Iron Throne even with dragons, if you can't do it without them. Can you, then, point me to the place where anyone provides any plan to reaching Daenerys that is actually doable and/or not shot down after being proposed? Wrong. In fact, if anything, it is ice demons who are a distraction. Else we wouldn't be spending so many books on the Throne. Also: But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles? Martin is actually a big fan of Tolkien, and quite open on how Tolkien influenced him (including Gandalf's death etc.). Above suggests - and if memory serves me right, GRRM even stated it once outright - that one of main goals for A Song of Ice and Fire is to show actual process of ruling. So yes, "game of thrones shit" is if anything more important of two plot points, even as it really is a distraction from the real threat. As I already stated, Tolkien is big influence on Martin. Now consider this and how it relates to Martin's Iron Throne: I don't think Dany is "innately cruel and violent", I just think that she has "innate tendency towards cruelty" and that her quest for the throne will push her in that direction. And above description of Gandalf-as-Lord-of-the-Rings sounds a lot like Daenerys might turn out once she sets out to acquire the bloody chair. And yes, I think that Aegon V not having dragons will eventually turn out to be a very good thing. Which is supported by her own inner thoughts. I never said that Aegon will speechify his way to the Iron Throne. I just said that he will be forced to rely on diplomacy, which will prevent him from being a tyrant. As a quote it actually does. It just doesn't mean that she is innately incapable of rebuilding; but her choices may prevent her from doing so.
  3. Unlike them, Daenerys is often held up as somebody trying to change things for the better. If she expects to change things for the better, that is a major flaw. Also, Tyrion is given a trial. That is true. Renly declared himself king without even considering whether Stannis is interested in doing so. Older brother comes ahead of younger brother, which means that Renly was rebelling against Stannis. Renly may have been better king, but fact is that Stannis was ahead of him in the line of succession. So Renly should have communicated with Stannis first and then declared himself, if Stannis was not interested. Basically, Renly had already rebelled by that point. Stannis' offer was as generous as he could have reasonably expected. What would you have Stannis do, give up the crown?
  4. ...Aegon's hair is silver. It is Jon Connington who has reddish hair. Jon is one called Griff, Aegon is "Young Griff".
  5. That is true. But again, if she wanted to try repproach later, she should have given them a trial. Her not giving them a trial indicates that she had commited to tearing down the system in its entirety - which would not be bad, except for the fact that she has clearly not thought of anything sustainable to replace it. And fact still remains that what she did was not justice per se, but vengeance - even though it might have been appropriate as justice (and it wasn't - see previous, plus as I already explained, she went neither hot nor cold there - not sufficiently thorough if she was aiming to scare them, but too cruel if she was aiming for coexistence), it was in fact an emotional decision. WTF does that have to do with anything? Fact is that Daenerys has dragons and almost slavishly loyal army, which means that she is much more capable of scaring people into obedience. I have already pointed out that she does have such tendencies - which she is keeping under control for now, but they exist. And yes, power does corrupt - do you really think Renly would have gone and declared himself a king, in violation of laws and custom both, if he didn't have Tyrell support? Or that Red Wedding will have happened if Walder Frey couldn't count on support against any retaliation? You are forcing a contrast where one does not need to exist. She can be a conqueror and a tyrant, yet still a failure of a ruler - not all tyrants are successful at ruling. Though I personally believe that she will: 1) be a tyrant (to conquer Westeros) 2) fail the Dothraki and her other followers (they will mostly die in Westeros - what during war for the throne, what during the Long Night) 3) fail at rebuilding Westeros (not necessarily through being a failure at rebuilding, but simply due to lack of time) 1) Said brother and king had failed to clean the court in last couple of decades. You need to prove that Stannis had a reasonable chance of saving Robert before blaming him for running away. 2) Renly was going to murder Stannis, and was not open to - rather good - terms which Stannis offered him. Again, you can hardly blame Stannis for offing him first. 3) We don't know much about Aegon's internal thoughts because he is not PoV and has had limited "screentime". That doesn't mean he will become a tyrant. Dragons were decisive on the Field of Fire. Can't speak for the effect of winter, though - but if they are to be as ineffective as you say, what is the point of dragons and whole "song of ice and fire"? Daenerys is supposed to bring dragons over to face the Others; but if snow would truly render them so limited, that would mean that whole Daenerys plot - her whole existence in the story - is meaningless. Oh, they definitely hate her for what she did as well. It is just that Slaver's Bay societies are such a carricature that even her arrival was improvement for 90% of people there. ...unless we consider her own thoughts and fears about her own nature. Would it hurt you to try and understand symbolism for once? 1) "Fire and Blood" means a lot of things. Yes, original meaning is indeed a magical cookbook recipe for hatching dragon eggs. But just like "Winter is Coming", it is also used as a warning and as a threat. In this case "we will burn you and spill your blood if you cross us". Just like here: "Custom and caution had an iron grip upon us till you awakened us with fire and blood. A new time has come, and new things are possible. Marry me."; "Get the heads of all the noble houses out of their pyramids on some pretext, Daario had said. The dragon’s words are fire and blood. Dany pushed the thought aside. It was not worthy of her."; "“For you,” said Quentyn, all awkward gallantry. “No,” said Dany. “For fire and blood.”"; "No. You are the blood of the dragon. The whispering was growing fainter, as if Ser Jorah were falling farther behind. Dragons plant no trees. Remember that. Remember who you are, what you were made to be. Remember your words. “Fire and Blood,” Daenerys told the swaying grass.". A warning, a threat, a promise of violence. 2) Daenerys' dragons are symbolic of her own inner choices. She chains them when she chooses a path of peace; but when Drogon approaches her, it symbolizes her turning to violence as a way of solving things. You know, I have shitty memory, but I am starting to think you have selective one. Revolutions also tend to eat their children. And parents, and everyone else. All revolutions for the case of freedom ended establishing merely another tyranny. Why do you think Daenerys' will be different? Generally speaking, reason only serves to rationalize decisions based on emotions. Actual rational decisions are relatively rare in human beings, and that is something Martin portrays well. And Daenerys is definitely not a cold-hearted pragmatist, even for your average human. You may not care how she feels, but that means that you do not care who and what she is as a character. In which case our entire discussion is a waste of time. If there is a war, she is justified in killing enemies, yes. But I very much doubt that she will stop at that - and I am not sure she will not begin at that either. If she starts killing anyone who rejects her rule, that will be quite a list (which is why you are insisting that Aegon will be a tyrant, to make the list shorter and thus make Daenerys look less bad). And yes, she might well do precisely that "ridiculous" thing. As I mentioned before, her entire outlook is shifting in her last few chapters. And if he does so his own people will get rid of him. Daenerys however has much greater freedom of action, thanks to her dragons and Unsullied (and the likely cult-like following she will gain during her trip to Westeros). You wrote this: Cersei took Robert's throne from him and handed it to her bastard. Aegon will take the throne from the Lannisters, and he will it lose again to Euron or Dany or whoever else will have it after Aegon. In response to this: Robert was assassinated. Therefore it appears that you believe that possession of dragons makes person invulnerable to assassinations and accidents. They actually did state as much during discussion itself; "it cannot be done" is as good as "we will not do it". You are assuming there is much trade left by now. And even then, there are ways to counter raiding of trade. Euron uses Viking longships, which simply cannot maintain continuous blockage of ports (logistics). In fact, close blockade of ports of the way which you note simply was not an option for most of Middle Ages. It is Martin's philosophy as well. Even ignoring the whole "human heart at conflict with itself" thing, fact is that the entire war is basically about a chair which represents power. Where Tolkien has Rings of Power, and One Ring in particular, George Martin has the Iron Throne and the dragons. It is not "sudden turn". Because those are ones I could easily find, and because she simply hasn't been under a "proper test" so far. Entire Slaver's Bay setup makes her look essentially like a saint by default. Which is part of the reason why I believe it is hiding something much darker. Lands (he will have conquered basically some of the richer parts of Westeros), trade (King's Landing by itself is a major port - else it would not exist)... We are talking about a starting point. And I in fact mentioned both; go back and reread what I wrote. I actually do think she might be able to rebuild Westeros. But that would require her to survive the Long Night, which is not likely.
  6. DIfference, I think, is that nobody expects any better of Starks, Lannisters or Tullys. They are fighting a war, and that is it. Such type of behaviour is normal. Daenerys however is idolized/idealized by many, both in- and out of- -universe, which naturally makes her subject to stricter standards. Also, again: war. Peasants killed are killed in military operations. That is no different from World War II strategic bombing, and in fact there is a term for it - chevauchee. What Daenerys did however was not a military operation but a judicial process. So standards will naturally be different. I think you will find that most people will not have had problem had those Masters been killed in combat or similar (I definitely wouldn't). But execution without a judicial process? It pulls apart very strings which hold society together, much like violations of guest right. Those are not comparable. Only one who might be comparable in amount of damage he might do is Bran - and he is another character I dislike, for that very reason. Arya and Jon can warg into wolves... big scary wolves, but that is it. Unless it somehow works on a dragon (Jon?), it is no big issue. Aegon's and Arianne's power is dependant on consent of the people they are leading, so definitely not comparable to Daenerys' power with dragons (and likely also religious cultists). It is true that possession of power does not make character bound to act malevolently. It does however increase temptation towards malevolent action as it makes said action seem an easier path. Kinda silly. After Quentyn's death and whatever she does with Aegon, she won't even have the House who stayed loyal (Dorne). Pretty much that. She is aiming to conquer Westeros, but she will not be conquering it as much as attempting to turn it into a wasteland. And if Martin studies military history at all, Dothraki will be getting slaughtered in Westeros. You are confusing a "villain" and "antagonist". Stannis and Aegon are definitely antagonists, but that does not mean they have to be villains. Likewise, Daenerys being a protagonist does not prevent her from becoming a villain. There is wildfire under King's Landing. So I'd say it is almost certain a dragon will become a weapon of mass destruction, even if by accident. And they are WMDs when fully grown: look at Balerion, or Valyrian wars. The only question is how large Daenerys' dragons will be by the time they come to Westeros. Manner in which you crush them can easily make you a tyrant, however. She never uses violence or force, yes; but we are talking about future developments here. I see it more of an issue of what dragons symbolize - what Daenerys status as Mother of Dragons symbolizes. Fire and blood - that is, indiscriminate slaughter. That is why she chains her dragons, why she struggles with her identity as mother of dragons - she does not want to become a tyrant, yet very possession of dragons is pushing her in that direction. All the slavers, all their families, and anyone in any way connected to them... how many people do you think that would have made? It is special, simply by virtue of its scope. Of all the things you listed, the only that comes close is Tywin dealing with Reynes and Tarbecks. But my issue, again, isn't so much with what she did but how it made her feel. So stop shifting the goalposts. You are either shifting the goalposts or genuinely not understanding what I'm trying to say. So to reiterate: in that scene, she is not focused on justice. She is focused on vengeance; vengeance makes her feel good. What do you think that says about how she will deal with "traitors" who ousted her House from power, or with those who support a "false dragon"? Means to kill people enable tyranny. You cannot have tyranny if you don't have power. And, technically, tyrant can rule well. Muammar Al-Gaddafi was far better than the "government" which succeeded him. You really think that dragons will make Daenerys invulnerable to assassination? Read it again; they basically gave up on reaching her: There is difference between defeating somebody and pillaging their lands. Ironborn are raiders. Even if Euron wins battles at sea, he cannot project any real power inland. Ironborn are hopeless when it comes to land warfare against Westerosi armies. Ironborn can rule the sea, yes. But you are yet to explain how in seven hells will they ever be able to project significant power inland? I am arguing it because her numerical advantage playing out in Westeros would be completely illogical.
  7. Because Jon is one of favourite characters, while Aegon is largely seen as an unwanted interloper.
  8. Yeah, that is precisely what I am talking about. Daenerys' fans talk about how many awesome things she will be able to do once she gains absolute power, but they never consider: a) how absolute power changes people b) is anyone fit to have absolute power c) how was Daenerys changed by her Slaver's Bay experiences As I have pointed out before (to Lord Varys?), main reason I dislike Daenerys are her dragons and the Unsullied. Dragons + absolutely loyal slave soldiers mean that she has basically no accountability. And then you add other factors you noted... It might be Aegon's story to become a tyrant - we don't know - but Daenerys is definitely becoming a tyrant. She is one with experiences of Slaver's Bay, she is one with (so far uncontrollable but that is changing) weapons of mass destruction, she is one with (purpoted to be absolutely loyal) former slave army, she is one who will be hailed as a Messiah by former slaves (and thus have people who will do anything for her). She has all the makings of a future tyrant; what makes you think she will not become one, despite those factors and despite her own thoughts? It is, because it is a general statement. You are one who are choosing to reinterpret it in a way that supports more peaceful Daenerys, but there is no support for such an interpretation in the text itself. I already have cited those, if memory serves me. But to properly show it, I'd need to cite half a book: it is not any single moment, but rather general performance: her struggling with peaceful solutions (when she would rather flay them all), her thinking over "three treasons" (such as when she questions whether Daario has gone over to her enemies, or met another woman), her paranoia and distrusfullness (example of her thoughts during the "human pyramid" scene, for one)... her mental state is spread all over the book. Yes, she is keeping her instincts suppressed by her conscience, for now. But just as Aegon's cyvasse scene was there for a reason, so are Daenerys' dark thoughts. I will give just a few examples where her tendencies towards violent solutions - which she does repress, for now - show: Notice the "it made her feel like an avenging dragon". She is not focusing on justice here, but on vengeance, and on her Targaryen identity. If you think that vengeance does not fall under "violent instincts", you are fooling yourself. Then there is this: Again, it is not just about what she does. It is about her emotions during those scenes. I provided examples just above. And because he does not have dragons nor cult-like following, any damage his behaviour might do will be rather limited. Thinking that he can conquer and hold the Iron Throne without dragons is no delusion. Robert had done it, Tywin had done it. Also, Aegon was not "led by the nose" by Tyrion - don't take Tyrion's own thoughts as a gospel. Yes, Tyrion planted the idea of going westwards in Aegon's head. But you are acting as if everything Aegon does is result of Tyrion's words; it is not. His decision to go west came only after discussion among Golden Company's leadership which basically concluded that eastward road is closed to them. Neither does he take Tyrion's advice as gospel: he still trusts Jon and Duck, despite Tyrion's warning to the contrary. In fact, he trusts Duck so much that he names Duck commander of his KIngsguard. Aegon used Tyrion's words to his own advantage in Golden Company's camp, yes. But again, he only does so after it was clear that Golden Company will not be going East. It was either West or nothing for them, and he uses Tyrion's words to spur the Company into action. He probably will. So will Daenerys. And between two of them, who do you think has greater potential for screwing everybody else over? Unless Illyrio decides to make an investment. It would appear that Aegon, for him, is an emotional investment as much as a practical one. Not at this point. But she has the potential to go there. He can convince the Ironborn. Kinda hard to convince people you have just raided, though. They are definitely not going to be teaming up with the Ironborn. Remaining put, however, is likely. Not really. Such a thing is only possible if you are a lord or something; but that also means having people under you to manage your estates in your absence. There is a reason why Byzantine Emperors preferred heavy cavalry troops when they went onto offensive campaigns. Peasants can be mobilized to defend their own homes, but they do not go campaigning. Or to put it another way: do you really think Daenerys will be able to turn each and every Dothraki into equivalent of Westerosi landed knight? And again, that does not mean getting all Dothraki to Westeros, nor does it change the fact that they are steppe nomads who will be going to country which is... very much not steppe. In fact, past certain point, larger number of Dothraki would be a disadvantage. Just look at Mongol campaigns in Europe. It has been repudiated merely by assuming a static character: that is, that Daenerys must stay as she is right now. Empty coffers =/= no income. Diplomacy during conquest means giving people opportunity for something they want. And that does not necessarily need to be resources. Just idea of stability is often enough. And that is not all. Fact is, it is Lannisters who rule in Westeros right now. How many toes do you think Tywin has stepped on during his life? What about Cersei? Kevan? Aegon will present opportunity for revanche for all of those lords whom Tywin has kept under iron fist. And if banditry and piracy is widespread - as I suspect it currently is - and Lannisters proved unable to deal with it, again, Aegon will represent hope of a solution (whether he will deliver is irrelevant). I actually do agree with that, but in relation to Daenerys, Aegon/Maegor parallel is much more appropriate.
  9. Agreed. People can turn into "whole different person", given right circumstances. As I have already explained, George Martin has provided foundation for such an about-face in Daenerys' history and personality. The only thing really necessary for Daenerys to become a tyrant is for her to make a different choice: there is nothing in her personality or psyche which makes her inherently incapable of / resistant to following either path (peace or bloodbath). "Dragons plant no trees" is no reply to excuses, and even if it were, meaning remains unchanged: dragons burn, they don't build. Daenerys is battling against violent instincts on pretty much daily basis, at least since she started to rule. Again, you are discussing Daenerys as she has been so far and completely ignoring any potential she has for different development - which is massive. Diplomacy means lot more than resources. Westeros so far appears to be significantly moneyed society - which means that land is not the only source of influence. Even without land, person in possession of the Iron Throne should be able to dole out various favours. Fact is that IT has significant tax income (even beyond various details provided, we see that IT maintains significant naval force, which is a huge financial burden). But such setup means highly complex and advanced system of governance: and this in turn means a large number of positions which can be filled. That is in large part how Byzantine Empire maintained cohesion: yes, there were rebellions. But all resources were in the hands of the central government . Westeros is a feudal society, but the manner in which it functions as well as the fact that it has maintained cohesion this far means that it is actually a feudal society with significant modern elements: more similar to Matthias Corvinus' Hungary or to England than to "proper" feudal societies such as France (where kings typically only truly ruled Ille-de-France). This in turn means that king has a lot of levers available, even though we are not exactly given details. And there is one thing we have not discussed before: Martin's tendency to repeat history. It is generally agreed that Aegon will take the throne and Daenerys will take it from him. That situation to me appears to parallel the situation between Maegor the Cruel and Aegon the Uncrowned. Latter BTW was 16 or 17 when he died, and Tyrion estimated Young Griff to be 16. Of course, that doesn't mean that Daenerys will necessarily turn into Maegor, but it is something Martin would do: original events where cruel pretender takes the throne from rightful king, to be repeated by a situation where cruel rightful queen takes the throne from the pretender. I never said that he will convince Euron, Stannis or Cersei. Nobody would be able to in such a situation. But none of those are in command of monolithic power blocks you seem to imagine. Power of great lords stems from their vassals, and none of those will have many vassals on mainland by the time Aegon has established himself. Even Euron is not exactly safe on the throne: all of them will have the exact same problems you seem to ascribe to Aegon only. If Dothraki are given lands in Essos, that means that only a small portion of their force will be able to accompany Daenerys - if they choose to accompany her at all. I agree about Volantenes. Even assuming that Dothraki will be able to do so (I do wonder how Martin will pull it off, considering that Dothraki so far are are less Mongols and more Comanches - and even Mongols might not have been able to pull off such a feat), that still a) does not mean "all of Essos" and b) does nothing about the fact that she will be able to utilize only a portion of that force in Westeros.
  10. To me those are actually advantages: no dragons => he has to rely on diplomacy in Westeros no money => same as above completely dependant on Westerosi support => has to rely on diplomacy and cannot become authoritharian/tyrant And Daenerys will be coming with 100k+ Dothraki, freedmen etc. Where will she find lands for them? And if she doesn't, she will have to rely on Westerosi support. Either way she will be either no different from Aegon, or worse than him. Where will she gain "all of Essos"? She should have had three cities in Slaver's Bay by now - she has only one. Fact is, she sucks at making her conquests permanent.
  11. And again, you are discussing Daenerys as she is. I am discussing Daenerys as where she might go. Those are two different people, and I have already agreed that Daenerys - as she is - would never do such a thing. But that does not mean that it is impossible for her to do it in the future. He has won Golden Company with a speech. But - and I have already explained that - in order for people to be ready to listen to him, in Westeros, he needs to first establish himself as a credible candidate. And that can only be done by force. But that does not mean that he will continue with force. He cannot, simply because he does not have enough force without winning allies first. And if he can win allies, then he will only need to rely on force against some of the houses which refuse all possible overtures. Daenerys on the other hand is developing in the opposite direction. Yes, as I have stated hundred times already, Daenerys as she is at the time she leaves Meereen would never rely solely or even primarily on force. But that is where here experiences and hallucinations come to. Daenerys is doomed to go down the dark path: Daenerys' childhood has sucked, big way. If Martin is interested in writing halfway realistic characters, this means that she is psychologically and emotionally unstable from the outset. She may have handled it better than Viserys, but she still has the same weakness. She had no home to call her own, and her primary caretaker developed into an abusive moron. She also believed for the whole time she was running from Robert's assassins - again, something likely to cause psychological and/or emotional instability down the line. When she gained some friends, her primary "friend" was Jorah Mormont - creepy pedophile who worked to isolate her from anyone not Jorah Mormont. Which is to say, he isolated her from any actually positive influence. As I have already pointed out, Daenerys has ingrown cruel streak. She is suppressing it for now, but how long will that last? "A dragon plants no trees". She also has visions and dreams, not all of which are inherent to her - rather, some appear to be forced by Quaithe. She avoids facing mistakes of her family - she cuts off Barristan whenever he starts telling her uncomfortable truths. Mirri Maz Dur and Daenerys are basically the same. Yet Daenerys burns her for killing Drogo (and in first stage Mirri actually had helped Drogo - it was his own fault for taking the poultice off). From the very beginning, she is willing to sacrifice others for the Iron Throne. Now she might have changed since then, but this is what she said in AGoT: Unlike Aegon, Daenerys - with much larger army from the outset plus three dragons - will be able to rely on the force from get-go, or at least she can reasonably assume she can rely on force. You are assuming Martin is writing static characters, which simply isn't so, and are also acting as if Aegon is one with dragons and potentially 100k army. But he isn't, he only has Golden Company, which rather limits how far he can rely on force alone. Even if Aegon and Daenerys both had equal psychological propensity for cruelty, or if Aegon was more cruel, Aegon would still be lot more limited in terms of practical application. To sum it up: Diplomacy Aegon has to rely on diplomacy because he does not have organic support beyond Golden Company - his campaign in Westeros is dependant on acceptance by the Westerosi. Daenerys has initial forces (freedmen, Dothraki etc.) who will not be dependant on support in Westeros. This automatically gives her far more freedom. Personality Aegon might crack and become a tyrant, but so far we have no such indications. Entitlement and inexperience yes, but not cruelty. Daenerys has clearly shown rather dark tendencies throughout, though she has suppressed them. But as I have explained above, we cannot assume she will continue (being able) to do so. Military Aegon has actually useful army in Golden Company, and he can use that - if he wins some initial skirmishes - to win more support in Westeros. Daenerys has army which can, in Westeros, only be successful through authorial fiat - unless she gains some forces in Westeros itself, or else from western Essos which actually fields Westerosi-model armies. Your assumption that Daenery absolutely will not become a tyrant or go down a darker path ignores basically her whole character from the beginning. You are looking at surface and ignoring everything lying beneath. Likewise, I never claimed that Aegon will be "beloved and great king of Westeros"; but fact is, if he is to have the throne at all by the time Daenerys arrives to Westeros - if he is to gain the throne to begin with - he has to show some minimum level of competence. Which automatically precludes him from becoming a tyrant, or even an incompetent idiot. Dothraki and Unsullied cannot be anything but useless unless George gives them miles-thick plot armour. They are out of date and out of depth in Westeros. I wrote about Unsullied before and I will be doing one on Dothraki at some point. Basically, Daenerys has plot armour, and her army itself will likely have plot armour; in a series renowned for "realism"* and "you reap what you sow", those are some big disadvantages. *though it is actually much less realistic than generally assumed
  12. It is likely. A lot of stuff in ASoIaF comes in threes... just don't ask me actual examples, I've forgotten.
  13. Precisely - he needs to win against Mace to gain allegiance of Reach. Problem for Reach is precisely that it is the heart of chivalry. It will constrain their options. And who has mentioned archers - or even numerical balance of forces? I'm talking tactics and doctrine here.
  14. And? I have already explained you my rationale. Specific "what ifs" are hardly necessary. Point is that normal khalassar still requires armed forces for protection. You are asking me to support an argument I never made.
  15. It was in a different thread, so no surprise there.
  • Create New...