I'm Going to Break the Wheel

[Fisch]

Yup, it's clear Dany isn't doing this for House Targaryen in the form of revenge, justice, retribution or birthright. She is doing this because she is aware that Westeros is in big trouble, and she is its last hope.

The show is its own animal at this point, but even there, I get very little sense that Dany has a firm grip on what the situation in Westeros is. She certainly doesn't in the books.

I have a very difficult time imagining a great empowerment of the commons is on the table, at least in the books. Certainly nothing in a direct POV kind of way.

[Fisch]

DOUBLE POST

[OldGimletEye]

But isn't that the current system? Every time the throne changes hands, the royal family hopes to have an absolutist monarchy that will last for eternity.

Well, sure royal families would like to impose absolutism. But, whether that ever truly occurred in Westeros is debatable.

[WSmith84]

Uh, because she successfully managed to do so around Slaver's Bay? Meereen was taken from the inside, remember? There are priests devoted to her now (and whores cosplaying her, and I can't help but agree that this is some measure of popularity as well).

Her main problem in Meereen are the reactionary forces, not the commoners.

But in Meereen, the people were slaves and she freed them. She had something tangible to offer them and so they supported her. What does she have to offer the people of Westeros?

[ummester]

Well that would be a reform, just with absolutism replacing feudalism. Doesn't sound much better to me.

The only true reform can come from the Others/White Walkers and a Long Night - anything any of the human players try is always going to end up badly, because of all those hearts in conflict with themselves :)

Even if the commoners rise up, there will be abuses of power. What's that guys name in one of the cities Dany conquered, Meat Axe or something, a commoner who became a dictator. And look at the High Sparrow, paving Westeros' very special road to hell with his holy intentions.

[OldGimletEye]

But in Meereen, the people were slaves and she freed them. She had something tangible to offer them and so they supported her. What does she have to offer the people of Westeros?

Yeah, exactly the situation in Mereen isn't exactly comparable to Westeros, or at least some regions of it. So the analogy doesn't quite fit.

ETA:

Also, if Dany brings Dothraki into Westeros, I'd imagine that might complicate things. Are her Dothraki warriors going to be content to just settle down and start take up farming and blacksmithing once the wars conclude?

[Dragon in the North]

Well, sure royal families would like to impose absolutism. But, whether that ever truly occurred in Westeros is debatable.

Well, Dany has always been an idealist.

[OldGimletEye]

Well, Dany has always been an idealist.

Well as many others have pointed out, there is nothing inherently wrong with idealism, but idealism without considering practical realities can lead to disaster. And I think GRRM has himself talked about unintended consequences of policy maker's actions.

[Hodor's Dragon]

The show is its own animal at this point, but even there, I get very little sense that Dany has a firm grip on what the situation in Westeros is. She certainly doesn't in the books.

I have a very difficult time imagining a great empowerment of the commons is on the table, at least in the books. Certainly nothing in a direct POV kind of way.

I'm not saying it is on its way, but there are hints a-plenty of an empowerment of the commons in the books.

Look at the Sparrows in King's Landing. We may find them a bit off-putting and Westerosboro Baptist, even in the books, but there's no doubt they're way more egalitarian than the existing order, and they are blowing up like weeds and the strongest force in the capital right now. Benerro is preaching slave revolution led by Daenerys in Volantis. Daenerys is crunching cities, freeing slaves, she has growing dragons and she may be about to get a khalasar if you go with one interpretation of the fuzzy policies - a rather obvious interpretation, I might add.

Whether this is all going to come together I wouldn't venture to say. But the signs that it is possible are pretty obvious.

[aucp3]

I found that inside the episode comment particularly interesting. I also found it interesting that Dany included House Targaryen in her speech. I think she came off quite positive. It certainly wasn't the usurpers dogs kind of rant the original pre-season trailer made it look like.

^^^ This.

I thought I was the only one who caught that she ALSO included Targaryens in this list. She wants to be a reformer of the entire system.

[Lord Ben]

Well, at least until the next insufferable Targaryen maniac sparks a rebellion. Which will hopefully do away with Targaryen rule for good. Dany can add to her titles: "Mother Of Failed States".

She already has that title but she can soon expand it to Mother of Failed States in Both Essos and Westeros instead of merely Slaver's Bay.

[OldGimletEye]

She already has that title but she can soon expand it to Mother of Failed States in Both Essos and Westeros instead of merely Slaver's Bay.

Yeah, I'm going to need a little more convincing before I start calling her Dany "Kemal Ataturk" Stormborn.

[ADanceWithCats]

Do you really think the people of Dorne and the North are going to turn against the Martells and the Starks, respectively, because Dany comes making a bunch of populist promises?

Oh, the Stark special snowflakes... But even a Saint Stark always has a Bolton or a Lannister ready to start a war against them. And Dany has always given her enemies a choice. If the Starks do a Torrhen again, I don't see why she would want to destroy them. She wants to destroy the system, the wheel, remember? Not the people. She did not say, "I will kill them all".

But in Meereen, the people were slaves and she freed them. She had something tangible to offer them and so they supported her. What does she have to offer the people of Westeros?

Oh, come on. The lack of war. Some fundamental stability that is not conditional on putting the crown deep into debt. Political representation that is not reduced to riots. How about "House Tyrell will no longer be single-handedly able to stop grain transports to King's Landing from the Reach"?

I don't know... Dany-the-revolutionary is intriguing to me. To a large extent because I think it's a much better, more natural, option for the evolution of her character than what the books are doing - in the books, she effectively regresses instead of progressing, the effect is 'eh, the whole exercise of Meereen was a moot point' - all the while we know it's actually the result of Martin trying to get her out of the city and having problems with it. In the show, it's as if she actually learned something from the Meereen experience.

[ummester]

I don't know... Dany-the-revolutionary is intriguing to me. To a large extent because I think it's a much better, more natural, option for the evolution of her character than what the books are doing - in the books, she effectively regresses instead of progressing, the effect is 'eh, the whole exercise of Meereen was a moot point' - all the while we know it's actually the result of Martin trying to get her out of the city and having problems with it. In the show, it's as if she actually learned something from the Meereen experience.

Dany is one of the major characters - one of the biggest 5, if not 3, characters in the entire saga. I doubt she will end any differently in the show than the books, even if her path feels divergent. Martin giving her a more drawn out 'dark side' in ADwD has been covered more directly in show with feeding CG slaver's bodies to her children - this is there for a reason.

[OldGimletEye]

Oh, the Stark special snowflakes... But even a Saint Stark always has a Bolton or a Lannister ready to start a war against them. And Dany has always given her enemies a choice. If the Starks do a Torrhen again, I don't see why she would want to destroy them. She wants to destroy the system, the wheel, remember? Not the people. She did not say, "I will kill them all".

"The Stark special snow flakes?". Well, I think you think you're slick here with this answer. But you're not slick enough. The fact of the matter is that the Northerners have not shown much interest in Southeren affairs, since Aegon's conquest. So how Dany could conclude that the Starks and the Northerners are somehow similarly situated with the Targaryens with respect to the "Game Of Thrones" is beyond me.

Well, actually, it's not beyond me. Dany would conclude that because she knows little about Westeros. It seems that Tyrion could have filled her in on the details of Westerosi history, but for some reason he did not. I don't know why. Either because maybe he is perhaps sandbagging Dany a little or because of shitty writing by D & D.

The Starks historical relationship with the IT and the Southern Kingdoms has nothing to do with them being "Snow Flakes". It's just a historical fact. The type of historical fact that somebody like Dany might want to consider before getting any grand notions.

Also, you are saying here that Dany wants the North to submit to her rule. But, why? Is it really because she wants to help the common people of the North or because she wants her family's kingdom back? If Dany's justification for aggression against the North is to "help the people", then how does that exactly square with the fact that the people there seem to be pretty happy with Stark rule. Well, it really doesn't. So, evidently, her justification for aggression against the North on the grounds of "helping the people" sounds nothing more than a self-serving pretext.

Finally, let's remember that the Aerys fucked over the Starks and they have no particularly good reason to trust Dany.

ETA:

And also the fact the Northerners, to include the commoners, may not want Dany sticking her nose in their business, telling them what they will do has nothing to do with the Starks being "special snowflakes". They may very well feel that they can handle their own problems without her "help".

[JonisHenryTudor]

And a pretty damn self-serving justification too.

Well absolutism is essentially consolidated feudalism. Or rather feudalism is several miniature absolute governments tied to a single recognized center. Very little changes for those below. Absolutism is just usurping, or let's be fancy and say consolidating, power from the regional lords. :cool4: For the English peasant, little changed from 1450 to 1550 and even 1660.

In other words....I am agreeing with you. Which is why I don't see this particular scene as a glorious light in a dark world.

Do you really think the people of Dorne and the North are going to turn against the Martells and the Starks, respectively, because Dany comes making a bunch of populist promises?

I suspect some people will. But I think one aspect that is downplayed is the fact that Dany will be invading with a foreign army. That is not going to be popular for some people. I can see commoners being very nervous about the ramifications on their livelihoods. The same can be said for Jon if he has a wildling army. At least with the wildlings, they already belong to Westeros, whereas Dany's army belongs to Essos.

Just as Martin turned Disney's Prince Charming on its head (Robb), I can see him doing the same to something that resembles the "Glorious Revolution". Then again even recent scholarship suggests that outside of Parliament and London, not everyone was thrilled with the idea. Still it was vetted from London and not completely foreign. This scenario sort of reminds me of Philip II who did have some right to the English throne after his marriage to Mary I. After her death, his rights ceased of course. Quite similar to House Targ losing its rights at the conclusion of RR. My point is, during Betty's (Elizabeth I) reign some Catholics were more than welcoming of Philip's invasion and annexation of England. In the same way, there will likely be some who openly welcome Dany, and (f)Aegon for that matter, but many commoners would remember the Mad King and perhaps not so eager to join.

[ADanceWithCats]

"The Stark special snow flakes?". Well, I think you think you're slick here with this answer. But you're not slick enough. The fact of the matter is that the Northerners have not shown much interest in Southeren affairs, since Aegon's conquest. So how Dany could conclude that the Starks and the Northerners are somehow similarly situated with the Targaryens with respect to the "Game Of Thrones" is beyond me.

You mean, apart from the most recent war, which featured, among other things, a Northern army descending through the Neck and waging war in the Riverlands? Yes, how could Dany think that the North is partially responsible for the destruction?

ETA:

And also the fact the Northerners, to include the commoners, may not want Dany sticking her nose in their business, telling them what they will do has nothing to do with the Starks being "special snowflakes". They may very well feel that they can handle their own problems without her "help".

Well, they may, or they may not. You asked me if I thought this was a possibility they would join in - and yes, I do think that the people annoyed with Robb, the Boltons, and so on, and so forth, could support her. Obviously, you have a different opinion, which is entirely your right. Ultimately, obviously, that will be plot-decided. :)

[Jon Snow Bengal]

Did Aegon have support of the small folk & rich folk when he invaded? I don't think so. Dany has dragons, why can't she do exactly what Aegon did? Plus she has Dornes support already which Aegon never had.

She just needs two other dragon riders (like Aegon)..... so who will they be?

[JonisHenryTudor]

Let's say for sake of argument that Dany is the reformer (terribly anachronistic for the period). She marches into Westeros, and tells the people there to accept her new ideas or die. That is essentially the question since I doubt if the remaining Lannisters said "No I don't think we will, we like our gold" that Dany would acquiesce. So Dany annihilates House L. Say House Tyrell says, sounds good. They side with her, Dorne says fine. The Tully's say no, and SR no. She proceeds to crush them, because after all her new ideas cannot have borders. So she crushes them. She then asks the Starks, and let's say the north says "sure whatever, just leave us alone". She doesn't find that response satisfactory then demands full submission or war. She annihilates them.

The problem with her approach is that it comes down to 2 things. 1. She claims that she will break the wheel, which she makes a ton of assumptions that everyone will follow her lead. 2. Resistance.

It essentially boils down to the fact that Dany is offering life or death. Bend to me or die. Unless of course you believe that she would accept rejection? That would be completely contrary to her arc thus far. She didn't march through SB and say "yep I will free them, but no you keep your slaves" It was all or nothing. If Dany marches into westeros and declares freedom for commoners and westeros agrees, and then everyone turns to the wall, I will toss this book and mark it as rubbish. Yes she did include House Targaryen, but it is entirely naive to think that she does not intend to remain in power and on top.

See. Martin Luther Jr and Ghandi, etc were reformers. They wanted reform, but not necessarily the "throne". Dany wants the support of commoners, but is not willing to relinquish the throne. There is a huge difference between the two. So yes, she is effectively stating that she will crush the major houses so long as they deny her. If they deny her, and some of them will, she will crush them for not adhering to her beliefs?

[Denam_Pavel]

Oh, the Stark special snowflakes... But even a Saint Stark always has a Bolton or a Lannister ready to start a war against them. And Dany has always given her enemies a choice. If the Starks do a Torrhen again, I don't see why she would want to destroy them. She wants to destroy the system, the wheel, remember? Not the people. She did not say, "I will kill them all".

Martells and Starks do operate a monarchy, the horrific wheel that Dany speaks off.

Oh, come on. The lack of war. Some fundamental stability that is not conditional on putting the crown deep into debt. Political representation that is not reduced to riots. How about "House Tyrell will no longer be single-handedly able to stop grain transports to King's Landing from the Reach"?

Conquering the Seven Kingdoms and taking the Iron Throne means that Dany wants to start a new war, not end them. And she didn't bring fundamental stability to Meereen, Yunkai or Astapor. And fully intending to rule without the rich IS gonna be hella expensive to the crown itself, and thus meaning there'll be shortages, and riots.