Daenerys the betrayer

[RoamingRonin]

I think depiction of Dany's choice of punishment in Mereen as whimsical or emotional misses the point.

It does.

1: They have no proof that there were innocent people killed.

2: Dany had a long time to think about her decision before she arrived in Meereen so it was not done on a whim.

3: Dany was not bothered by the executions but by the method she chose.

The notion there were innocent people killed has no basis. The logic behind that idea is so flawed it's unbelievable.

[Sordelor]

It does.

1: They have no proof that there were innocent people killed.

2: Dany had a long time to think about her decision before she arrived in Meereen so it was not done on a whim.

3: Dany was not bothered by the executions but by the method she chose.

The notion there were innocent people killed has no basis. The logic behind that idea is so flawed it's unbelievable.

There is no proof of their guilt either.

[SeanF]

It does.

1: They have no proof that there were innocent people killed.

2: Dany had a long time to think about her decision before she arrived in Meereen so it was not done on a whim.

3: Dany was not bothered by the executions but by the method she chose.

The notion there were innocent people killed has no basis. The logic behind that idea is so flawed it's unbelievable.

If people are executed, without any attempt being made to ascertain whether or not they're guilty, it would be a remarkable coincidence if no innocent people were put do death.

It would be like arguing that we don't need trials, because the police never arrest innocent people.

The overwhelming probability is that those who get crucified were a mix of guilty and innocent.

[RoamingRonin]

There is no proof of their guilt either.

Read the passage over then get back to me on that.

[mormont]

If people are executed, without any attempt being made to ascertain whether or not they're guilty, it would be a remarkable coincidence if no innocent people were put do death.

Almost as remarkable would be the situation where, in addition to the general 'scorched earth' tactics, 163 children are crucified and put on posts every mile along the roadway, all in the name of the Great Masters, and some of those same Great Masters honestly knew nothing about it. The size of the enterprise alone surely makes that impossible.

Is it at least conceivable that some of the Good Masters objected to the atrocity, and are therefore 'innocent'? Yes, I suppose. It does, however, strike me as extremely unlikely that men who don't scruple to enslave children for profit would have such strong conscientious objections to crucifying them as an act of psychological warfare. Still, unlikely is not inconceivable, which brings me to the next point:

It would be like arguing that we don't need trials, because the police never arrest innocent people.

This does happen, because even in our modern world, justice is imperfect: and it's not the modern world we're talking about. We need to acknowledge that all justice in the series is imperfect, even more so than in our world, because it's simply not possible for any character to achieve the standard being wielded as a stick in this argument against Dany. Innocent men must end up at the Wall, or maimed, or executed all the time in Westeros - the same is true in Braavos, the Summer Isles, anywhere. As someone already pointed out, even if Dany had the ability to hold lengthy trials of every Great Master to the highest standard known in Westeros, the chances are excellent that she'd have wound up with the same result - the possibility that an innocent man shared the punishment of the guilty.

Don't get me wrong. I think the episode is very much intended to highlight the dangers of collective punishment and the emptiness of revenge. But some of the arguments being deployed seem to be suggesting that the only problem here is that Dany ignored due process, with the concomitant implication that this is something that actually exists anywhere in the ASOIAF world. It doesn't.

[SeanF]

Almost as remarkable would be the situation where, in addition to the general 'scorched earth' tactics, 163 children are crucified and put on posts every mile along the roadway, all in the name of the Great Masters, and some of those same Great Masters honestly knew nothing about it. The size of the enterprise alone surely makes that impossible.

Is it at least conceivable that some of the Good Masters objected to the atrocity, and are therefore 'innocent'? Yes, I suppose. It does, however, strike me as extremely unlikely that men who don't scruple to enslave children for profit

would have such strong conscientious objections to crucifying them as an act of psychological warfare. Still, unlikely is not inconceivable, which brings me to the next point:

This does happen, because even in our modern world, justice is imperfect: and it's not the modern world we're talking about. We need to acknowledge that all justice in the series is imperfect, even more so than in our world, because it's simply not possible for any character to achieve the standard being wielded as a stick in this argument against Dany. Innocent men must end up at the

Wall, or maimed, or executed all the time in Westeros - the same is true in Braavos, the Summer Isles, anywhere. As someone already pointed out, even if Dany had the ability to hold lengthy trials of every Great Master to the highest standard known in Westeros, the chances are excellent that she'd have wound up with the same result - the possibility that an innocent man shared the punishment of the guilty.

Don't get me wrong. I think the episode is very much intended to highlight the

dangers of collective punishment and the emptiness of revenge. But some of the arguments being deployed seem to be suggesting that the only problem here is that Dany ignored due process, with the concomitant implication that this is something that actually exists anywhere in the ASOIAF world. It doesn't.

Like you, I find it unlikely that many, if any, Great Masters would have any moral objection to crucifying slaves. I could however, believe that some might fear the consequences of carrying out such an atrocity, or of failing to come to terms

with Dany, and propose an alternative course of action. The Wise Masters opted for a policy of appeasement towards Dany. It's certainly not inconceivable that there are differing factions among the ruling class of Meereen (and we'll learn that there are such differing factions, when we come to read ADWD).

My objections to Dany's actions are twofold (a) crucifixion is an awful form of

capital punishment b if one is going to inflict capital punishment (let alone crucifixion) one ought to carry out at least some kind of investigation, even if it falls well short of a modern trial.

I fully take your points that justice (as we understand it) hardly exists in either Westeros or Essos, but I'm not singling out Dany exclusively for criticism. I'd criticise Stannis for burning his soldiers, or Tyrion for handling over the Antler Men to Joffrey, for example.

[Greymoon]

The plight of those poor slavers... They were just minding their business, doing their jobs. It's not like they deserved...

Eh, I can't keep up the sarcasm. When I read that scene, I told my husband it was one of the best scenes I have ever read, if not THE best scene. It was great on the show as well. Gave me goosebumps.

Daenerys is a flawed person. She makes tons of mistakes, some of them ridiculous (loving a caricature of a sellsword comes to mind). In my opinion, sacking Slaver's Bay wasn't one of them. Her administration skills are dreadful and we see that in the aftermath, but I am personally still hoping she burns all three cities to the ground, sacks Volantis and maybe Pentos (freeing all the slaves), then gets her ass to Westeros, where she can burn the Iron Islands to the ground as well.

Would I want to see an individual or government sack and burn cities here in the real world? No. Usually not. But it is incredibly satisfying to read about the bad guys getting what they deserve in a fantasy world. And yeah, I consider the slavers "bad guys," even in a story with so many grey characters. I don't like the "well Hitler and genocide and stuff" comparison, but if Hitler were in ASOIAF, I'd put him on a ship to Slaver's Bay and tell him to knock himself out.

Usually not? are you essentially implying that western countries have the right to police the world? because there's good countries and bad countries, uncivilized people, and civilized ones? I'm not sure I'm following you here...especially with the Hitler reference.

As for the world in Asoiaf, there's slave trade in most of Essos it seems, but it is not my impression that slavery is practiced throughout the free cities...Braavos??? Why should Pentos burn? and the Iron Islands should burn because Euron is evil, Victarion a dumbass? What about the others living there? All should pay because Theon made a bloody stupid mistake and most Greyjoys are no good? I don't see what burning the islands would bring to the story.

Even slavers bay didn't need to burn - find a way to prohibit slave trade and in an ideal world, the slavers would find something else to make money, and with slavery no longer as source of income Essosis might have "warmed up" to the idea of abolishing slavery as a whole...there'd have been no need to kill everyone, to sack and destroy the cities... bloodshed and famine make things worse either way.

The first step would be to “boycott” slave trade – not to pretend that you mean to buy yourself an army, and then burn the people you’ve made the deal with. That appears an act of treachery, not of boycott. In doing that, Dany did not clearly declare herself as an enemy of slavery in the eyes of the Essosi – instead I believe they perceive her as someone who is untruthful about her intentions; she claims to be against slavery, but essentially has an army of Unsullied at her disposal. Who cares that they are officially “free”? for Essosis IMO, Unsullied will always be slaves. Thus Dany appears immoral and treacherous.

Plus by abolishing the slave trade, Dany would have gained a "moral high ground" against her enemies like the British vs the French in the 19th century. She might have found allies amongst the Braavosis, who knows? Now she's gone and portrayed herself as a destroyer of one of Essos wealthiest regions, not as a revolutionary enlightened leader. She's brought death, illness and famine. Merchants and slavers alike hate her - the destruction of slavers bay has IMO, lots of repercussions on the Essosi economy; trade as a whole (not just the slave trade) is momentarily stopped since no one dares sail too closely.

In a way, what bothers me most in Dany's arc is the question of legitimacy, because even if the slavers are all evil, even if she is right and her intentions are good - what can justify her ruling over Meereen? Not only is she a foreigner in Slaver's bay, but she's also young and has little experience. What can justify her deciding over the fate of thousands of people there? What can justify the burning and sacking of Astapor?

[RoamingRonin]

In a way, what bothers me most in Dany's arc is the question of legitimacy, because even if the slavers are all evil, even if she is right and her intentions are good - what can justify her ruling over Meereen? Not only is she a foreigner in Slaver's bay, but she's also young and has little experience. What can justify her deciding over the fate of thousands of people there? What can justify the burning and sacking of Astapor?

By right of conquest. Her marriage with Hizdahr answers all of your other questions.

Honestly.

[Belisarius09]

@OP, not everyone is ok with Dany's actions. In fact many of us condemn her actions in Astapor. Will it effect how others perceive her? Yes I think it will negatively effect her image/reputation and there will be negative consequences down the road for her. Word will spread how she continuously lies through her teeth (Astapor con, misleading the Yunkai before battle, etc.) and it will make things difficult for her down the road. People will be unwilling to cooperate with her.

That sacking a city, as bad as it is, is not as bad as the human suffering machine known as the Good Masters of Astapor.

Aaaaaaaand here's another typical post by one of the many Dany apologists. Last time I checked the thread was about how will her actions effect her ability to deal diplomatically with others/what reputation is she making for herself (deceiver?). Not comparing two shades of black and trying to determine which is darker.

Your comment clearly has no purpose other than to try and mitigate the evil that Dany has done in the eyes of others. You dehumanize the slavers by referring to them as a machine, in an attempt to justify her actions or make them appear to be better than they were.

Fact is Dany's actions were evil. Doesn't matter who those actions are directed at. An entire people is not evil, only individuals are evil. Countless innocents undoubtedly died/suffered when Dany sacked Astapor. Ever heard two wrongs =/= right? That applies here.

Now, don't mistake this as a defense of slavery. No one here is saying slavery is good, it is an evil institution. But by what right does Dany force them to change their culture. Dany is a foreigner looking in. Obviously two cultures will have their differences. But to decry another society's traditions and practices isn't right. Imagine, Many Arab nations think western culture is bad because our women show more skin. They're entitled to their opinion, but by no means can they tell us to change our culture. And Vice versa, western nations may frown on Iran Syria for making their women wear burkhas etc. etc.

The responsibility lies with the slaves/astapori to bring about change on their own.

There isn't an excuse for Dany's actions. As evil as slavery is, her sacking of the city isn't made any less evil.

TLDR: try to stay on topic, how will continuously lying/deceiving effect Dany's ability to rally support in the future?

[RoamingRonin]

TLDR: try to stay on topic, how will continuously lying/deceiving effect Dany's ability to rally support in the future?

People seem to be coming to her. Barristan, Daario and the Stormcrows, Tyrion will be bringing the Second Sons back (you can count on that). Seems likely she'll be gaining some new Dothraki soldiers from the looks of her final chapter.

Sample chapter spoilers:

The Ironborn.

She doesn't lack for support (or enemies).

Now, don't mistake this as a defense of slavery. No one here is saying slavery is good, it is an evil institution. But by what right does Dany force them to change their culture. Dany is a foreigner looking in. Obviously two cultures will have their differences. But to decry another society's traditions and practices isn't right. Imagine, Many Arab nations think western culture is bad because our women show more skin. They're entitled to their opinion, but by no means can they tell us to change our culture. And Vice versa, western nations may frown on Iran Syria for making their women wear burkhas etc. etc.

It's about power. Who's got it, who knows how to use it.

[Nictarion]

You dehumanize the slavers by referring to them as a machine, in an attempt to justify her actions or make them appear to be better than they were.

Now, don't mistake this as a defense of slavery. No one here is saying slavery is good, it is an evil institution

I think machine/factory of suffering is pretty accurate in describing the making of Unsullied. Sorry I refuse to believe anyone involved in thousands of babies being ripped from their mothers and killed in front of them are just products of their society. And maybe deep down not so bad. Nonsense.

If you have to start a sentence with "don't mistake this as a defense of slavery", something's probably wrong.

[butterbumps!]

lol, I feel like every time I check in on Dany threads, there's more Hitler comparisons.

@ the "Dany = Hitler" contingent: I don't think this comparison accomplishes what you're intending. In that it makes Dany-criticism seem preposterous. Unless a lot of you are actually super Pro-Dany and using this absurdity to undermine the anti-Dany position. In which case, mission accomplished.

[SeanF]

lol, I feel like every time I check in on Dany threads, there's more Hitler comparisons.

@ the "Dany = Hitler" contingent: I don't think this comparison accomplishes what you're intending. In that it makes Dany-criticism seem preposterous. Unless a lot of you are actually super Pro-Dany and using this absurdity to undermine the anti-Dany position. In which case, mission accomplished.

One doesn't get anywhere comparing people to Hitler, unless they're carrying out policies of genocide, based on theories of racial supremacy.

[LordStoneheart]

One doesn't get anywhere comparing people to Hitler, unless they're carrying out policies of genocide, based on theories of racial supremacy.

I think every once in a while, and very rarely, a Hitler or just Nazi Germany comparison can be appropriate, but on here its use is all too rampant and flawed.

Dany is Hitler

Stannis is Hitler

Tywin is Hitler

Hodor is Hitler

Aegon I was Hitler.

none of the above have accurate enough arguments... except maybe Hodor. :P

[SeanF]

I think every once in a while, and very rarely, a Hitler or just Nazi Germany comparison can be appropriate, but on here its use is all too rampant and flawed.

Dany is Hitler

Stannis is Hitler

Tywin is Hitler

Hodor is Hitler

Aegon I was Hitler.

none of the above have accurate enough arguments... except maybe Hodor. :P

I don't find it far-fetched to compare Tywin to Stalin.

[LordStoneheart]

I don't find it far-fetched to compare Tywin to Stalin.

hmm... I like it.

[Greymoon]

By right of conquest. Her marriage with Hizdahr answers all of your other questions.

Honestly.

Right of conquest doesn't "legitimize" one's action. It's the same when you ask, oh, is France's action is this or that country legitimate? was it legitimate during colonial times? No. Right of conquest is valid in asoiaf, I'm not arguing that. I'm wondering about the legitimacy on another level - the reason I can't see Dany's action as good, and can't justify them as necessary myself. The right of conquest doesn't "legitimize" anything in my views. In Dany's story the question of legitimacy is even stronger because Dany herself defines her actions as legitimate - she did what she had to do for the good of the people. But is it so, when you consider all the consequences?

For me the only legitimate ruler in Planetos is Mance Rayder. Berric Dondarion, the LC of the NW, these also had a legitimate claim/seat. It's the rulers that have the mass behind them - I'm not sure this is Dany's position right now. Robert's claim was in that way, somewhat legitimate too - but only because the reason for rebellion was a legitimate reason, since Aerys was a tyrant.

Astapor wasn't a conquest either way, but a trick. Is there a "right of trick"? In that case, the Boltons and Freys are legitimate rulers...

I'm not arguing that Dany is evil, only that right or wrong, the legitimacy of her actions is questionable and for her to claim that it is “legitimate” because she did it for the good of the people, would not be honest IMO.

[MoIaF]

Now, don't mistake this as a defense of slavery. No one here is saying slavery is good, it is an evil institution. But by what right does Dany force them to change their culture. Dany is a foreigner looking in. Obviously two cultures will have their differences. But to decry another society's traditions and practices isn't right. Imagine, Many Arab nations think western culture is bad because our women show more skin. They're entitled to their opinion, but by no means can they tell us to change our culture. And Vice versa, western nations may frown on Iran Syria for making their women wear burkhas etc. etc.

Firstly, let's clarify something, Dany's action were not evil they were born of a rightious indignation of the atrocity that was the institution that created the Unsullied.

Secondly, Astapor does not exist in a vacuum, the share a continent with Braavos. The Great Maters know slavery is wrong and yet choose to continue to do it because it's profitable to them. What they do to create the Unsullied is the most dehumanizing thing anyone can do to another human being. How can you say that's a cultural thing, it's an institutional thing. And that institution is dedicated to making money.

Right of conquest doesn't "legitimize" one's action. It's the same when you ask, oh, is France's action is this or that country legitimate? was it legitimate during colonial times? No. Right of conquest is valid in asoiaf, I'm not arguing that. I'm wondering about the legitimacy on another level - the reason I can't see Dany's action as good, and can't justify them as necessary myself. The right of conquest doesn't "legitimize" anything in my views. In Dany's story the question of legitimacy is even stronger because Dany herself defines her actions as legitimate - she did what she had to do for the good of the people. But is it so, when you consider all the consequences?

For me the only legitimate ruler in Planetos is Mance Rayder. Berric Dondarion, the LC of the NW, these also had a legitimate claim/seat. It's the rulers that have the mass behind them - I'm not sure this is Dany's position right now. Robert's claim was in that way, somewhat legitimate too - but only because the reason for rebellion was a legitimate reason, since Aerys was a tyrant.

Astapor wasn't a conquest either way, but a trick. Is there a "right of trick"? In that case, the Boltons and Freys are legitimate rulers...

I'm not arguing that Dany is evil, only that right or wrong, the legitimacy of her actions is questionable and for her to claim that it is “legitimate” because she did it for the good of the people, would not be honest IMO.

Dany had the right of any human being with any semblance of power to stop an atrocious institution from continuing to exist. Her right is that of any human being to stop the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people. Now, it’s not going to be pretty slavers do love their profit and many will suffer. But just because it won’t be easy doesn’t mean it isn’t the right thing to do.

[Skagosi High Chef]

I think she should go kill all Dothraki over the age of 12 except for women cause inherently they aren't evil, if Drogo were alive she should kill kim, Dracarys! You evil slaving Dothraki, you deserve to die for what you have done, what you will do, for you youngsters what your fathers did and what you might do, kill em burn em they deserve it. Just don't hurt women cause they aren't part of the culture... 'It is known.'

[Mrs. Tyrion Lannister]

1. Usually not? are you essentially implying that western countries have the right to police the world? because there's good countries and bad countries, uncivilized people, and civilized ones? I'm not sure I'm following you here...especially with the Hitler reference.

2. As for the world in Asoiaf, there's slave trade in most of Essos it seems, but it is not my impression that slavery is practiced throughout the free cities...Braavos??? Why should Pentos burn? and the Iron Islands should burn because Euron is evil, Victarion a dumbass? What about the others living there? All should pay because Theon made a bloody stupid mistake and most Greyjoys are no good? I don't see what burning the islands would bring to the story.

3. Even slavers bay didn't need to burn - find a way to prohibit slave trade and in an ideal world, the slavers would find something else to make money, and with slavery no longer as source of income Essosis might have "warmed up" to the idea of abolishing slavery as a whole...there'd have been no need to kill everyone, to sack and destroy the cities... bloodshed and famine make things worse either way.

4. In a way, what bothers me most in Dany's arc is the question of legitimacy, because even if the slavers are all evil, even if she is right and her intentions are good - what can justify her ruling over Meereen? Not only is she a foreigner in Slaver's bay, but she's also young and has little experience. What can justify her deciding over the fate of thousands of people there? What can justify the burning and sacking of Astapor?

1) Usually not means usually not. I am not really a fan of discussing real world politics on this board, but I guess I did invite the question. The answer is that although I am not familiar with circumstances in our modern world that I feel would justify such action, and am generally an advocate of this country minding its own business (and pumping money into something useful instead of expensive wars), it may be possible that at some point, it would be appropriate for us to intervene elsewhere. I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility.

The Hitler comment referenced posts early in this thread (and others) which mentioned Hitler, but I guess that's not really clear because I didn't quote the posts in question. Mostly it was sarcasm mixed with irritation that people bring up Hitler in a conversation about fantasy novels.

2) Slavery is not technically allowed in Braavos or Pentos, but we know that Illyrio does keep slaves in Pentos and I find it unlikely that he's alone in doing this. Illyrio cannot be the only merchant who "give and receive gifts" from the khalasars. It's implied that everyone (who can) does it. Slavery in Pentos is an open secret.

Braavos, not so much. They seem to be serious about slaves, but if I recall correctly, slavers have passed through there of late (according to Undercover Arya). It doesn't matter much because they're not on my burn list.

I feel like Pentos is inevitable. It has been promised to the Tattered Prince. It's where Dany started out in AGOT, where illusions Illyrio (interesting auto correct fail) sold her to Khal Drogo. We know about the "to go forward, you must go back" advice from Quaithe, which was reinforced in Dany's final ADWD chapter.

Illyrio is up to something. I believe he's the father of fAegon, who I believe is a Blackfyre pretender to the iron throne ("the mummer's dragon"). I also believe he meant what he told Tyrion about believing Dany would die on the Dothraki Sea. Even if we discount the Blackfyre thing, he's part of a slave network that provides tongue-less children to Varys for use in their schemes. I believe he will die screaming and that it will be at Dany's hand. So Pentos seemed like a foregone conclusion to me, but theories are not facts, so maybe Pentos doesn't get sacked. Harming Illusions Illyrio may well be what starts hostilities between Dany and fAegon, but that's pure conjecture.

My statement about the Iron Islands was just based on my dislike of its people, culture, and role in the story. I hate the ironborn (except for The Reader). I am certain GRRM knows what he's doing and that the ironborn have a role in the resolution of the story. That doesn't stop me from hating them. The idea of Dany allying with reavers and rapists, of them gaining control of a dragon with Euron's horn (Dragonbinder) makes me ill. Burning the Iron Islands may not do anything for the story, it's entirely a personal satisfaction thing. It's been a visceral reaction for me. Maybe I just have issues.

I feel like within the construct of a very cruel and unforgiving fantasy world, it's okay to root for the destruction of cultures that encourage and profit from human suffering. In my opinion, Slaver's Bay and the Iron Islands should be decimated, giving new rulers a "reset" to break the cycle of slavery and barbarism.

3) There are undoubtedly other ways to subdue the slave trade, but dismantling the culture where the slave trade flourished is one viable way. I do find it interesting that dragons were once a symbol of oppression, of slavery, and are now being used to free slaves and break the cycle. It's an interesting theme. And I really don't feel like the slavers deserved cleaner deaths or mercy.

4) As to legitimacy - I don't believe anyone has a "right" to power. People can aspire to have power, and the only way to get power is to take it from someone else. Aegon the Conqueror united the kingdoms of Westeros and installed himself as its overlord. He wanted power and took it. Nobody inherently has or deserves power. The right of conquest is a valid thing in Planetos.

TL;DR Summary

1) No, I generally believe governments should mind their own business. I am not really a Hitler fan. I'm also bad at sarcasm.

2) Slavery is an open secret in Pentos and it's Illyrio's home base. Prophecy and foreshadowing lend credence to Pentos being a pit stop on Dany's "Westeros or Bust" tour.

3) There are more humane options for eradicating slavery. But Planetos is is a harsh place. I don't treat it like our real world.

4) Power is always up for grabs if you're brave enough to take it and strong enough to keep it.