Jump to content

cyberdirectorfreedom

Members
  • Content count

    359
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About cyberdirectorfreedom

  • Rank
    Hedge Knight

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,743 profile views
  1. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Did Tywin order the Mountain to rape Elia and smash her head?

    Tyrion's speculation is no better than any other speculation, fan or otherwise. His might well be worse, however, considering his obvious bias. Tysha also behaved in the exact way she would if she were manipulating Tyrion, though. I wouldn't think it safe to say that they were in love, any more than it's safe to say that they weren't. I think it foolish to think that, because Tyrion believes they were in love, that they must be. I mean, he once speculated that Shae might not be able to see ugliness. He's hardly proven himself trustworthy regarding matters of the heart. I remembered that, so I allowed myself to hope . . . perhaps I wanted to . . . we all deceive ourselves, when we want to believe. - Aemon Targaryen
  2. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Did Tywin order the Mountain to rape Elia and smash her head?

    It's not evidence or even an implication that he felt anything from Tysha. He believed that they were in love when he was thirteen. He was a hormone riddled simpleton at the time, just like every other teenager who has ever been in love. I've never known a teenager to be able to accurately judge their own feelings, let alone another's. Tyrion wanted her to love him, so he believed she did. Maybe she felt the same, but there's no evidence that she did. One person believing something to be the case does not imply that it's true. Do you really believe that one would need to be a "super savvy conniving scheming woman of the world" in order to manipulate a thirteen year old boy in the grips of his first love?
  3. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Tysha - who is to blame?

    Only should I have been punished in some spectacular way before. What someone does to their enemies is invariably different than what someone does to their family, even the lowest of their family. Eh, I don't know. Tywin obviously holds no love for Tyrion, and I imagine that Tyrion knew that at the time. But during the books, it's alway seems to be the Tysha situation that Tywin brings up, in regards to hating Tyrion. "My brothers could be relied upon to bring no shame upon House Lannister," his father had replied. "Neither ever wed a whore." "Is that her name? I confess, I cannot remember the names of all your whores. Who was the one you married as a boy?" I always got the feeling that while he hated Tyrion for killing Joanna, it was marrying Tysha that really set Tywin against him, because it was too reminiscent of Tytos. Even when Tyrion learned his little capers as a youth, it looks like Tywin simply commanded he stop. I don't recall any punishment, harsh or otherwise. I don't see any way he could have stopped the guardsmen. His only possible guilt was when he raped her himself. The rest was Tywin's doing, and the guards. It's a tough situation to be in, for sure. If you threaten a persons life, and force them to kill someone, well, that someone is still dead. So who is to blame? Obviously, the person threatening the killer. But could you consider the one committing the murder to merely be the weapon used against the victim? At the end of the day, there is still thought, intelligence and choice from that person, which no weapon has. Should that person have refused, knowing it would mean their own life? You cannot sign a document under duress, and a threat on your life certainly counts for duress. The document is considered invalid, regardless of the signer's actual opinion or desire. There's not really another victim in that situation, though. But if one cannot sign a document or swear an oath under duress, can one commit murder under duress? Well... yes, I'd say so. Someone being threatened will hardly bring succor to the victim and their family. But back to the Tysha situation, there's one question: did Tywin threaten Tyrion (or have some implied threat), or did he merely manipulate him into thinking it was right(or that she had it coming, etc.)? In the former, Tyrion raped Tysha because he wanted to avoid some harm to himself. Which could easily be reworded as "Tyrion raped Tysha for selfish reasons". It's hardly laudable. It the latter, he raped her because he (at least believed he) wanted to. Which is obviously awful. Either way, Tyrion is a victim here, certainly, but I don't think that absolves him of his guilt. Certainly not all of it. If you steal because you're starving, you're still a thief. If you rape because you're threatened, you're still a rapist. Yeah, I think we're essentially in agreement.
  4. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Did Tywin order the Mountain to rape Elia and smash her head?

    I'd think the majority of teenage relationships end rather poorly. These are young people who know next to nothing about each other (or themselves, really), after all. Yeah. The way Tyrion describes it makes me think it was all in a short time, but whether their marriage was the day after, or the following week, or the following month, is never actually stated. Hehe. I wouldn't think cynicism is the route to being a good rich person, though. You'd never be able to trust anyone if you thought they were all after your money. As is often the case, one would probably need to find a good balance (or they'll find themselves without a good balance). There's an additional tragic element the other way, too, in that Tyrion had let himself get so destroyed as he does by ADWD over someone who never truly cared for him. It works either way, I think. The beliefs of a 13 year old, half remembered a decade later, are not evidence for anything.
  5. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Tysha - who is to blame?

    If I married someone when I was 13, I'd be worried that my father would find out. Sure, it's illegal in our world, but if it wasn't, the obvious repercussion would be the end of the marriage. My father is no Tywin Lannister, yet the worry would remain. Tyrion being worried that his father would find out about his marriage doesn't imply that Tyrion had been punished in some harsh manner by his father. Any nobleman would take steps to abolish their 13 year old's marriage to a commoner. As to the rest of it, it's impossible to say, I think. It's made relatively clear that Tyrion doesn't remember the situation properly: He had been thinking of those guardsmen during his flight, trying to recall how many there had been. You would think he might remember that, but no. A dozen? A score? A hundred? He could not say. Unless we get a clearer picture of what actually happened (which is unlikely), I don't think we could say for certain.
  6. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Did Tywin order the Mountain to rape Elia and smash her head?

    Sure, but my point was never that Tywin thought she'd lied about who she was, or that he suspected any differently. Just that he didn't know that Tysha genuinely loved Tyrion. Should it not? If the majority of y experiences show x our default assumption should be that y will lead to x. Even if a different result would be nicer. Hmm, I suppose I just assumed it was an immediate marriage. He says they played at being man and wife for a fortnight, and I got the impression that this was the majority of their time together. I could be wrong, obviously. Assuming deceit seems more cautious. The things that set Tyrion apart from others are his extraordinary wealth and his hideous appearance, and the wealth is such an obvious motive. To assume that his wealth had no influence in her choices seems odd. When you hear about some beautiful young woman marrying some rich 90 year old pervert gentleman, do you assume love from both parties? I don't. It's worth considering that Tyrion never even thinks about what Tysha was really like, after Jaime tells him the truth. He just assumes that because Jaime's story was false, that Tyrion's prior thoughts must have been the truth. Which doesn't make sense, obviously. He was a teenager at the time, completely smitten by his first love, two things that don't exactly imply decent critical thought. No? The impact would be the same, regardless of Tysha's feelings, because Tyrion believes that Tysha genuinely loved him. The point was a rebuttal to the idea that because we "all want and need love" that the Tyrion/Tysha situation must have been love. Despite the fact that everybody wants love, all situations that look to be love (or could be love) are not necessarily love. Tyrion/Shae, you/past boyfriends, etc. There are examples a-plenty, in our world and in the novels, of marriages and other romantic relationships that aren't borne out of love. It doesn't mean it wasn't love, of course, but implying that because people want love that it must have been love is obviously nonsense.
  7. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Did Tywin order the Mountain to rape Elia and smash her head?

    How would Jaime know whether or not Tysha actually cared about Tyrion? I'm sure Jaime told the story to his father, but so what? That still doesn't imply that Tywin knew that Tysha was truly in love with Tyrion. Tyrion didn't know the truth, Jaime didn't know the truth, Tywin didn't know the truth, you don't know the truth, I don't know the truth. It's all speculation. Fascinating. There are also people who do view people by such horribly superficial standards. Most commonly it's age, wisdom and maturity that lead people to taking a less superficial view. Hardly the province of young girls, but it's not impossible, that's true. Examples in the book include Sansa and Jeyne Poole, early on at least, and many people judge Brienne quite harshly simply on her appearance, highborn and commoners alike. Eh? He's not hideous because he's a dwarf, he's hideous because he's a particularly hideous dwarf. Mismatched eyes, swollen brow, squashed-in face, twisted shoulders, twisted legs, etc. Just about every time there's a description of him (whether he's giving it himself or not), there's mention of him being somewhat grotesque. He had let his beard grow to cover his pushed-in face, until it was a bristly tangle of yellow and black hair, coarse as wire. Down his back flowed a shadowskin cloak, black fur striped with white. He held the reins in his left hand and carried his right arm in a white silk sling, but otherwise looked as grotesque as Sansa remembered from when he had visited Winterfell. With his bulging brow and mismatched eyes, he was still the ugliest man she had ever chanced to look upon. I've hardly said it makes him unlovable, though. But they married after knowing each other for a single night. Assuming it's love seems like the wrong move. Why would Tysha manipulate Tyrion? Start with the feast they had and it is not hard to understand. There are plenty of kind people. The amount of people who could provide what Tyrion could provide are few and far between. It's hardly a guarantee that she was didn't actually care for him, but it's a perfectly realistic scenario. Sure. It's just as true for Shae, also, who absolutely did not love Tyrion. She's a whore, fine. But it's also true for Sansa, who couldn't find it in her to love Tyrion.
  8. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Did Tywin order the Mountain to rape Elia and smash her head?

    Tywin wouldn't have known anything of the sort. You don't know anything of the sort. We have no idea whether or not Tysha actually cared for Tyrion or if she just wanted his money, but the latter is far more likely. She's a homeless, starving, pretty girl who suddenly gets the chance to have a decent home, better and more plentiful food than she'd ever have, and protection from thugs who would prey upon her, the only price for which is stringing along a shy boy who is completely smitten. Or she's all of those things, and she fell in love with Tyrion Lannister, one of the most hideous people in the Seven Kingdoms. Just because Jaime didn't pay her and create the situation, that doesn't mean that Tysha was genuinely in love with Tyrion.
  9. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Did Tywin order the Mountain to rape Elia and smash her head?

    Hardly a universal truth, but sure, it almost certainly applies to Elia. But I don't see your point. Do you think it impossible for Gregor and Lorch to kill the children without killing her? The sequence of events shows that it was possible, as she was murdered after her children. Or are you saying that she'd somehow get vengeance for it? I don't see how. She'd be a hostage. Or are you saying she'd kill herself? That could be prevented, but there's no certainty that she'd attempt to do so anyway. There are many, many people who have lost loved ones, even their own children, without killing themselves. Maybe I'm just missing your point, but what Elia could tolerate is irrelevant, and the death of her children doesn't necessitate or imply her death.
  10. cyberdirectorfreedom

    Did Tywin order the Mountain to rape Elia and smash her head?

    Why? The children were Targaryens and couldn't be suffered to live, else loyalists might plot rebellion in their name. Elia was no such threat, and could have been used to keep Dorne docile. Anyway, I don't see any reason for Tywin to lie to Tyrion about this. If he thought Tyrion was not to be trusted with such information, telling him the truth about Gregor being Elia's killer was a bigger confession. This is the same chapter in which he tells Tyrion he won't be sacrificing Gregor to the Martells, so Tyrion knowing that truth would be more damning. Even if Tywin didn't wish to tell Tyrion that he ordered Elia's rape, concealing that he ordered her death still makes no sense.
  11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_after_spinal_cord_injury As many as 95% of men with SCI have problems with ejaculation Without medical intervention, the male fertility rate after SCI is 5–14% Even with all available medical interventions, fewer than half of men with SCI can father children. Assisted insemination is usually required. By two years post-injury, 80% of men recover at least partial erectile function, though many experience problems with the reliability and duration of their erections if they do not use interventions to enhance them. I've only really had a cursory glance, to be sure, but the idea I'm getting is that most pregnancies from men with SCI is usually assisted by outside measure, and almost always with medications and erection assisting tools. None of which exists for Bran, obviously. The idea that Bran could go on to father a child with no medication or assistance is unlikely, and nobody in-universe would think it would have even the slightest chance. This precludes the chance of any remotely decent marriage (as the end goal of all such is children). It's not strictly impossible that he could go on to have some sex life and eventually father a child, and marriage is obviously no necessity to create a child, but chances don't seem good. Do you mean to say that he has partial movement, but not enough to walk? I'm fairly sure that's not the case. The stroke had been quick and careless, biting deep. Looking down, Bran glimpsed pale flesh where the wool of his leggings had parted. Then the blood began to flow. He watched the red stain spread, feeling light-headed, curiously apart; there had been no pain, not even a hint of feeling. That implies a complete injury. Anyway, people with SCI being able to father children today has no real bearing on whether on not it's possible for Bran.
  12. cyberdirectorfreedom

    The Astapori situation

    Nobody did. By all the laws of their land and the laws of their gods, they can own people. However much you or I might disapprove, they were within their rights to do so. What Daenerys did was bad business, regardless of her morality or the immorality of the slavers. In addition to her belief that people cannot be owned, what if she also thought animals cannot be owned? Or that plants can't be owned? That the land can't be owned? Or maybe that it's immoral to rent out whores (we're talking free people here, not slaves)? Does that mean she has free rein to kill livestock sellers, farmers, everyone who owns a house or business, or brothel keepers? Maybe so long as she makes a deal she has no intention of upholding with them first? Of course not. The only difference is that you and I agree with her on the fact that people should not be traded. Moral belief is no reason to break contracts. It was not the right thing to do. Freeing slaves is a noble goal, sure, and this was done in service of that, but it was a bad act in service to a greater good, not a good act in itself. I'm not certain we can. We know there are tokars with a plain fringe. We don't know what this truly implies, though. We don't know the level of power to which one must ascend to be worthy of a fringed tokar. Or, indeed, a tokar at all. Though we do know that there is a difference, it isn't just style. We just don't know enough. I doubt that everyone who wears a tokar has influence over the running of the city. Some of them simply wouldn't want to, and as the elite, wouldn't have to. Running their own house, sure, but not the city entire. It seems unlikely. Yeah, me too. It's a shame, it's interesting enough. Ah. They deserve it. Sure. Don't get me wrong, I agree that they're scum. However, if one does not wish to deal with scum, one shouldn't deal with scum. No need for breaking deals. If a deal is to be made, however, a deal should be kept. I scarcely need to be. Who knows what else Daenerys finds morally reprehensible? Anyone might well have done something with which Daenerys takes great issue; they will deserve to be betrayed, also. Now, one might believe that they have done nothing quite so bad as the slavers. Sure, it's probably true. However, the slavers weren't doing anything illegal. The one tipping point that allowed Daenerys to believe that the slavers deserved it is that she decided they did. She could decide that about anything. We have the unique perspective of being within Daenerys's head to know more about how she'll react, but the people with which she'll deal don't have that luxury. The big issue is that it opens up a very dangerous precedent. Anyone may well decide that Daenerys deserves to be betrayed, too, and may well feel perfectly justified in doing so, just as Daenerys before them. No deal involving her can truly have any measure of trust, nothing she says. She has openly declared that her word means nothing. Very dangerous. We see what happens with this kind of dealing in Westeros, after the Red Wedding. Guest right was broken because Walder Frey believed Robb Stark deserved it. There's no trust for them now, but the precedent was made, and it's had clear repercussions. Stonehearts little Brave Companions are breaking guest right too, because they feel that the Freys/Lannisters/Boltons/whoever else deserve it. The ransom for Petyr Pimple, firstly. Brienne and company were given guest right at the Crossroads Inn, and they served them right up to be hanged. Hyle Hunt deserved his fate simply for serving Lord Tarly, who was hunting them (because hunting outlaws is monstrous behaviour, of course). Deserve doesn't come into a deal. You have to put all that aside, or there'll never be any trust. It needs to be put aside, because everybody is scum from some perspective. Isn't it? It was the name he had that day, and it's pretty clear that Daenerys wants her slaves to have just one name. I mean, as you said, he kept his slave name. You could be right though. Who knows? After what they went through, the way they think is basically alien. I just don't know how to take them, really. Regarding the other freedmen, sure, a great many of them chose to pledge themselves to her. Some followed her because they didn't know what else to do, sure. But others seem to have done their own things. Gone their own way. Not one Unsullied chose to do so (as far as I can tell). It sounds more like their deep-seated obedience than anything else. It's quite sad, really. The other freedmen had choices, but the Unsullied seem to me to have been... I don't know, free to choose to obey. Mmm, I was wondering about the wine of courage. If Daenerys didn't kill the Good Masters, would they have given her the recipe to create more of it? Are they supposed to keep taking it, or was it only for their formative years, during their training? They've clearly stopped taking it now, but was that the norm and the damage has already been done, or will not taking it allow their senses to return? It's basically just poison, though, I'm not sure if there's any undoing it. Regardless, the selling point of Unsullied is that they essentially are robots. I don't think it'd be possible to keep their reputation for so long if it wasn't mostly true. They essentially did refuse to be freed. If they weren't freed, they'd serve as her army. Now that they are freed, they... serve as her army. Whether she wishes to be called their master or their Queen, they serve her just the same. The same extreme obedience, the same undying loyalty. Maybe it is just their choice. Every single one of them making a reasoned, informed choice to serve her. But it still looks a lot like an Unsullied slave army. Identical, one might say. Not to mention there are perfectly good arguments that one cannot make sound, reasonable decisions under duress, and that the Unsullied training has put them in a perpetual state of duress. Or a state of duress that lasted beyond the time when they pledged themselves to Daenerys. I think I'd disagree. You can't choose where you're born or in what circumstances. You can choose not to own slaves. If there are any people doing this, that is different. What can they do, anyway? Leave and probably lose all their wealth? Who does that serve? It wouldn't change anything or help anyone. Stay and try to make a change? How? By themselves, at best they'd be ignored, at worst they'd be made an example. Without a sizable amount of support, change isn't on it's way, and such views (hell, if they exist at all) are clearly a minority. The best they'd be able to do, by themselves, is just live their lives without harming anyone. Branding people guilty by association isn't helpful.
  13. cyberdirectorfreedom

    The Astapori situation

    Oh, definitely. I know I said his one order, but I meant his one priority. My bad. Gregor and Lorch obviously weren't acting independently. Sure, and I don't disagree. There's more here to talk about though, no? Yeah, fair enough. Many reasons one might not need or want or be able to have a slave, though. Housing them, foremost among issues. If you have no space, you can't have a slave. Still, I guess the question is what comes first, slave owning money or tokar wearing money. If it's the former, the vast majority of tokar wearers own slaves. If it's the latter, a slightly smaller majority of tokar wearers own slaves. My point is simply that we don't know that one must own slaves in order to wear a tokar, and so it's possible that the order to kill any man wearing a tokar could kill some who own no slaves. Even if it did, though, collateral damage is always to be expected during a sack. One can't take issue with the collateral damage if one believes the sack was worthwhile. Mmm, it's impossible to say, really. Whether he's of age or not, Daenerys might well consider him a boy, and we don't truly know whether children wear the tokar. Time might tell. Well, I am a person who cares about fairness and contracts and all that, and I honestly think what she did was disgusting. However, I also believe the deal was struck and finished. It's just that she had no intention of leaving it at that. It's not good business to go stealing your payment back, of course, but the theft is the payment, not what you paid for. Anyone who knows Daenerys did this and gets into business with her is a fool, however. I wouldn't trust her for a moment. Maybe. Or maybe they act as if they want their freedom because it clearly pleases Daenerys, their master. It's hard to say. The obedience is deep, and - I believe to a man - they chose to serve as her army. The exact thing they'd be doing if they had no choice at all. It's worth considering, is all. They'd be fiercely loyal to whomever bought them, no matter what kind of person they are. Sure, the "normal" slaves are all (well, mostly all) unhappy. The Unsullied are... different. Now admittedly, it was part of a sales pitch, but Kraznyz says that the Unsullied would kill those who try to tempt them with freedom, and that "an Unsullied would not take it if the little mare offered it as a gift". The Unsullied have had their reputation for centuries. I wouldn't think embellishment would be necessary. It might well be true. What else do they have, besides obedience? What else do they know? Considering they all pledged themselves to Daenerys, it's fair enough to say that they didn't take the freedom that she offered them. I sure did. It had nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was talking about what it undeniably shows. What is certain. Not Daenerys's view on the matter. The fact that one cannot move freely, and that it requires the full use of one hand is undeniable. Completely beyond doubt. The fact that it is only worn by slave owners is not undeniable. It may well be the case, but Daenerys believing it does not make it so. What is clear is that it is a sign of wealth. The slavers are all, obviously, wealthy. Therefore, all slavers will wear tokars, as it is the one garment that the wealthy wear. What is not clear is the amount of wealth one must have to be allowed to wear a tokar. The well-to-do, but not extraordinarily wealthy might be able to wear the tokar (there are plain fringed tokars, for example, which might be worn by such). We also don't know that if one were going to wear a tokar but happened to have no slaves (whether they all died, or they never owned any for some reason), whether or not they would be allowed to do so. Is slave ownership a prerequisite for wearing a tokar? We don't know, but it seems unlikely. We know they're restricted (in Astapor, at least) to only the freeborn, but it seems likely enough that they're limited to the wealthy because they're prohibitively expensive for those without such means. Certainly, it's likely that in the majority of cases, such wealth coincides with slave ownership, but I wouldn't think it a necessity. As such, there could be those who own no slaves yet wear a tokar. It doesn't matter overmuch, regardless. I agree with Lord Varys that Daenerys went far enough to avoid a wholesale massacre, and even if her orders did cause the death of non-slave-owning-tokar-wearers, I believe that collateral damage is unavoidable in a sack anyway. I mostly agree with what is being said. Just some minor quibbles.
  14. cyberdirectorfreedom

    The Astapori situation

    Oh, the battle I was referring to was the Sack of Astapor. But no, it wouldn't be common practice to give that many orders to so many people, it's simply impractical. You just have to expect some collateral damage, and specifically mention those you want alive. In a situation like the one with Gregor and Elia, however, I think it probable that they would be given specific orders. If you're sending someone to butcher a family, and you specifically want one of them alive, omitting them is not enough. All that implies to me is that they're of so little import to the one giving the order that they're not going to care what is done to them. Hence, Tywin is still fully responsible for what happened, which makes his "defense" that he simply didn't mention her so ridiculous that I think it must be true. It's either true, or a completely pointless lie told to someone Tywin doesn't care enough about to lie to. Sure, the main way. But not necessarily the only way. Someone is running fancy taverns in the wealthier districts, certainly, which wouldn't require slaves (wouldn't preclude the use of them either). They might have slaves working there, but maybe not. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were businesses that advertised themselves as a "freeborn only" business, so that the rich can fop about saying that everything they're wearing was untouched by filthy slaves. Anyway, I'm not certain it's entirely fair to say that everyone wealthy in Astapor is a slaver. At least by trade. The vast, vast majority of the wealthy among the Astapori would keep slaves at home, for sure. Well, there's a difference between 'not using your own hands to work' and 'only doing work that requires one hand'. Manual labour is right out, but some light scribe work wouldn't necessitate two hands. Management stuff. But non-elite freeborn men exist in Astapor, and they'll need management too. Sure, but when the Unsullied come across someone they weren't specifically given an order about, what do they do? Just spare them? They could be dangerous, ignoring them could be deadly. Taking the time to deal with them non-lethally might be too time consuming and prevent them from being as efficient as possible (which is, presumably, what all Unsullied owners want). I cannot imagine that the default behaviour (which would have been taught to them by the Astapori) when encountering such an unknown is be gentle. I'd think that if it could be dangerous at all, the Unsullied will simply kill it and move on. They'll definitely follow any order to spare specific types of people, however, which really sets them apart from any other sacking army. Certainly. I imagine his one order was to get Jaime away from Aerys, alive. Other than that, do as you please. The business with the Royal Grandchildren will have been an afterthought, I'd think. Oh, for sure, I do think Daenerys's orders were fine, I should probably say that. She went as far as she could to prevent collateral damage. She could have just unleashed them on the city. Even with that ratio, though, not all of the 1/6 are the wealthy elite. There will be many, many among that 1/6 who own more than five slaves, too, so I'd think it unlikely that the huge majority of freeborn Volantines own a slave. Well, sure, but you could then say that about everyone who trades with any slaver city. It's fair enough I suppose, and you can't really argue it, but it's not the same thing. You could push that to say that the Braavosi participate in the slave trade, as they trade with the Seven Kingdoms, who trade with the Slaver Cities (do the Braavosi trade directly with the other Free Cities? I know the Iron Bank lends to them). It seems an unfair judgement, to me. What do all the free people do, then? I can't imagine it's just slaves and the rich elite, there must be a sizable amount of freeborn men in these cities. These people need jobs. Maybe all manual labour is outsourced to slaves, and the running of such businesses is all that is left to freeborn men, but that implies a worse ratio than the one we hear for Volantis, which is specifically mentioned because it's weighted so highly towards the slaves. Well, come to think on it, soldiers are all free, aren't they? Well, not the slave soldiers, obviously, but there's an amount of freeborn soldiers. Maybe, but if there were any slaveless tokar wearers, surely Daenerys would prefer them, which might explain Reznak (seriously, all he does is flatter, flatter, flatter. If he was anything like this before Daenerys came, it's likely he served rather than being served). Sure. She calls him a boy though, which implies he's a child. Though, obviously this is just her perspective. Ah. I imagined that he was wearing the same thing he was wearing during the sack, when he was forced out of his home. It's frayed because he's been living and sleeping in it for the past... however long. It seems to have been a little while from sack to meeting: Her Unsullied had finally restored order, but the sack left a plague of problems in its wake. Finally can mean a great many things, but I don't imagine it was the next day. Regardless, I don't imagine he was able to take a lot of clothing when he fled, nor was there anywhere he could go to get more clothing (certainly not a tokar), and he definitely couldn't go home. He might just have been of age, though, you're right. They wanted a dragon, they got a dragon. It's not Daenerys's fault they can't control it. She killed them and took it back, but the deal was finished. Drogon was false gold, sure, but it is what they wanted. Just because you didn't tell me that the apple was poisoned, that doesn't mean I didn't want the apple. It's not fair, true, but it was the deal. Caveat Emptor. They don't move because they haven't been ordered to move. I'd say that if they wanted to help Daenerys, they would have acted sooner. It seems to me that they simply acted as they were ordered by their master, because that's all they know. This is the first thing she says to them: She stood in her stirrups and raised the harpy's fingers above her head for all the Unsullied to see. "IT IS DONE!" she cried at the top of her lungs. "YOU ARE MINE!" She gave the mare her heels and galloped along the first rank, holding the fingers high. "YOU ARE THE DRAGON'S NOW! YOU'RE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR! IT IS DONE! IT IS DONE!" The next is the orders: "Unsullied!" Dany galloped before them, her silver-gold braid flying behind her, her bell chiming with every stride. "Slay the Good Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under twelve, and strike the chains off every slave you see." She raised the harpy's fingers in the air . . . and then she flung the scourge aside. "Freedom!" she sang out. "Dracarys! Dracarys!" Not acting before that is exactly what they should have done, in their role as slaves. They're behaving as is expected of them, as they've been trained to do. I don't think there's anything more to it. They were clearly told that they now belong to Daenerys, and all of their former masters were there, not disputing it. It's fair to say that they belonged to Daenerys, then. They were probably thrilled about it, best orders ever, but they still acted the perfect Unsullied. Here's the full passage, anyway, for posterity (I see nothing here to think they're not acting as Unsullied): Dany turned the whip in her hand. Such a light thing, to bear such weight. "Is it done, then? Do they belong to me?" "It is done," he agreed, giving the chain a sharp pull to bring Drogon down from the litter. Dany mounted her silver. She could feel her heart thumping in her chest. She felt desperately afraid. Was this what my brother would have done? She wondered if Prince Rhaegar had been this anxious when he saw the Usurper's host formed up across the Trident with all their banners floating on the wind. She stood in her stirrups and raised the harpy's fingers above her head for all the Unsullied to see. "IT IS DONE!" she cried at the top of her lungs. "YOU ARE MINE!" She gave the mare her heels and galloped along the first rank, holding the fingers high. "YOU ARE THE DRAGON'S NOW! YOU'RE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR! IT IS DONE! IT IS DONE!" She glimpsed old Grazdan turn his grey head sharply. He hears me speak Valyrian. The other slavers were not listening. They crowded around Kraznys and the dragon, shouting advice. Though the Astapori yanked and tugged, Drogon would not budge off the litter. Smoke rose grey from his open jaws, and his long neck curled and straightened as he snapped at the slaver's face. It is time to cross the Trident, Dany thought, as she wheeled and rode her silver back. Her bloodriders moved in close around her. "You are in difficulty," she observed. "He will not come," Kraznys said. "There is a reason. A dragon is no slave." And Dany swept the lash down as hard as she could across the slaver's face. Kraznys screamed and staggered back, the blood running red down his cheeks into his perfumed beard. The harpy's fingers had torn his features half to pieces with one slash, but she did not pause to contemplate the ruin. "Drogon," she sang out loudly, sweetly, all her fear forgotten. "Dracarys." The black dragon spread his wings and roared. A lance of swirling dark flame took Kraznys full in the face. His eyes melted and ran down his cheeks, and the oil in his hair and beard burst so fiercely into fire that for an instant the slaver wore a burning crown twice as tall as his head. The sudden stench of charred meat overwhelmed even his perfume, and his wail seemed to drown all other sound. Then the Plaza of Punishment blew apart into blood and chaos. The Good Masters were shrieking, stumbling, shoving one another aside and tripping over the fringes of their tokars in their haste. Drogon flew almost lazily at Kraznys, black wings beating. As he gave the slaver another taste of fire, Irri and Jhiqui unchained Viserion and Rhaegal, and suddenly there were three dragons in the air. When Dany turned to look, a third of Astapor's proud demon-horned warriors were fighting to stay atop their terrified mounts, and another third were fleeing in a bright blaze of shiny copper. One man kept his saddle long enough to draw a sword, but Jhogo's whip coiled about his neck and cut off his shout. Another lost a hand to Rakharo's arakh and rode off reeling and spurting blood. Aggo sat calmly notching arrows to his bowstring and sending them at tokars. Silver, gold, or plain, he cared nothing for the fringe. Strong Belwas had his arakh out as well, and he spun it as he charged. "Spears!" Dany heard one Astapori shout. It was Grazdan, old Grazdan in his tokar heavy with pearls. "Unsullied! Defend us, stop them, defend your masters! Spears! Swords!" When Rakharo put an arrow through his mouth, the slaves holding his sedan chair broke and ran, dumping him unceremoniously on the ground. The old man crawled to the first rank of eunuchs, his blood pooling on the bricks. The Unsullied did not so much as look down to watch him die. Rank on rank on rank, they stood. And did not move. The gods have heard my prayer. "Unsullied!" Dany galloped before them, her silver-gold braid flying behind her, her bell chiming with every stride. "Slay the Good Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under twelve, and strike the chains off every slave you see." She raised the harpy's fingers in the air . . . and then she flung the scourge aside. "Freedom!" she sang out. "Dracarys! Dracarys!" "Dracarys!" they shouted back, the sweetest word she'd ever heard. "Dracarys! Dracarys!" And all around them slavers ran and sobbed and begged and died, and the dusty air was filled with spears and fire.
  15. cyberdirectorfreedom

    The Astapori situation

    I generally agree with most of what you're saying here, but I think this is my biggest issue. I'd say that, when going into a war-zone, the people you specifically want to be spared need to be mentioned. With no explicit orders, people generally have free rein in battle. I'd say not mentioning someone means you don't care what happens to them, rather than that you want them spared. Which is why I believe Tywin when he says he simply didn't mention Elia. Because the blame lies on him just as much, regardless. Just that he's guilty by omission rather than malice, which scarcely paints him in a better light (and I've never had the impression that he cares much what Tyrion thinks of him). However, to the crux of the topic, I don't think we know enough about the tokar to say whether this: is true. Simply because we don't know whether or not non-slavers wear tokars. Here's some of what we do know: All wrapped themselves in tokars, a garment permitted only to freeborn men of Astapor. So, no slaves can wear tokars. But that doesn't discount other wealthy people who don't participate in the slave trade. It was the fringe on the tokar that proclaimed a man's status, Dany had been told by Captain Groleo. In this cool green room atop the pyramid, two of the slavers wore tokars fringed in silver, five had gold fringes, and one, the oldest Grazdan, displayed a fringe of fat white pearls that clacked together softly when he shifted in his seat or moved an arm. Aggo sat calmly notching arrows to his bowstring and sending them at tokars. Silver, gold, or plain, he cared nothing for the fringe. Fringes that are plain must be the lowest status, and none of these were at the meeting with Daenerys. This is, however, all we know of Astapori tokars. Elsewhere, things may be different, we don't know. In Meereen: Rhaegal had snapped at Irri, and Viserion had set Reznak's tokar ablaze the last time the seneschal had called. Reznak wears a tokar. Now, of course, he's nobility. But did he own any slaves? Did his house make and buy slaves? I don't think we know the answer to this. I seem to recall that Reznak had a similar role before Daenerys arrived (though admittedly, I'm not certain about this) and he's essentially a servant. A noble servant, yes, but a servant nonetheless. Yet he wears a tokar. There's more, of course, but it seems to me that a tokar is a display of wealth and power, though not necessarily anything to do with slavery (well, other than the obvious connection that Old Ghis and the current Ghiscari are wealthy in large part due to the slave trade). All it certainly signifies is that one is wealthy, and that their work doesn't require both hands: Even wound properly, the tokar required its wearer to hold it in place with the left hand. Walking in a tokar demanded small, mincing steps and exquisite balance, lest one tread upon those heavy trailing fringes. It was not a garment meant for any man who had to work. Theoretically, anyone who has workers doing the majority of their business could wear a tokar. Even if they owned no slaves. Not in Meereen, at least: A boy came, younger than Dany, slight and scarred, dressed up in a frayed grey tokar trailing silver fringe. His voice broke when he told of how two of his father's household slaves had risen up the night the gate broke. Maybe. You do have Zahrina, the proprietor of the Purple Lotus (a sketchy winesink, where Quentyn meets the Tattered Prince), who wears a tokar. Though, she is a slaver too. She provides cheap slaves to die against better fighters in the pits, puts on slave fights at her Purple Lotus, and was at the auction where Tyrion was sold. She would always bid one higher than the last bid (which implies she's not super wealthy, or just that she's very cheap). Either way, she works her business herself, and she's never given a surname, so she could very well be common. But she could very well not be noble. Mmm, I'm not so certain. She didn't so much betray the deal, just that her first order to her newly purchased slaves was for them to kill their old masters and take back her payment. The Unsullied don't judge, and they don't disobey. "If I did resell them, how would I know they could not be used against me?" Dany asked pointedly. "Would they do that? Fight against me, even do me harm?" "If their master commanded. They do not question, Your Grace. All the questions have been culled from them. They obey." She looked troubled. "When you are . . . when you are done with them . . . Your Grace might command them to fall upon their swords." The deal was finished, the Unsullied belonged to Daenerys. The only reason this hasn't happened before is that most buyers of Unsullied want more being made, and that the purchase of all of the Unsullied in Astapor was unprecedented. Anyway, I'd say that tokars probably are worn by those who own no slaves. Though it's entirely possible that anyone who is in a position to wear a tokar (don't need both hands to work, has others to work for them, etc.) owns slaves, as they're the cheapest source of labour. It's possible that the only people wearing a tokar that don't own slaves are those who find it immoral, but to date, I don't recall seeing any among the Ghiscari have that belief, outside of those who are enslaved. Such people probably exist, but would be few and far between. Regardless, in any sack, there's going to be collateral damage. It's just the way it is. Was it worthwhile this time? Perhaps.
×