What will be Dany’s justification for invading Westeros?

[Kyoshi]

Double post.

[Veltigar]

Check out this essay: http://towerofthehand.com/blog/2015/02/01-laboratory-of-politics-part-vi/

To take a break from the rampant negativity that permeates this thread, I would like to thank you for linking to this essay. It was a great read and it made a lot more sense than the overrated Blot series. This essay alligns with what in my opinion is the right way to interpret the text. I also feel that most of the essay is highly relevant to the discussion at hand. I would recommend reading it to everyone.

And this is one case in which I think principle and pragmatism align completely. At every step, the mercy that Meereenese Blot praises brings only death and the triumph of injustice. Had Daenerys been more consistently Machiavellian in her methods, as I argue in my forthcoming essay in Tower of the Hand: A Hymn for Spring, thousands and tens of thousands of lives would have been spared at the cost of hundreds

So in the final analysis, Dany's crusade failed, ultimately not because of its imperialist or colonialist nature, nor because of its violence, but because Daenerys began a revolution and then tried to stop it halfway through. The lessons of history do not always point to the superior virtues of peace and moderation - it all depends on which looking glass you choose to look through.

[Veltigar]

yeah, the family that she barely knows. I wonder how she's gonna react when she hears the truth about her father.

She probably won't like it, need some time to process stuff and then move on.

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

They do? Care to explain.

Oh and can you please cite the post that says that Dany wants to bring a horde of Dothraki and Unsullied as tourists to visit Westeros? I can't seem to find it.

Sarcasm doesn't work on the internet!

One of the favourite arguments of Targ fans is that Aegon was so much more justified in his violence than Robert. That uniting Westeros under one throne and taking away the power of 6 kings is better than Robert taking away the power of 1 king. Aegon was apparently a visionary, and Robert was a dirty usurper. When the reality is, Robert was avenging the deaths of 2 people, trying to save his and his best friends lives and wanted to 'rescue' the woman he was engaged to. Aegon's motivations are unclear beyond power hunger.

Today I've been having a discussion about the word Warrior with a Targ fan who insists Dany is a warrior despite the face she has engaged in no battles as anything but a commander from afar

Now apparently Dany not using the term invasion means when she brings the Dothraki and Unsullied to Westeros it won't be an invasion. Its comparable to wildings running for their lives?

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Sarcasm doesn't work on the internet!

One of the favourite arguments of Targ fans is that Aegon was so much more justified in his violence than Robert. That uniting Westeros under one throne and taking away the power of 6 kings is better than Robert taking away the power of 1 king. Aegon was apparently a visionary, and Robert was a dirty usurper.

"Favorite argument", you say? That Aegon's conquest was justified?

I'm calling strawman.

[Mithras]

While the lion of Lannister and the direwolf of Stark snarl and scrap, however, a second and greater threat takes shape across the narrow sea, where the Dothraki horselords mass their barbarian hordes for a great invasion of the Seven Kingdoms, led by the fierce and beautiful Daenerys Stormborn, the last of the Targaryen dragonlords.

It is soooooooooooo funny while Dany fans are trying to disprove the existence of irrational Dany worship, they are simply proving it with each and every post.

[Nictarion]

Today I've been having a discussion about the word Warrior with a Targ fan who insists Dany is a warrior despite the face she has engaged in no battles as anything but a commander from afar

She was definitely right in the thick of things in Astapor. She swung the harpy whip hard enough to take off half of Kraznys' face. She took an incredible gamble with her plan. She could have been killed right away or worse.

If she rides Drogon into battle (which is inevitable) she's absolutely a "warrior".

[Kyoshi]

She probably won't like it, need some time to process stuff and then move on.

My opinion as well. But I wonder if it's even necessary. What can one do with the knowledge that one's father was not a nice guy. She will know, but it won't necessarily make her "a better ruler"...I'm still to understand the importance of the knowledge of her father's ignorance. And maybe I'm being ignorant myself in asking this question but I honestly don't see how it will be helpful in the grand scheme of things.

[Kyoshi]

While the lion of Lannister and the direwolf of Stark snarl and scrap, however, a second and greater threat takes shape across the narrow sea, where the Dothraki horselords mass their barbarian hordes for a great invasion of the Seven Kingdoms, led by the fierce and beautiful Daenerys Stormborn, the last of the Targaryen dragonlords.

It is soooooooooooo funny while Dany fans are trying to disprove the existence of irrational Dany worship, they are simply proving it with each and every post.

We seriously need to move past this, dude. It adds nothing of value to the discussion.

[El Guapo]

Sarcasm doesn't work on the internet!

One of the favourite arguments of Targ fans is that Aegon was so much more justified in his violence than Robert. That uniting Westeros under one throne and taking away the power of 6 kings is better than Robert taking away the power of 1 king. Aegon was apparently a visionary, and Robert was a dirty usurper. When the reality is, Robert was avenging the deaths of 2 people, trying to save his and his best friends lives and wanted to 'rescue' the woman he was engaged to. Aegon's motivations are unclear beyond power hunger.

Today I've been having a discussion about the word Warrior with a Targ fan who insists Dany is a warrior despite the face she has engaged in no battles as anything but a commander from afar

Now apparently Dany not using the term invasion means when she brings the Dothraki and Unsullied to Westeros it won't be an invasion. Its comparable to wildings running for their lives?

I have never heard that argument of Aegon from Targ fans and even if I did it is still that person's opinion and not a collective opinion.

Dany is not a warrior yet, but my guess is she will be on dragonback with her cosen weapon being dragon fire.

Again, that was one person's opinion about the word invasion not all Dany fans opinion of teh word invasion. Believe it or not we don't share one collective mind. That idea was brought up at our last convention but was shot down and we decided we should all have our own separate opinions. We then crucified and burned the person that made that suggestion to our our beloved silver queen.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

While the lion of Lannister and the direwolf of Stark snarl and scrap, however, a second and greater threat takes shape across the narrow sea, where the Dothraki horselords mass their barbarian hordes for a great invasion of the Seven Kingdoms, led by the fierce and beautiful Daenerys Stormborn, the last of the Targaryen dragonlords.

led by the fierce and beautiful Daenerys Stormborn

by the fierce and beautiful Daenerys Stormborn

the fierce and beautiful Daenerys Stormborn

Yeah, that's how you describe a mad tyrant who has come to destroy everything.

[El Guapo]

While the lion of Lannister and the direwolf of Stark snarl and scrap, however, a second and greater threat takes shape across the narrow sea, where the Dothraki horselords mass their barbarian hordes for a great invasion of the Seven Kingdoms, led by the fierce and beautiful Daenerys Stormborn, the last of the Targaryen dragonlords.

It is soooooooooooo funny while Dany fans are trying to disprove the existence of irrational Dany worship, they are simply proving it with each and every post.

I am not sure what you thinks this proves.

[Mithras]

Indeed. Why is Dany's arrival referred as "invasion"? Is Jon's idea of making the wildlings cross the Wall also an "invasion"?

See, this is why many of us who like Dany feel the need to jump on and point out the double standard, despite many of us actually like Jon. At least in my case, I put them both in the same level of involvement and importance in the general story.

Jon has realised that the wildlings are in danger and having them in his side (both figuratively and literally) is a better game. His reasons to do it are both altruistic and practical. He keeps them safe from being butchered by the Others and the wights while he also assures himself with a force he could use to defend the Wall if they need to. And, if we correctly recall, he was counting on the wildlings to go to Winterfell to face Ramsay, something so many seem to subtly forget.

Yet, the Wildlings ARE A DANGER to Westeros, specially to the North: they are, well duh, wild and unruly. They don't feel like the rules of Westeros should apply to them, and their own ways of living implies and includes pillaging and raping. And, Jon can't be everywhere following every single wildling to assure himself they will behave for the rest of his life. In the hypothetical case of Jon not being 'brought back', the wildlings would likely abandon the Wall, kill everyone they can and hit for the lands in the North to be safe. And considering Winter is Coming, they will do whatever they (and their families) need to survive, even if that means killing Northerns and their families. Yes, we know Jon eventually will live, but while he's in his mystical coma, who knows what a bunch of scary scared wildlings could do. Jon has put, with his actions (which aren't bad and have the better intentions at heart), the North in danger.

Dany and the Dothrakis aren't that different. While she first wanted to use them as a force to retake her family's claim, she also wants them to have a better life. She literally wandered the desert with them, seeing them starve and die, not different from Jon and his time with the wildlings, when he became one of them. Dany is now also one of them too. Despite her time in SB, the Dothrakis are for her what the Wildings are for Jon. For Jon, the wildlings were the enemy and for Dany, they were just an army. And that has changed for the both of them. She needs them to fight for him, but she also wants them to be safe and have a better life that doesn't include slavery and having to hurt others. She also has both altruistic and practical intentions for them and the Unsullied, which is something many other Lords and Kings feel for their people. Yes, they want them safe and protected, but that safety and protections means that, when war is on the line, they will call them to fight in their name. That's how their symbiotic system works, and how both Jon and Dany see life and how it works.

So, yeah. Many would say "but Jon isn't doing it to take the throne with firah and blaaaaahd!". Well, again, he was relying on the wildlings to help him go after Ramsay. He, for a moment, wanted to use them for a personal gain. Does that make him a terrible person? Of course not. Definitely and totally nope. What if, eventually, when RLJ is revealed or the real war against the Others starts, the wildlings want to fight for him? Will Jon be acquainted for bringing war and destruction to Westeros if an army of wildlings want to raise their weapons to his name? Because Dany is already guilty of a destruction that hasn't even yet happened. We don't know the conditions in which the Dothrakis will arrive with her, and what they will see on her. Controlling them and taming them won't be easy, and claiming otherwise would be foolish, but we also have the Unsullied being 100% obedient of her orders, not because she owns them but because they see her as a liberating mother and pretty much a messianic figure. Will the Dothrakis be able to see Dany as THE ONE they should obey under any circumstances? The scenario for something like that happening has been already set up with the Stallion prophecy and her finding a Dothraki group while Drogon is on her side.

Compared to Dany, the control Jon has of the wildlings is not exactly based on devotion. He has taken their children as hostages (uuuhhh.... hostages! he's evil like his papa!). And they aren't only hostages: they're hostages for the enemy that has been trying to kill them and keep them away from safety for centuries. They don't see Jon as a liberating force as they see Dany. Their devotion for Dany is a real thing. What they feel for Jon is a contract that can be broken at any time if they see danger, and that danger has already happened in Jon's last chapter. Anything that the wildlings could have seen as a protective figure for them is now, to their eyes, dead. They have no reasons to stay in the Wall and fight for people who don't know them like Jon knew them. Again, is Jon blamed for his decisions and held for any responsibility in case the wildlings cause havoc in the North? Of course not. Because "he had good intentions". And Dany doesn't?

Let's consider the Dothrakis and their living conditions. It's not different from the wildlings. They both are violent people and they do what they do to survive in a hostile enviroment. Yet, the wildlings were able to make concessions in order to have a better life. Why can't that be the same for the Dothraki? If Dany offers them to cross the 'poisoned water' with the promise of a better life, being able to be free and have lands and raise their children without fear, with the only condition of fighting for her, wouldn't she be doing the same Jon is doing? Yes, it will. Because having a better life shouldn't be free for anybody. If you choose to emigrate to another country, you better adapt to their rules, isn't?. If Dany sets those rules, something Jon has done, that is to obey Westerosi laws and fight for her, she's actually giving them a good opportunity to change and improve everybody's lives and that's quite a good contract that benefit both parts. Those Dothrakis that don't fight or those with wives and children would gladly fight for her if their families can have the chance to see green lands and peace. To assume they all are irredeemable savages is, imo, a bit racist. The wildlings we know were able to sit and discuss terms that improve everybody's lives. Dany has Dothrakis in her council and following her rules. There is no reason to pretend they won't change and adapt if she tells them so.

JCRB. You can do much better than this. This comparison is one of the most extreme cases of apples vs. oranges. I would not expect such a post from you.

[Nictarion]

Dammit El Guapo, you know the first rule of the Khaleesi National Party is you don't talk about Khaleesi National Party. :angry:

[El Guapo]

While the lion of Lannister and the direwolf of Stark snarl and scrap, however, a second and greater threat takes shape across the narrow sea, where the Dothraki horselords mass their barbarian hordes for a great invasion of the Seven Kingdoms, led by the fierce and beautiful Daenerys Stormborn, the last of the Targaryen dragonlords.

It is soooooooooooo funny while Dany fans are trying to disprove the existence of irrational Dany worship, they are simply proving it with each and every post.

I am not sure what you thinks this proves.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

led by the fierce and beautiful Daenerys Stormborn

by the fierce and beautiful Daenerys Stormborn

the fierce and beautiful Daenerys Stormborn

And now you're just revealing our secret party anthem to everyone. :(

[Kyoshi]

Why are the National Party members revealing all our secrets? Just don't tell them about the shrine.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

JCRB. You can do much better than this. This comparison is one of the most extreme cases of apples vs. oranges. I would not expect such a post from you.

Why? Because I put Jon under the same scrutiny Dany does all the time?

I didn't know the rule for "analyse without context" applied only for Dany and not for Jon.

Besides, Jon and Dany are very parallel characters. Just because some don't want to accept it doesn't make it less real. Parallel doesn't mean completely the same. The Wildlings and the Dothrakis are forces that started as negative, and now have become allies for both Jon and Dany. They both have the potential to be destructive. Yet, Jon and Dany will manage to control them both, despite that, at the beginning, they might cause chaos.

Really, where is this biased comparison I'm making? Just because I'm not saying everything Jon does is absolutely perfect? OGE said it above: the wildlings were a calculated risk. A calculated risk is still a risk if you fail. Jon succeed at first, but now, he's out of the game. WE DON'T KNOW how the Wildlings will react to Jon's "death". And, even if that hadn't happened, Jon couldn't guarantee that some Wildlings couldn't simply say "fuck everything, byes" and run for the South.

Jon saw the Wildlings as enemies until he spent time with them.

Dany saw the Dothrakis as a weapon until she spent time with them.

Dany, NOW, doesn't think of anyone as weapons. She wants to bring peace to the people she has freed. She's not thinking now on how she can use the Dothrakis for her return to Westeros BECAUSE SHE DOESNT YET HAVE THEM under her control. We all are speculating. Part of that speculation comes from the two sides of readers: those who like Dany say "yes, she will be revealed as the Stallion" and they will follow her to Westeros, and she will offer them peace and a quiet life after the war". The other side says "she will USE THEM to bring chaos to westeros and make herself Queen". See the difference? The only truth is that so far WE DONT KNOW how her relationship with the Dothrakis will be. We don't have the book.

So, putting anyone's bias aside, with all we've read so far, what is more likely?

1. Dany is chosen as their leader and the Stallion and she tells them "come with me to free SB, and then, we'll sail to Westeros where you will have a better life" or

2. She lands with them and they start to go and kill, pillage and rape everyone?

What is more likely for GRRM to develop?

Those who understand the text will have their choice. Those who cannot see Dany as anything but a blonde tazmanian devil will chose 2.

Dany is bringing his army like any other player is. Stannis is planning to hire sellswowrds. Aegon has brought the GC. They don't live from thin air. They need to eat. I doubt the GC is knocking at people's door asking to buy food. They are likely foraging and even pillaging, despite their discipline. And why wouldn't? They're mostly sellswords: Jon and Aegon can't be anywhere controlling them. The same for the men Stannis is planning to get. I don't see people saying "Stannis will INVADE Westeros if he actually manages to bring sellswords". I don't see people saying Aegon is invading and putting Westeros in danger either. Sellswords have little honour. the Dothraki at least could respect Dany's orders based on religious beliefs.

[Veltigar]

My opinion as well. But I wonder if it's even necessary. What can one do with the knowledge that one's father was not a nice guy. She will know, but it won't necessarily make her "a better ruler"...I'm still to understand the importance of the knowledge of her father's ignorance. And maybe I'm being ignorant myself in asking this question but I honestly don't see how it will be helpful in the grand scheme of things.

Well, it makes it a lot easier to emphatize and make peace with the surviving rebels and their families. If her father had been a saint, as Viserys probably taught her, peace is a lot less acceptable. It's much easier for hate to flourish then. Hate leads to violence and pragmatism gets thrown out of the window.

When Daenerys learns and accepts the truth, she can allow herself with ease to pardon every rebel lord (with the exception of Tywin, Jaime, Gregor, etc. who were directly involved in the savage murder of Princess Rhaenys and Prince Aegon). That will make it a lot easier for her to achieve her goals and it could curtail the amount of violence. If she invades decrying the usurpers dogs, the Vale for instance will not be very eager to side with her, which means more bloodshed and suffering. If she's willing to make deals with them, she can turn former foe's into allies.

A reveal could also have other positive consequences. First and foremost on Daenerys psyche, if she knows that her father was as mad as a hatter, she'll be much more introspective. If she keeps second-guessing her decisions and wondering about the morality of them, she's much more likely to use her immense power with care.

[El Guapo]

Why are the National Party members revealing all our secrets? Just don't tell them about the shrine.

:bang: :bang: :bang: