SeanF

Had we learned that Tyrion had been betraying Dany in favour of his siblings, and was manipulating Jon, out of a desire for revenge, at the end, then his story would have made far more sense.

My understanding is that having Dany swerve aside to burn civilians was added after the scripts had been written. So, while, as originally envisaged, civilians were killed when the Red Keep was destroyed, and at the hands of enraged soldiers, it was far more plainly an act of war than what was eventually shown. In that context, Jon’s reaction to Tyrion (and Dany’s comments to Jon about Cersei leaving her no choice), and then Tyrion’s using “what about your sisters”, as his last roll of the dice, make a lot more sense. They did not alter the script to take account of an important change. I guess they realised that there would be no real justification for Dany being killed, unless they made her more brutal, but they weren’t able to fix the script at such a late stage. I agree Episode 3 was awful, from poor lighting, to stupid military tactics, to Bran staring into space, to Arya springing out of a tree. If anything, Cersei should have been kerb-stomped in Season 7, leaving the whole of Season 8 to deal with the the Others. Give the Night King a victory in the North with the final fight at the Trident, or the capital.

Many slaves did “snap.” They took brutal revenge on their masters. But, that’s not “insane”. That’s natural. Likewise, the behaviour of Catelyn and Arya.

Peter Hitchens and Douglas Macgregor are crying into their beer.

The question of "what was Aragorn's tax policy?" is not one that I think Martin answers well, in Daenerys's storyline in ADWD. The Daenerys of ASOS would have had no qualms about bringing fire and sword to the slavers, the moment that they stepped out of line. Her desire to seek peace seems almost like a contrivance, to make things look desperate, just so that we can then get to fire and blood in the next book. It's a legitimate criticism of the show that characters were made to act out of character, towards the end, but I think it's also a fair criticism of Daenerys' storyline. I enjoyed Jon's storyline more, in the book, but I still think the obvious thing for him to do was to throw his lot in entirely with Stannis, and accept the lordship of Winterfell, with Val as his bride.

I think Martin is far too good a writer to misuse Niemoller’s “First They Came” prose poem, the way that the two D’s did.

Even so, I think it will be difficult to persuade readers that Master Kraznys, the Yellow Whale, and Xaro Xhoan Doxas were on the side of right all along. Or even that there was moral equivalence between those supporting and opposing slavery (which I think was the point of Tyrion's speech to Jon in the show).

In Abercrombie-land, it makes perfect sense. Decent people finish up dead, fugitives, broken shells, ciphers. Bad, but clever, people triumph.

Perhaps, neither idea makes much sense, in terms of an “bittersweet” ending, and that is the heart of the problem, in terms of finishing. King Bran makes no sense, given the requirements of medieval kingship. Mad Dany just sounds like holding her to a different standard to the male leaders in the tale. Were the story written by @Joe AbercrombieI could see all the elements from the show’s endgame working out much better. Idealists get used and betrayed. Clever cynics take control. The survivors all finish up as worse people than they started. Perhaps, Martin can’t decide whether or not this is a grimdark tale.

I don't think that either would have saved the show, but I can see how they would both have been an improvement.

Bran as king would be like being ruled by Allied Mastercomputer. The actor who played him says that Westeros will now be a “surveillance state.” That sounds like a horrific ending (as well as ripping off God Emperor of Dune).

Dany made plenty of mistakes in her dealings with the Ghiscari elite, mostly on the basis of being far too lenient towards them, and willing to compromise. But, let's not kid ourselves that ante-bellum Slavers Bay was anything other than a hellhole for the vast majority of the population. Slavers Bay is George Martin's Mordor.

Yeh, Bowen is a racist arsehole, a craven who would crawl up Ramsay's colon if he was commanded to.

Ramsay's reputation is known across the North. "A beast in human form" is how Lord Manderly describes him. His hunts, his treatment of Lady Hornwood, and his fondness for flaying are notorious. As for Marsh, he'd hand over anybody to curry favour with the Boltons. Ramsay would say "jump" and he would reply "how high?"

Let’s turn the argument around. Do we think that Jon would be doing the morally virtuous thing, had he alerted the Boltons that Stannis was on his way, on the basis that the Boltons represent the crown, ignored the plight of “Arya”, executed Mance, and surrendered Selyse, Shireen et al to Ramsay? I would argue that would place him in the same category as Aerys’ Kingsguard. I would call that lawful evil. All these acts would attract Bowen Marsh’s approval, and be in accordance with the law. They would still be immoral.

It would be surprising if Catelyn or her children did not have problems with mental health, if only because any normal person would be traumatised by such experiences. We don’t describe soldiers as “mad” who have been traumatised by their experiences.

Jaime has few qualms about plunging a nation into war. And, whenever Jaime is called out on his behaviour, he tends to resort to whatabouttery.

Mel needs fuel for her fires.

We have the advantage that we have read The Prince. You don't pussyfoot around, when trying to break the power of a brutal elite who you have just overthrown.

Duty triumphing over love was a feature of Communist tyrannies, where you were expected to denounce your nearest and dearest to the authorities, for counter-revolutionary activities. I don’t think history has judged that outlook kindly. The Nights Watch vows are stupid, inhumane, and outmoded. Soldiers don’t fight better, because they don’t have families. If anything, the reverse.

Whether or not you consider that it is morally right for Ramsay Bolton to inflict forcible bestiality on his wife, it is hardly “crazy” for Jon to think otherwise.

Logistics are fascinating. US logistics in WWII, and British logistics in the Napoleonic war, were in a league of their own. I’d say that logistics are 75% of winning.

I expect the harpies mainly comprise freeborn citizens, who are used to handling weapons. One reason why Dany has so much difficulty suppressing the rebels is that while the freedmen outnumber the freeborn, the latter are far more likely to have access to weapons, and some form of military training than the former. It's why it's so important to train the freedmen as soldiers.

Like Dementors, unchecked, they seem to breed with each other.

The fighting pits are popular and generate income. The problem, as I see it is twofold. 1. They reinforce the Meereenese culture of dominance and subjugation. The aficionados, wth the best seats, are the upper classes. Those doing the fighting are all either slaves or freedmen. 2. There's no real control over who fights voluntarily and who fights under compulsion. Allow the fighting pits, and there's always going to be pressure to make dwarves, children, etc. fight wild animals.