Daenerys Stormborn - A Re-Read Project Part III: ASoS & ADwD

[Suzanna Stormborn]

Some More Thoughts on Meereen, Slavery, Guilt…

Dany rides in on her silver and tells the Great Masters, “I want your leaders.” That’s pretty much what one would expect. She does not say, “Who is responsible for the crucifixion of the children?” She doesn’t say anything about a trial. I believe that most conquerers in Planetos would start out more or less the same way. Collective guilt and collective punishment are widely accepted. In this respect, Daenerys Targaryen is like every other person of power in the story.

There are at least a few other rulers who would have done a better job of taking control of the city, but that’s not the point of this post. I'll also not be too concerned with moral matters, e.g. the fact that nailing people to crosses is a terrible thing, even if those executed are bad people.

It is close to certain that the queen did, indeed, get the leaders. She has Brown Ben Plumm with her. She has a whole host of former Meereenese slaves. She has people like the shavepates who come over to her side. The probability that there were minor actors, non-masters, etc. among the 163 is extremely low. It would have taken little vetting to reveal such attempted deception. Would the Hazkars, Merreq, Pahls, Loraqs, etc. have tried to trick Dany in this matter? Not much of a chance of that. It's clear that turning over the leaders is required if the other masters are going to be spared.

I don’t think “innocent” is a good term for any of the former rulers of the city. There is a good chance, however, that some of those killed were not guilty of the action Dany executes them for. This is a problem, but it’s basically a result of a belief in collective punishment, not a unique fault of the dragon queen. Please remember a fact that has been noted in this thread and elsewhere: The sights along the road were not just horrible. They were a massive act of defiance, an in-your-face challenge. The GM were saying, “Bring it on bitch, we’re ready for you.” That is a dangerous way of proceeding. In the councils of the powerful, previous to the arrival of the Targaryen forces, did some men maintain, “Hey, this is a bad idea; we shouldn’t do this. Perhaps we should even try to negotiate with this woman”? Yeah, I’d say that’s likely.

One of the reasons I resist applying the term "innocent" to any Great Masters is the nature of the system in SB. I can't remember whether I've made the point in this thread or not, but I have definitely made it a few times on Dany threads and elsewhere. We don't have Ivan Ivanovich, his lands, and his serfs. We don't even have Simon Lagree, his whips, and his chains. The slavery system in SB is an incredibly predatory thing. It depends on the continuous enslavement of freeborn individuals. This is not properly analyzed by most posters or by most characters in the story. All of the masters are involved in at least hegemonic activity. It's probably correct to say they are imperialists. They certainly depend on people that are legitimately considered criminals (e.g. pirates) for the acquisition of new slaves. This has been going on for centuries. Dany is supposedly a kind of cultural imperialist. How much concern do the powers that be in Slaver's Bay have for the cultures, laws, and traditions of the places that their co-conspirators raid and perhaps destroy?

The system in Slaver's Bay is evil; we can't legitimately call it anything else. This doesn't make all the rulers equally evil, but it can't be ignored. On other threads, some readers have made an analogy with a possible takeover of Kings Landing. What if a foreign power conquered the place and executed 163 leaders? Even if we make the Seven Kingdoms worse than it is, the analogy doesn't convince me that Daenerys Targaryen stands out as a villain or as a someone developing into a villain. I hold to my basic position: The queen fits into the general picture. It's not possible to know what various important Westerosi characters would have done in Dany's place. The best I can do is to state my belief that anyone born to power in the 7K would have had a hard time doing any better. If we somehow turn KL into Meereen and have Dany take it by force, we might put the matter this way: The chance of a Sansa being swept up among the 163 is zero. The same for a Ned. Could a Tryion (who is at least complicit in very bad acts. He knows about the Cersei-Jamie treason and suspects how Bran was injured) have been among the crucified? Perhaps.

Very well said Parwan :)

The bolded is exactly how I feel as well. And I feel like that kind of evil you described can only be treated with an equally harsh punishment to begin with. They have forfeited their right to be treated kindly. Otherwise no one would get the message about the change that is coming to SB.

[HexMachina]

Very eloquently put Parwan as always. These are very similar to my thoughts on the matter, but gathered together and written much more.coherently than I could ever make them. To add a little to what you have said about the 'evil' nature of Slaver's Bay; I believe that the intent of Martin was to make the Slavers a thoroughly unlikable amd disgusting people. Not just in Meereen, but in Yunkai and Astapor too. There must be a reason that the Slaver's are described in such an exaggeratedly cruel way, why the creation of the Unsullied is so vile and repulsive, why the Great Masters crucify children in particular, and why they are said to enjoy the likes of "follies" where slaves are given over to die in a pit. Is it over the top evil at times? Perhaps, but it establishes this image of Slaver's Bay as unlikeable and contemptible to the reader. Martin wants us to root for Daenerys here. Yes crucifixition is horrible, and a horrendous way to die, but I don't think for a second that we are supposed to consider the Great Masters "innocent", just as we are not supposed to sympathise with the Astapori who create the Unsullied. It can't be denied that there are some issues surrounding the crucifixtions, just as there are issues with Stannis burning people (which I find a more reasonable comparison than Elia and her children), but I do think the issue is not supposed to.be the death of the Masters, but rather the method in.which it is done and the use of collective punishment, which as you said, is very much the norm.within.the novels, even if we object to it.

In later Tyrion chapters, we see that not all Slaves are treated so outlandishly cruelly. I will risk mentioning this briefly now, and go into more detail later. Its important to note that the slaves Tyrion does see are likely the prized possession of Yunkish slavers. Each of them attempts to.display their.wealth and power to others, and so they aren't going to take on a military campaign their "lesser" slaves. They will take the créme de la créme, the most expensive of their slaves, who they are less likely to abuse or mistreat due to the high price they paid for them. So whilst Tyrion.notes some Slaves are not so different to Westeroso servants, I am.afraid that I would have to say they are likely in.the vast minority, and are simply the most expensive and treasured of the Masters' slaves (e.g. Yezzan zo Qaggaz and his "grotesquerie")

[SeanF]

Parwan, even if we assume that a Dany-type conqueror would exempt women and infants from an act of collective punishment at King's Landing, the mass execution of 163 " leaders" would be bound to include people like Tyrion, Jaime, Lancel, Ser Addam Marbrand, Mace, Loras, and Garlan Tyrrell, whose guilt is debatable, along with those whose guilt is clear, such as Joffrey, Tywin, Ser Gregor, Littefinger, Pycelle etc.
If they were all tortured to death, it would make the act even more problematic.

Slavers Bay is a more evil society than Westeros, but plenty of evil gets done in Westeros, by much of its nobility.

Every kind of depravity that takes place in Slavers Bay had its counterpart in the Roman Empire, but it would be a stretch to say that every prominent Roman merited death by crucifixion.

[Mithras]

... I believe that the intent of Martin was to make the Slavers a thoroughly unlikable amd disgusting people. Not just in Meereen, but in Yunkai and Astapor too. There must be a reason that the Slaver's are described in such an exaggeratedly cruel way, why the creation of the Unsullied is so vile and repulsive, why the Great Masters crucify children in particular, and why they are said to enjoy the likes of "follies" where slaves are given over to die in a pit. Is it over the top evil at times? Perhaps, but it establishes this image of Slaver's Bay as unlikeable and contemptible to the reader...

Yes, that is the intention of GRRM but this is because the POV bias of Dany is not filtered in her chapters. I think TV show is useful in removing some of the POV biases deliberately put there in cases of Dany and Stannis. The idea of the invented scenes where Hizdahr's father was nailed to the post unjustly or Stannis burned men for infidelity actually bases on the text but the POV biases hide the message. As a result, some readers blame the show of deviating from the books but they are wrong. That is the same message in the books but it is made clearer for the not-so-subtle show watchers.

[HexMachina]

Yes, that is the intention of GRRM but this is because the POV bias of Dany is not filtered in her chapters. I think TV show is useful in removing some of the POV biases deliberately put there in cases of Dany and Stannis. The idea of the invented scenes where Hizdahr's father was nailed to the post unjustly or Stannis burned men for infidelity actually bases on the text but the POV biases hide the message. As a result, some readers blame the show of deviating from the books but they are wrong. That is the same message in the books but it is made clearer for the not-so-subtle show watchers.

I would have to agree to disagree there. I take anything in the Show as separate from the Books at this stage.

ETA: Also, the PoV bias isn't really that much. We later see Slaver's Bay from the POV of Quentyn, Tyrion amd Barristan. Not going too much into this now, but even after Dany has swept through, we get a very negative perception of the Slavers. Barristan especially despises Slaver's Bay

[SeanF]

Yes, that is the intention of GRRM but this is because the POV bias of Dany is not filtered in her chapters. I think TV show is useful in removing some of the POV biases deliberately put there in cases of Dany and Stannis. The idea of the invented scenes where Hizdahr's father was nailed to the post unjustly or Stannis burned men for infidelity actually bases on the text but the POV biases hide the message. As a result, some readers blame the show of deviating from the books but they are wrong. That is the same message in the books but it is made clearer for the not-so-subtle show watchers.

Show canon and book canon are different. I think the Show's interpretation of what took place is a fair one, but it can't be treated as fact.

[PatrickStormborn]

Parwan, even if we assume that a Dany-type conqueror would exempt women and infants from an act of collective punishment at King's Landing, the mass execution of 163 " leaders" would be bound to include people like Tyrion, Jaime, Lancel, Ser Addam Marbrand, Mace, Loras, and Garlan Tyrrell, whose guilt is debatable, along with those whose guilt is clear, such as Joffrey, Tywin, Ser Gregor, Littefinger, Pycelle etc.

If they were all tortured to death, it would make the act even more problematic.

Slavers Bay is a more evil society than Westeros, but plenty of evil gets done in Westeros, by much of its nobility.

Every kind of depravity that takes place in Slavers Bay had its counterpart in the Roman Empire, but it would be a stretch to say that every prominent Roman merited death by crucifixion.

I wonder what Stannis would have done had he taken King's Landing? If I remember correctly, he mentions removing the likes of Littlefinger and Varys, but I can't recall if he has plans for the court beyond that.

I imagine Dany would just punish the members of the small council. I have enough faith in her wits to know she'd recognise that there are not going to be 163 leaders at court.

Yes, that is the intention of GRRM but this is because the POV bias of Dany is not filtered in her chapters. I think TV show is useful in removing some of the POV biases deliberately put there in cases of Dany and Stannis. The idea of the invented scenes where Hizdahr's father was nailed to the post unjustly or Stannis burned men for infidelity actually bases on the text but the POV biases hide the message. As a result, some readers blame the show of deviating from the books but they are wrong. That is the same message in the books but it is made clearer for the not-so-subtle show watchers.

There is no evidence that any of the Great Masters had strictly opposed the crucifixions, which is what the show presented. And that scene was illogical anyway - we had been told that 1000 slaves died building the pyramid that Hizdahr's father built. He was not an innocent. That's why, in the books, none of the families of those crucified plead innocence to Daenerys. The slavers KNOW they're guilty of enslaving millions, they just don't care.

[SeanF]

I wonder what Stannis would have done had he taken King's Landing? If I remember correctly, he mentions removing the likes of Littlefinger and Varys, but I can't recall if he has plans for the court beyond that.

I imagine Dany would just punish the members of the small council. I have enough faith in her wits to know she'd recognise that there are not going to be 163 leaders at court.

Tyrion, Joffrey and Cersei would have been executed for certain. I'm not sure about Tommen and Myrcella, although his description of them as "abominations" doesn't sound too hopeful.

[HexMachina]

Tyrion, Joffrey and Cersei would have been executed for certain. I'm not sure about Tommen and Myrcella, although his description of them as "abominations" doesn't sound too hopeful.

Indeed. I very much doubt Stannis would have let them live (although he would need to find them both first).

Back to Mladen's Tyrion chapter. First, very nice analysis, thank you Mladen :) It is certainly refreshing to finally have a fresh PoV of Daenerys, since she has been isolated for so long. Tyrion's attitude towards her seems (at this point) very leery, and he seems to see her not necessarily as a friend/supporter, but as a necessary ally to claim Casterly Rock and return to Westeros. Seeing her achievements/conquests laid out before him as they are is indeed very impressive, and builds her up as this powerful, dominating young woman. However, we learn that even at this stage, Illyrio either grossly misubderstands her, or he is deliberately mialeading Tyrion. I believe it is the former, as even her closest advisors did not anticipate her stopping in Meereen. This goes to show how much of a wild card Dany truly is. I think this largely comes from a difficulty aligning the conqyeror of Slavers Bay with a woman who is compassionate and loves her children

[Kyoshi]

Yes, that is the intention of GRRM but this is because the POV bias of Dany is not filtered in her chapters. I think TV show is useful in removing some of the POV biases deliberately put there in cases of Dany and Stannis. The idea of the invented scenes where Hizdahr's father was nailed to the post unjustly or Stannis burned men for infidelity actually bases on the text but the POV biases hide the message. As a result, some readers blame the show of deviating from the books but they are wrong. That is the same message in the books but it is made clearer for the not-so-subtle show watchers.

I don't think the show is attempting to correct the bias of POV characters. Far from it. I think the goal is to raise the same question raised by the books. Without Hizdhar speaking about his "innocent" father, show watchers will not be aware of the measures take by Dany to secure her rule in Meereen and avenge those crucified children they had seen in a previous episode. The same way they had Oberyn pointing at Tywin while asking "who gave the order?" It's a revelation device, for lack of a better term.

[MoIaF]

I don't think the show is attempting to correct the bias of POV characters. Far from it. I think the goal is to raise the same question raised by the books. Without Hizdhar speaking about his "innocent" father, show watchers will not be aware of the measures take by Dany to secure her rule in Meereen and avenge those crucified children they had seen in a previous episode. The same way they had Oberyn pointing at Tywin while asking "who gave the order?" It's a revelation device, for lack of a better term.

We should also take into account that we haven't seen much of Hizzee after he made that proclamation. For example the TV audience doesn't really know about the fighting pits, what goes on there and that Hizzee owns almost all of them. I think if they knew that and paid attention to the fact (as Patrick mentions) that for each of those pyramids thousands of salves dies the idea of how cruel a place Slaver's Bay truly is would be apparent.

Having said that I'd have to agree with SeanF that the show cannon and book cannon are slightly different. The show is a good way to learn what future event will look like, however, the interpretation of events is up to the writers of the show and therefor their cannon.

[BearQueen87]

Indeed. I very much doubt Stannis would have let them live (although he would need to find them both first).

Back to Mladen's Tyrion chapter. First, very nice analysis, thank you Mladen :) It is certainly refreshing to finally have a fresh PoV of Daenerys, since she has been isolated for so long. Tyrion's attitude towards her seems (at this point) very leery, and he seems to see her not necessarily as a friend/supporter, but as a necessary ally to claim Casterly Rock and return to Westeros. Seeing her achievements/conquests laid out before him as they are is indeed very impressive, and builds her up as this powerful, dominating young woman. However, we learn that even at this stage, Illyrio either grossly misubderstands her, or he is deliberately mialeading Tyrion. I believe it is the former, as even her closest advisors did not anticipate her stopping in Meereen. This goes to show how much of a wild card Dany truly is. I think this largely comes from a difficulty aligning the conqyeror of Slavers Bay with a woman who is compassionate and loves her children

I agree, it's the former. Sending Dany ships to come back to Pentos, only to have her swing round to Slaver's Bay and take the area and then decide to rule...he couldn't have predicted that. It took those events for Illyrio to see that the scared girl he knew at the start of aGoT "died" on the Dothraki Sea and someone less pliable rose up.

Having said that I'd have to agree with SeanF that the show cannon and book cannon are slightly different. The show is a good way to learn what future event will look like, however, the interpretation of events is up to the writers of the show and therefor their cannon.

Yeah, and the show writers have a certain fondness for Dany. It's going to be interesting to see how they handle her ADWD arc in S5 since it's probably where a lot of the anti-Dany sentiments come from.

[HexMachina]

I agree, it's the former. Sending Dany ships to come back to Pentos, only to have her swing round to Slaver's Bay and take the area and then decide to rule...he couldn't have predicted that. It took those events for Illyrio to see that the scared girl he knew at the start of aGoT "died" on the Dothraki Sea and someone less pliable rose up.

Yeah, and the show writers have a certain fondness for Dany. It's going to be interesting to see how they handle her ADWD arc in S5 since it's probably where a lot of the anti-Dany sentiments come from.

Indeed, but even after the ships incident, Illyrio has continued to underestimate or misunderstand Dany, because he is expecting her to have left Meereen and begun to march West. Again, I feel this is because of his failure to see that despite her conquering so far, Daenerys maintains that compassionate streak that makes her who she is

[BearQueen87]

Indeed, but even after the ships incident, Illyrio has continued to underestimate or misunderstand Dany, because he is expecting her to have left Meereen and begun to march West. Again, I feel this is because of his failure to see that despite her conquering so far, Daenerys maintains that compassionate streak that makes her who she is

Absolutely. I don't think Illyrio understands how slavery affects Dany. She was given to Drogo, and for Illyrio that's all well and good and normal; this is a man who has "servants" (pfft) in his very large manse. Slavery might be outlawed in the free cities, but Illyrio's wealth and status allows him to ignore those rules, so he participates in the trade. What he cannot understand is that Dany once considered herself to be like a slave. Second, he cannot understand Dany's loss of Rhaego and deeply the idea of motherhood impacts her. He thinks of her as Aegon the Conqueror come again, but fails to understand that her motivation is born out of very deep loss.

[Kyoshi]

With points taken from Parwan, HelenaAndThemachine and Paper Waver, I'd like to add that while Tyrion enjoys a somewhat uncruel experience as a slave (a point never missed by posters who firmly assert Daenerys may have crucified innocent slavers), his was not a common experience. He was simply highly prized property to his master. As such, he was treated such that his value would not diminish, much like a one would treat a car car/laptop/TV. His treatment was not so much to do with him being human as it did with him being highly-prized property. While this may be a philosophical question, I ask you to think about the time Tyrion found out he had been thrown into the pit with the intention of feeding him to lions. At that point, I think Tyrion's market value had reached zero since his tricks with Penny were now a stale performance to his master.

And if we are to take Tyrion's word as irrefutable gospel, we must also not that Tyrion points out that slaves always have a choice: chains or death. It's a rock-and-a-grave situation. So to the question of whether or not it's possible for Daenerys to have crucified innocent Great Masters, I don't think that's a possibility since GMs are slavers, hostis humani generis comes to mind at this point.

EDIT: Sorry, I only just realised I was skipping ahead.

[SeanF]

Absolutely. I don't think Illyrio understands how slavery affects Dany. She was given to Drogo, and for Illyrio that's all well and good and normal; this is a man who has "servants" (pfft) in his very large manse. Slavery might be outlawed in the free cities, but Illyrio's wealth and status allows him to ignore those rules, so he participates in the trade. What he cannot understand is that Dany once considered herself to be like a slave. Second, he cannot understand Dany's loss of Rhaego and deeply the idea of motherhood impacts her. He thinks of her as Aegon the Conqueror come again, but fails to understand that her motivation is born out of very deep loss.

He must have some idea how hostile she is to slavery, since he has business interests in the Far East, and her abolitionist campaign is now common knowledge in Volantis, Qarth, New Ghis, and other city-states. Perhaps, he thinks it's just a cynical gesture, on her part, to whip up local support, and that her real motive is plunder, or establishing an empire. He doesn't remark that this is a threat to his business empire.

Or, perhaps the slave trade is something he dabbles in, rather than being central to his business interests; or, that she'll give him a pass, because of the support he's given to her in the past. What the exact plans of Illyrio are is one of those mysteries that we can speculate on, but will have to wait for the later books to discover. Oddly, he seems to have no hard feelings about the loss of three ships and their cargoes, but then again, maybe he's expecting to be richly rewarded in return..

[HexMachina]

To add to Kyoshi's point there, though I fear we are skipping ahead again, Tyrion and Jorah, whilst both owned by the same Slaver, have vastly different experiences of slavery, with Jorah being brutally treated and abused. Even Tyrion is not entirely safe - always, there is Nurse and his threats hanging over him.

[BearQueen87]

He must have some idea how hostile she is to slavery, since he has business interests in the Far East, and her abolitionist campaign is now common knowledge in Volantis, Qarth, New Ghis, and other city-states. Perhaps, he thinks it's just a cynical gesture, on her part, to whip up local support, and that her real motive is plunder, or establishing an empire. He doesn't remark that this is a threat to his business empire.

Or, perhaps the slave trade is something he dabbles in, rather than being central to his business interests; or, that she'll give him a pass, because of the support he's given to her in the past. What the exact plans of Illyrio are is one of those mysteries that we can speculate on, but will have to wait for the later books to discover. Oddly, he seems to have no hard feelings about the loss of three ships and their cargoes, but then again, maybe he's expecting to be richly rewarded in return..

Illyrio knows she's hostile towards it, of course. But I don't think he understands the why. Slavery is a part of his life, one that he doesn't question. He's willing to let it die in order to get the bigger rewards (Dany and Aegon on the throne, with the help of him and Varys) but for a long time, it was the "background noise" in his world. It's the internal feelings of Dany that he doesn't quite get.

[SeanF]

With points taken from Parwan, HelenaAndThemachine and Paper Waver, I'd like to add that while Tyrion enjoys a somewhat uncruel experience as a slave (a point never missed by posters who firmly assert Daenerys may have crucified innocent slavers), his was not a common experience. He was simply highly prized property to his master. As such, he was treated such that his value would not diminish, much like a one would treat a car car/laptop/TV. His treatment was not so much to do with him being human as it did with him being highly-prized property. While this may be a philosophical question, I ask you to think about the time Tyrion found out he had been thrown into the pit with the intention of feeding him to lions. At that point, I think Tyrion's market value had reached zero since his tricks with Penny were now a stale performance to his master.

And if we are to take Tyrion's word as irrefutable gospel, we must also not that Tyrion points out that slaves always have a choice: chains or death. It's a rock-and-a-grave situation. So to the question of whether or not it's possible for Daenerys to have crucified innocent Great Masters, I don't think that's a possibility since GMs are slavers, hostis humani generis comes to mind at this point.

His comment may also imply that servants are treated very harshly at Casterly Rock.

Nonetheless, I think it's very likely that some slaves are indeed well-treated in Essos. Dany treated her slaves well, as Khaleesi, and there are probably many women who are on good terms with their maids. She thinks Xharo treats his slaves well (even if he does molest boys). The free-born people who are queuing up at the docks to sell themselves presumably expect a better life as skilled slaves than they do as free poor. And that's logical. People who can read and write, keep accounts, are good-looking courtesans, manage businesses etc. can probably expect pretty good treatment as slaves. Plenty of Roman slaves prospered.

The flip side of course, is children being sold into brothels; the creation of the Unsullied; less skilled slaves being worked to death in fields, mines, and quarries; people being forced to fight, or thrown to wild animals, for entertainment; old or sick slaves being turned loose to starve; and slave families being broken up if their masters deem it economically advantageous.

[Suzanna Stormborn]

His comment may also imply that servants are treated very harshly at Casterly Rock.

Nonetheless, I think it's very likely that some slaves are indeed well-treated in Essos. Dany treated her slaves well, as Khaleesi, and there are probably many women who are on good terms with their maids. She thinks Xharo treats his slaves well (even if he does molest boys). The free-born people who are queuing up at the docks to sell themselves presumably expect a better life as skilled slaves than they do as free poor. And that's logical. People who can read and write, keep accounts, are good-looking courtesans, manage businesses etc. can probably expect pretty good treatment as slaves. Plenty of Roman slaves prospered.

The flip side of course, is children being sold into brothels; the creation of the Unsullied; less skilled slaves being worked to death in fields, mines, and quarries; people being forced to fight, or thrown to wild animals, for entertainment; old or sick slaves being turned loose to starve; and slave families being broken up if their masters deem it economically advantageous.

I agree. And I think the 'downside' you mentioned heavily out weighs the fact that some of the slaves are treated semi-decent. As they are still salves in bondage with collars.