Let’s Change the Conversation: Remapping Dany

[E-Ro]

Dany's radical change to Westeros ought not be radical at the time she arrives in Westeros. A simple change of, say, having an IT standing army, stripping away the extent of the lords' abilities to call their banners. She could have a more representative small council, something which she's already doing in Meereen - her council consists of leaders of the various groups.

Strip the lords ability to call their banners? She'd end up dead.

Also, a standing army is simply not feasible in westeros for a varsity of reasons. But the system of banner calling works well enough. What a smart dany would do is take the stormlands riverlands and crownlands and combine them into one entity directly controlled by the iron throne.

[SeanF]

Dany's radical change to Westeros ought not be radical at the time she arrives in Westeros. A simple change of, say, having an IT standing army, stripping away the extent of the lords' abilities to call their banners. She could have a more representative small council, something which she's already doing in Meereen - her council consists of leaders of the various groups.

Having a huge standing army, and removing the right of the lords to raise their own troops would be very much in the mould of enlightened absolutism.

[butterbumps!]

My worries are not so much about Dany being soured about the smallfolk, but rather about the smallfolk being soured about Dany, after she has - probably brutally - killed their previous champion. Don't forget, the mummer's dragon will be cheered by the crowds.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. Ok, I see what you're saying-- that Dany might win that popular support in the first place after realizing what Aegon is about. Though not for the specific reason you brought up, I think this might be part of where acknowledgement of her disinterest in taking the throne might play out-- if they understand that this isn't about dynastic restoration for her (which is part of Aegon's platform), but that she's fighting their war, this could overcome disillusionment caused by Aegon potentially. But also, I think the fact that we've seen people follow her with an almost cult-like devotion might overcome this as well. It's a good point though.

Dany's radical change to Westeros ought not be radical at the time she arrives in Westeros. A simple change of, say, having an IT standing army, stripping away the extent of the lords' abilities to call their banners. She could have a more representative small council, something which she's already doing in Meereen - her council consists of leaders of the various groups.

But that's just it. Sometimes reform is impossible without some massive interruption to the system itself. I don't think that without this major interruption to the status quo that any sort of the reform you're suggesting can find traction.

Importantly wrt Dany, she's very good at rallying people to interrupt these lumbering institutions, but neither interested in, nor does she excel at, the implementation of new order in the wake of such change.

[Cas Stark]

Well, that's not exactly what Varys is planning-- in terms of liberation. He's concerned with the notion of an Enlightened despot who doesn't empower the smallfolk, but reigns responsibly over them.

I'm not sure how that would make Dany's potential desire to empower the smallfolk soured.

Varys seems to be about not changing the system itself, but about making rulers more responsible to their people through good training of an invidual monarch. What I'm proposing Dany might do is support the notion that the smallfolk themselves have power (not in some democratic sense, but in the sense that they have strength in their numbers and to challenge the fact that they suffer when the lords play the game). Varys is the one who's designing a reform to the system; I think Dany would be more inclined to topple the system to some degree. In the end, I suspect that Dany won't survive (or will abdicate before) to see a new system come to pass, but I suspect in the end, what we'll get is closer to what Varys proposes, with the added imperative by the smallfolk that they have power in numbers to pushback.

I'm glad you brought that up. I think most of us would agree that a smallfolk uprising is a broadly positive thing to instigate. It might not be, however, well timed if it's happening while he focus should be on the bigger threat of the Long Night. I think this might be one of the bittersweet things-- something that we'd probably applaud in that it's being done at all, but upset it's not being done according to some plan, or while this other threat might require more focus.

But I wonder if the simultaneity will play off on each other; the Long Night is also going cause a great deal of changes, at least in terms of population depletion and the like, which might play to the notion of a challenge to the previous order.

I don't agree, really. I thought that a large part of the moral of Slaver's Bay is that the gulf between what is good in the abstract sense--ending slavery--and how this abstract good is brought about through execution of strategies and tactics is quite a gap, a gap that can be filled with bodies.

A small folk uprising to me is not broadly positive, historical results in small folk uprisings vary wildly, from ushering in better more representative governments to ushering autocratic tyrants who starved their people. Change for the sake of change is to me, not a benefit. There is no reason to believe either that Westeros needs the kind of "change" that Dany brings, that it needs to be destroyed from the ground up, a few incremental legal changes here and there would easily do the trick.

[E-Ro]

Having a huge standing army, and removing the right of the lords to raise their own troops would be very much in the mould of enlightened absolutism.

Wouldn't it be better to have power spread amongst multiple people(lords) instead if one person? That way they check each other's power. It one person has ALL the control if that person snaps things could get really fucked really fast.

[Sansa_Stark]

man all of these talks of change reminds me of obama

big talk

[E-Ro]

man all of these talks of change reminds me of obama

big talk

Really now?

[RoamingRonin]

man all of these talks of change reminds me of obama

big talk

Tempted to put on ignore. I've noticed when people don't respond to your posts, you just start saying anything. Grow up.

[SeanF]

Wouldn't it be better to have power spread amongst multiple people(lords) instead if one person? That way they check each other's power. It one person has ALL the control if that person snaps things could get really fucked really fast.

In essence, that's the current position in Westeros. And, it just leads to endless war and faction-fighting between the Great Houses.

[Gogossos]

Wouldn't it be better to have power spread amongst multiple people(lords) instead if one person? That way they check each other's power. It one person has ALL the control if that person snaps things could get really fucked really fast.

Good point, I thought about that but she would have to offer them a seat in a Senate-style council in return. Better to have those squabbles in the council rather than little wars. Also, the relationship between Dany and this council would've to be defined. At the moment, her MO is to let her council debate but she has the final say.

[E-Ro]

In essence, that's the current position in Westeros. And, it just leads to endless war and faction-fighting between the Great Houses.

My point was, if you take the power of the lords paramount(impossible as things are now, even with dragons, good luck disarming the seven kingdoms) and give all that power to one person, there might be less fighting but the potential for that person to do wrong is amplified. Look at Aerys, if Jon arryn, Ned, and Robert didn't have the means to defend themselves they would have been out to death and Aerys would still be burning small folk.

[butterbumps!]

I don't agree, really. I thought that a large part of the moral of Slaver's Bay is that the gulf between what is good in the abstract sense--ending slavery--and how this abstract good is brought about through execution of strategies and tactics is quite a gap, a gap that can be filled with bodies.

You believe that an oppressive system that will just go on oppressing indefinitely should not be challenged suddenly when an opening to do so is presented because such cataclysms have a high immediate cost?

Abstractly, the Northmen's reclaiming a KitN is doing something like this-- the IT never gave us anything but headaches, and now without dragons there's nothing to stop us from leaving, so we will rule ourselves. And that had a pretty major cost in terms of death toll.

I'm not trying to present a "right" answer here or anything, just that in my view, I don't think the destruction following a just criticism of a flawed system negate the revolt's value/ virtue.

A small folk uprising to me is not broadly positive, historical results in small folk uprisings vary wildly, from ushering in better more representative governments to ushering autocratic tyrants who starved their people. Change for the sake of change is to me, not a benefit. There is no reason to believe either that Westeros needs the kind of "change" that Dany brings, that it needs to be destroyed from the ground up, a few incremental legal changes here and there would easily do the trick.

My contention is that without this massive shock to the system-- which might be full of suffering, brutality and tremendous ugliness-- such changes might never happen. I'm trying to say that you can hate the way it was done, but perhaps appreciate it as necessary to the overall reform of a system.

[NotSoSilentSister]

Ah, thanks for clarifying. Ok, I see what you're saying-- that Dany might win that popular support in the first place after realizing what Aegon is about. Though not for the specific reason you brought up, I think this might be part of where acknowledgement of her disinterest in taking the throne might play out-- if they understand that this isn't about dynastic restoration for her (which is part of Aegon's platform), but that she's fighting their war, this could overcome disillusionment caused by Aegon potentially. But also, I think the fact that we've seen people follow her with an almost cult-like devotion might overcome this as well. It's a good point though.

Well, the cult-like devotion... that's a double edged sword. In fact, I think religion will be another reason why Dany's fairly unlikely to take up the cause of Westerosi peasant. Because their cause has already been taken up/instrumentalized - by the High Septon and Co. Who will have problems with an Aegon killing Red Priest backed Dany. She's like Stannis in that regard. There's going to be a lot of religious fervor evoked, but it's not going to be in Dany's favour, I'm afraid.

[Cas Stark]

You believe that an oppressive system that will just go on oppressing indefinitely should not be challenged suddenly when an opening to do so is presented because such cataclysms have a high immediate cost?

Abstractly, the Northmen's reclaiming a KitN is doing something like this-- the IT never gave us anything but headaches, and now without dragons, we no longer have need to be ruled by the IT, so we will rule ourselves. And that had a pretty major cost in terms of death toll.

I'm not trying to present a "right" answer here or anything, just that in my view, I don't think the destruction following a just criticism of a flawed system negate the revolt's value/ virtue.

My contention is that without this massive shock to the system-- which might be full of suffering, brutality and tremendous ugliness-- such changes might never happen. I'm trying to say that you can hate the way it was done, but perhaps appreciate it as necessary to the overall reform of a system.

You are, I believe presenting a false choice. That the only options are the oppressive system goes on as it is, or that it's overthrown with no plan or people in place to make positive change. I don't accept that those are the only roads to change.

I also do not see evidence in the text that Westeros is so dysfunctional that it needs such a massive shock to the system as a wholesale peasant revolt and that doesn't really to me fit with the story we've been reading. Dany as a savior figure who will use her power to "save" Westeros from the Others instead of use her power to take the throne fits much more closely to me than that she decides admidst everything else going on in Westeros that what is really needed is a peasant revolt. I would find that terrible story telling.

[E-Ro]

Tempted to put on ignore. I've noticed when people don't respond to your posts, you just start saying anything. Grow up.

I laughed.

[GoldenFleece]

You are, I believe presenting a false choice. That the only options are the oppressive system goes on as it is, or that it's overthrown with no plan or people in place to make positive change. I don't accept that those are the only roads to change.

I also do not see evidence in the text that Westeros is so dysfunctional that it needs such a massive shock to the system as a wholesale peasant revolt and that doesn't really to me fit with the story we've been reading. Dany as a savior figure who will use her power to "save" Westeros from the Others instead of use her power to take the throne fits much more closely to me than that she decides admidst everything else going on in Westeros that what is really needed is a peasant revolt. I would find that terrible story telling.

Slaver's Bay has no democratic ways to go about change like petitions, votes, councils, unions - nothing. How can change be implemented when there are not incentives of the powerful to make change. That is naïve. Of course change can occur over hundreds of years that will eventually ban slavery at Slavers Bay, but that's hundreds of years more slaving and suffering done to innocent people.

[Veltigar]

Do you want to know how Dany could forever impact Westeros? The answer is pretty easy: Sephardi Jews.

After the Reconquista the Spanish monarchy told the Sephardi Jews and the Spanish Muslims to convert or die. Many refused to do that and moved out in exile. They moved all over Europe, but there was only one nation truly hospitable to them. The Ottoman Empire.

The Ottoman sultan Bayezid II granted them refuge, offered them a chance to become Ottoman Citizens and ordered his subjects to treat the Jews cordially. The Ottoman Empire at that time was already a regional powerhouse, but it would grow out to be one of the superpowers of the next 100 years or so. One of the main reasons for that was the warm welcome of Sephardi Jews who brought new ideas, trades, crafts and capital with them to the Ottomans and thus made the Ottomans a far more formidable adversary.

There's a great quote by Sultan Bayezid II were he really takes a shit on the Spanish King Ferdinand (the term 'burn' was made for it):

"You venture to call Ferdinand a wise ruler," Bayezid II said to his courtiers — "he who has impoverished his own country and enriched mine!"

Daenerys the Liberator could take on a similar role as Bayezid. By transporting her freedmen from Slaversbay and other places she'll take along the route (certainly Volantis, perhaps more) she'll bring in a great influx of people into the 7 Kingdoms.

The common slaves will just resettle and rebuilt large parts of Westeros (Cracklaw Point, the Riverlands, the North and other parts soon to follow). Putting an end to good farmland laying their unproductive.

But there is also a slave elite. People like the weavers and the first leader of her freedmen (I forgot her name she was a harp player or a singer). They'll bring new forms of art, crafts, trades and knowledge to Westeros and stir up the status-quo.

[Cas Stark]

This may not belong on this thread, but the discussion is based around the Meereenese knot, and I'm not sure GRRM has really resolved this since I can't see how he can get Dany out of Essos and have a positive resolution to Slaver's Bay, e.g. the region is on a positive track, with a sense that stability and a move toward a better, free system is in it's future without another unbelievable deus ex machina set of plot gifts.

If he has her burn it down and leave it a smoking ruin, he further damages her character...which he has already seriously damaged by her Slaver's Bay follies...because she will then have destroyed the place and gone on her merry way to Westeros. However, not knowing of course what he has in store for her, where he intends to take her character, it's hard to say. It seems strange though that one of the 3 main characters who had been so heroic for so long would be taken down a truly dark and destructive path. It strikes me he should have had her take the unsullied at Astapor and sailed for Westeros then and there and left the rest of the story alone. But, we'll see.

[dpt24]

I actually agree with the Standing Army idea. It doesn't have to be particularly large either. 16,000-22,000 just like the New Model Army would be sufficient to tip the scales in a rebellion as long as some lords back her. Alternatively keeping mercenaries like the Free Cities would be an option.

Depending on how much more damage comes to Westeros and the High Lords before the series ends she may not have much to fear about rebellion either. Many of the old and powerful lords are dead and their armies weakened by the war. So I don't know how likely it is that they'll be capable of pulling together a major rebellion, especially if it's a rough winter.

[E-Ro]

Do you want to know how Dany could forever impact Westeros? The answer is pretty easy: Sephardi Jews.

After the Reconquista the Spanish monarchy told the Sephardi Jews and the Spanish Muslims to convert or die. Many refused to do that and moved out in exile. They moved all over Europe, but there was only one nation truly hospitable to them. The Ottoman Empire.

The Ottoman sultan Bayezid II granted them refuge, offered them a chance to become Ottoman Citizens and ordered his subjects to treat the Jews cordially. The Ottoman Empire at that time was already a regional powerhouse, but it would grow out to be one of the superpowers of the next 100 years or so. One of the main reasons for that was the warm welcome of Sephardi Jews who brought new ideas, trades, crafts and capital with them to the Ottomans and thus made the Ottomans a far more formidable adversary.

There's a great quote by Sultan Bayezid II were he really takes a shit on the Spanish King Ferdinand (the term 'burn' was made for it):

Daenerys the Liberator could take on a similar role as Bayezid. By transporting her freedmen from Slaversbay and other places she'll take along the route (certainly Volantis, perhaps more) she'll bring in a great influx of people into the 7 Kingdoms.

The common slaves will just resettle and rebuilt large parts of Westeros (Cracklaw Point, the Riverlands, the North and other parts soon to follow). Putting an end to good farmland laying their unproductive.

But there is also a slave elite. People like the weavers and the first leader of her freedmen (I forgot her name she was a harp player or a singer). They'll bring new forms of art, crafts, trades and knowledge to Westeros and stir up the status-quo.

The reconqista is fucking awesome and Ferdinand was a badass mofo, IMO.

The struggles on the Iberian peninsula are fine examples of medieval warfare.