How would you handle the Sons of the Harpy-situation?

[MasterJack]

Sometimes you need to use violence in order to stop an insurgency. Sometimes you have to be willing to execute hostages. She wasn't prepared to that before, in TWOW she most definitely will be.

She used blind violence all the time and it didnt work. Fair Justice for everyone, controlled violence and smart builder attitude is what she need.

[Trigger Warning]

Kill the hostages, if that doesn't work purge a few families as an example.

[El Guapo]

She used blind violence all the time and it didnt work. Fair Justice for everyone, controlled violence and smart builder attitude is what she need.

Great in theory but I have my doubts that it would work in Slavers Bay.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Sometimes you need to use violence in order to stop an insurgency. Sometimes you have to be willing to execute hostages. She wasn't prepared to that before, in TWOW she most definitely will be.

Actually, if you're at all familiar with how insurgencies are fought, you would know that violence alone isn't enough to stop them. And violence can actually make them worse. She should execute hostages if necessary, sure. But executing hostages does not replace the competent governance which she was sorely lacking.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Kill the hostages, if that doesn't work purge a few families as an example.

I seriously have to ask ... Have ANY of you actually studied asymmetrical warfare in any capacity? China, Algeria, Vietnam, etc.? The only thing that a mass slaughter would do is cement people's opinion against you even more and make them more determined to defy you. Mao didn't take control of China because he had superior killing power. He did it because he won the sympathy of the general population by convincing them that life under him would be better than under the current government.

Or, to use an example in the story, Arthur Dayne ended up using diplomatic channels, not mass violence, to ultimately defeat the Kingswood Brotherhood. Meanwhile, Rhaenys tried to fight Dornish guerrillas the conventional way and got herself and her dragon killed for it.

[Maester Pedant]

I seriously have to ask ... Have ANY of you actually studied asymmetrical warfare in any capacity? China, Algeria, Vietnam, etc.? The only thing that a mass slaughter would do is cement people's opinion against you even more and make them more determined to defy you. Mao didn't take control of China because he had superior killing power. He did it because he won the sympathy of the general population by convincing them that life under him would be better than under the current government.

Or, to use an example in the story, Arthur Dayne ended up using diplomatic channels, not mass violence, to ultimately defeat the Kingswood Brotherhood. Meanwhile, Rhaenys tried to fight Dornish guerrillas the conventional way and got herself and her dragon killed for it.

I agree that yours is the most reasonable approach. However, Dany's objective is not to stay as ruler of Meereen indefinitely. This means she also needs an exit strategy, a way of assuring that her departure does not lead to a return to slave trading or to an outbrake of violence.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I agree that yours is the most reasonable approach. However, Dany's objective is not to stay as ruler of Meereen indefinitely. This means she also needs an exit strategy, a way of assuring that her departure does not lead to a return to slave trading or to an outbrake of violence.

All the more reason to secure the economy and win the support of the general population before she leaves. Killing anyone who pisses her off and then bailing will just ensure that Meereen becomes another Astapor when she leaves.

If she's not up to the task of building an economy to replace slavery and doing the legwork necessary to win popular support, then perhaps she had no business taking the city in the first place.

[Ser Not Appearing]

Ser is Not Appearing for reasons related to the troubles and tribulations that lie inherent in power. The solution is negotiation or brutality. In the face of rank defiance and murder of subjects represented by the Sons of the Harpy... and cognizant of the general themes of rule by power that seems to be accepted in Essos... brutality is the wiser choice.

Dany, generally, negotiated... and poorly at that. Double whammy.

[Maester Pedant]

All the more reason to secure the economy and win the support of the general population before she leaves. Killing anyone who pisses her off and then bailing will just ensure that Meereen becomes another Astapor when she leaves.

If she's not up to the task of building an economy to replace slavery and doing the legwork necessary to win popular support, then perhaps she had no business taking the city in the first place.

I agree with that last statement entirely. Human stupidity creates the most horrible situations, even when you have the best intentions.

[MasterJack]

Great in theory but I have my doubts that it would work in Slavers Bay.

Yes because they are evil twirling mustache vilains....humans are all the same, they want confort and safety, they will more likely accept a new leader if he gives em those 2 things.

Read Liu Bei history, He became emperor basically with just a good reputation and good decisions making, he had almost no army and no land and no ressources.

[LordFirkraag]

I seriously have to ask ... Have ANY of you actually studied asymmetrical warfare in any capacity? China, Algeria, Vietnam, etc.?

A lot of condescension, but the truth is that is a superficial reading of history and you're just wrong.

The reason "hearts and minds" was so important in these cases was nothing more than that the occupiers were partly constrained by morals. They weren't prepared to slaughter every innocent civilian. In the case of Mao, his entire claim to any authority whatsoever was through his communism, which pledged to put the people first. If he turned his back on his principles, his support (military and otherwise) would have been lost.

Most other cases of occupying armies are not comparable to China, Vietnam and Algeria. The Nazis, for instance, would have levelled Paris if they were presented with any serious resistance. If the Jews waged a guerilla war, they would have slaughtered every last Jew. William the Conqueror was hated by the English, and when they resisted he burned the countryside in a campaign which is known as "the Harrowing of the North". There's other examples like the Mongols which are even more extreme.

[RoamingRonin]

The Sons of the Harpy remind me of the Faith Militant uprising. I'd be part Maegor part Jahaerys and act as my ancestors did. She's been too merciful with the hostages and her enemies.

I'd also reopen the fighting pits sooner and I'd court others in addition to Hizdahr of the tepid kisses. She goofed by taking the first bit of man meat the Green Grace served up.

[Trigger Warning]

I seriously have to ask ... Have ANY of you actually studied asymmetrical warfare in any capacity? China, Algeria, Vietnam, etc.? The only thing that a mass slaughter would do is cement people's opinion against you even more and make them more determined to defy you. Mao didn't take control of China because he had superior killing power. He did it because he won the sympathy of the general population by convincing them that life under him would be better than under the current government.

Or, to use an example in the story, Arthur Dayne ended up using diplomatic channels, not mass violence, to ultimately defeat the Kingswood Brotherhood. Meanwhile, Rhaenys tried to fight Dornish guerrillas the conventional way and got herself and her dragon killed for it.

The people aren't against them. It's the deposed ruling class, they only stop when Hizdahr exchanges that peace for a marriage and they intend to assassinate Dany anyway. They aren't going to be brought to the table or accept peace unless the city reverts to the old system. However if they fear reprisals enough they may relent, they may value their lives and what riches they have retained more than their old rule.

[Maester Pedant]

Yes because they are evil twirling mustache vilains....humans are all the same, they want confort and safety, they will more likely accept a new leader if he gives em those 2 things.

Read Liu Bei history, He became emperor basically with just a good reputation and good decisions making, he had almost no army and no land and no ressources.

I actually understand the position these villains find themselves in. Their way of life is being suddenly destroyed, their family and friends have been killed. It's perfectly natural and expected that they would resist violently. I'd be surprised if they didn't.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

A lot of condescension, but the truth is that is a superficial reading of history and you're just wrong.

The reason "hearts and minds" was so important in these cases was nothing more than that the occupiers were partly constrained by morals. They weren't prepared to slaughter every innocent civilian. In the case of Mao, his entire claim to any authority whatsoever was through his communism, which pledged to put the people first. If he turned his back on his principles, his support (military and otherwise) would have been lost.

Most other cases of occupying armies are not comparable to China, Vietnam and Algeria. The Nazis, for instance, would have levelled Paris if they were presented with any serious resistance. If the Jews waged a guerilla war, they would have slaughtered every last Jew. William the Conqueror was hated by the English, and when they resisted he burned the countryside in a campaign which is known as "the Harrowing of the North". There's other examples like the Mongols which are even more extreme.

But again, the question posited in the OP doesn't presuppose that the solution is to destroy the city and run, or to level anything. It's asking how the Harpy situation in Meereen can be approached with the intent of stabilizing the government and promoting your social agenda. If Dany had no morals, she could have killed everyone, you're right. But that's not really answering the question, now is it. I like to think that people expect more from Dany than for her to run a Nazi-like regime.

[Fire and Blood!]

A lot of condescension, but the truth is that is a superficial reading of history and you're just wrong.

The reason "hearts and minds" was so important in these cases was nothing more than that the occupiers were partly constrained by morals. They weren't prepared to slaughter every innocent civilian. In the case of Mao, his entire claim to any authority whatsoever was through his communism, which pledged to put the people first. If he turned his back on his principles, his support (military and otherwise) would have been lost.

Most other cases of occupying armies are not comparable to China, Vietnam and Algeria. The Nazis, for instance, would have levelled Paris if they were presented with any serious resistance. If the Jews waged a guerilla war, they would have slaughtered every last Jew. William the Conqueror was hated by the English, and when they resisted he burned the countryside in a campaign which is known as "the Harrowing of the North". There's other examples like the Mongols which are even more extreme.

:agree: This. Brutality has been proved to be effective throughout history especially against populations that were hostile to begin with.

[El Guapo]

Yes because they are evil twirling mustache vilains....humans are all the same, they want confort and safety, they will more likely accept a new leader if he gives em those 2 things.

Read Liu Bei history, He became emperor basically with just a good reputation and good decisions making, he had almost no army and no land and no ressources.

No, the Sons of the Harpy and the other ruling elites in Mereen want slavery legalized again. That is what they want, that is what was fueling the insurgency.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

The people aren't against them. It's the deposed ruling class, they only stop when Hizdahr exchanges that peace for a marriage and they intend to assassinate Dany anyway. They aren't going to be brought to the table or accept peace unless the city reverts to the old system. However if they fear reprisals enough they may relent, they may value their lives and what riches they have retained more than their old rule.

There's decent reason to believe that it's not just the ruling class. For example, you might also look at any members of the middle class whose economic prospects have been challenged by the freed slaves. I also doubt that the nobles are the ones putting themselves in harm's way in the dead of night. I think it's likelier that there's a large element of populist scapegoating going on.

Think of it this way: No one has turned any of these people in. If it really were just a tiny core of nobles causing all the trouble, and the rest of the city was entirely pro-Dany, wouldn't someone have ratted them out by now? The fact that no one is willing to give them up, even under torture, suggests that the Harpy's cause is more prevalent than you might think.

[LordFirkraag]

But again, the question posited in the OP doesn't presuppose that the solution is to destroy the city and run, or to level anything. It's asking how the Harpy situation in Meereen can be approached with the intent of stabilizing the government and promoting your social agenda. If Dany had no morals, she could have killed everyone, you're right. But that's not really answering the question, now is it. I like to think that people expect more from Dany than for her to run a Nazi-like regime.

You're right, we do expect a lot more from Dany...but you never know. She might become a monster. More likely though is that, as you said, she will give up and Mereen will go the way of Astapor.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

:agree: This. Brutality has been proved to be effective throughout history especially against populations that were hostile to begin with.

So is Dany's goal to be a good queen, or is it to consolidate power through violent subjugation and mass murder? Because I answered the OP with the apparently misguided idea that Dany's goal was to leave Meereen in better shape than how she found it.

Again, it takes zero skill or ability to destroy something. Building something and enabling positive long-term social progress is how statesmen are made. But if all Dany is capable of being is a tyrant (which is what you seem to suggest), then she's less worthy of being a queen than I thought, which is saying something.