Heresy 180

[Black Crow]

Ooooooo I love this!  I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn - this sounds an awful lot like something the red priests would say around their night fires. And it may finally explain something that's been bugging me for years: the continued references to how red things, by night, are black. Dany is always looking for her red door; in Meereen, she looks out across the city, but doesn't see any red doors b/c "by night, all doors were black." There are also multiple quotes of "by night, all cloaks were black." It comes up quite a few times, so it must have meaning... and this theory may be it. Very, very cool. I'll be thinking on this for a while. 

As I said I'd be looking for a common root rather than interpreting the Watch as an offshoot [rogue or otherwise] of the Red Lot, because I also think that as all the threads of this story come together the connections will become more apparent and, at a very basic level if it turns out that the Watch and the Red Lot are connected even in the distant past it doesn't necessarily mean that either of them are the "true" champions of the light or that there is a chosen one who may or may not [but probably won't] be called Azor Ahai.

[MaesterSam]

GRRM has repeated stressed both in and out of text how unreliable prophecy is, and how it aint likely to turn out the way people think. Thus I think that you're right and that prince and dragon are one and the same and that there wasn't literally a prophecy that dragons would "return". I also think though that its a reasonable interpretation or rather corollary to the prophecy. The later Targaryens still referred to themselves as dragons, but we also hear of individuals not being true dragons so its likely that deep down they knew that to be a true dragon they needed a beastie and therefore by definition the dragon of prophecy would need to have one.

In that sense too I think that Danaerys the Dragonlord is indeed the Prince that was Promised and that would also be consistent with the synopsis at the head of this thread. I would add a note of caution though that prophesying the return of a hero isn't necessarily the same thing as prophesying the victory of said hero. 

I agree, it was reasonable of them to assume that dragons would return; clearly, the red priests arrived at a similar conclusion. And they were right, dragons have returned. I was just trying to think of how it may have been worded to a) be ambiguous about the gender of the promised individual, and b ) predict the return of the dragons without having to first predict their demise.

I definitely also agree that we don't know if this promised prince (who does appear to be Dany) will win. In addition, as others have pointed out before me, Dany may not end up being one of the "goodies" of the series, especially if she embraces the Red God. We may end up back where we started, with Frost's poem - fire and ice are each quite capable of wiping out humanity, with one not necessarily being better than the other. In other words, the fulfillment of the prophecy may not be something we (or the inhabitants of Westeros) should be looking forward to.

[MaesterSam]

As I said I'd be looking for a common root rather than interpreting the Watch as an offshoot [rogue or otherwise] of the Red Lot, because I also think that as all the threads of this story come together the connections will become more apparent and, at a very basic level if it turns out that the Watch and the Red Lot are connected even in the distant past it doesn't necessarily mean that either of them are the "true" champions of the light or that there is a chosen one who may or may not [but probably won't] be called Azor Ahai.

Oh I definitely don't think there will be a true champion of light, or an actual rebirth of AA. But I am very intrigued by this potential link between the Red Lot and the Night's Watch. Their overall purpose is similar: to stand against the terrors that come in the night and make sure the dawn returns. Both keep watch at night, both see fire as instrumental in doing so. Mel has even gone a step further and identified the Others as servants of the Great Other, so at least in her mind, the Red Lot and the Watch share a common enemy. Now if we add in that by night, the Red Lot is the Black Lot... there are many potential implications.

Could the Night's Watch predate the Wall, or even the First Men's arrival in Westeros? Could the plural walls in the oath refer to the walls of the Five Forts, or of Qarth, or some other ancient Essosi fortification that has more than one wall?

Maybe, there was one original organization (or cult) that stood against the darkness during the first Long Night, in Essos. Some of them may have helped out in Westeros, and stayed there. Cut off from their origins, they adapted (kind of like Thoros and Mel are doing their own thing). They allowed worship of the Old Gods by their recruits (and later the Seven), and wore black (maybe they simply didn't remember that they were wearing red at one point, since the LN was a generation of darkness, so all clothing appeared black?). There could also have been a true rift, and a conscious separation of the two orders. The NW seems to have given up religion and magic for the most part; perhaps this happened after the NK debacle. 

Of course, this all raises more questions than it answers, but I am enjoying looking at it from a new angle. 

Just for fun, here are a few more examples of things turning black by night:

“Are you blind, man?” Yoren waved his staff back and forth, making the cloak ripple. “You see a bloody lightning bolt?”
“By night all banners look black,” the knight in the spiked helm observed. “Open, or we’ll know you for outlaws in league with the king’s enemies.”

- Arya, ACOK

The light of the moon painted the limbs of the weirwood silvery white as she made her way toward it, but the five-pointed red leaves turned black by night. Arya stared at the face carved into its trunk. It was a terrible face, its mouth twisted, its eyes flaring and full of hate.

- Arya, ACOK, in Harrenhal (it is interesting that the red & white, which come up a lot, by night are black & white, which surely has its own significance, including a strong association with death).

“Most like they’re just some Umbers,” he said. “Or they could be Knotts or Norreys or Flints come down from the mountains, or even brothers from the Night’s Watch. Were they wearing black cloaks, Jojen?”
“By night all cloaks are black, Your Grace. And the flash came and went too fast for me to tell what they were wearing.”

 - Bran, ASOS

“My city,” said Dany. “I was looking for a house with a red door, but by night all the doors are black.”

- Daenerys, ASOS 

 

[Black Crow]

I suppose we might argue, with a nod to Frost, that although they've long forgotten their true purpose the Nights Watch represent a shield which preserves the balance, while the Red Lot although nominally on the same side want to unleash the fire and upset it.

[Black Crow]

I definitely also agree that we don't know if this promised prince (who does appear to be Dany) will win. In addition, as others have pointed out before me, Dany may not end up being one of the "goodies" of the series, especially if she embraces the Red God. 

I don't see Danaerys the Dragonlord embracing the Red God, but, given both her character arc and the synopsis I can see her as being at one and the same time both Azor Ahai and [with a nod to the problems in translation] the Stallion, hence my earlier comparison to her as Shiva the Destroyer whom the Prince that was Promised [Bran?] must oppose to preserve balance.

Always supposing of course that the prophecy stuff is relevant - beyond inspiring various individuals and factions to do things, and sometimes horrible things, in the name of their gods in order to try and make said prophecies come to pass.

[MaesterSam]

I don't see Danaerys the Dragonlord embracing the Red God, but, given both her character arc and the synopsis I can see her as being at one and the same time both Azor Ahai and [with a nod to the problems in translation] the Stallion, hence my earlier comparison to her as Shiva the Destroyer whom the Prince that was Promised [Bran?] must oppose to preserve balance.

..

I'm actually not so sure that she won't. It seems that the mummers will be sending her a red priest, and Moqorro is on his way to her as well. She wouldn't be asked to be another observant follower of R'hllor, but would be offered the role of Azor Ahai, the promised savior and leader of the faith. All she would have to do is say yes, you may worship me, and she would instantly gain many new supporters.

In a way, she has already done what Mel has been trying to get Stannis to do for 4 books: burned a live human to wake dragons from stone. So she knows the power of blood magic firsthand. She also can be cruel at times, such as when she crucified the masters, some of whom were good men. In general, she will have to be comfortable with burning her enemies if she intends to use her dragons in her coming wars. 

So I guess what I'm saying is that she could join the faith, and wouldn't really have to do anything different. In fact, the morally questionable acts she commits would then have justification, and perhaps even serve as sacrifices that give her even more power. And then there are, of course, the Targaryen words: fire and blood. It's almost a bit surprising that her ancestors weren't followers of R'hllor already...

[Balerion06]

I suspect she'll go the same route as Stannis: let the Red Priests proclaim her as the messiah, let her followers believe it if they must, but never actually believe it herself.

Doing so would be really advantageous in her current position too, as it automatically gains her a foothold in places like Volantis.

[Black Crow]

To an extent that's what's already happening if we look at Master Benero's pronouncements. I still don't see it so much a matter of Danaerys the Dragonlord joining or aligning herself with the Red Lot but rather their following her and doing stuff in her name in expectation of victory. I suspect that the real upshot is not so much a matter of taking sides but of the conflict spiraling ever further out of control with no neat ending.

[MaesterSam]

It might also explain the Targaryen ideal of the ruler. Their "prince" in a conqueror, not a nurturer or leader. 

Dany has a few lines about wanting to plant trees and see them grow. But then hears Jorah's voice: "dragons plant no trees."

Cultivation, nurturing, and growth--these are not things dragons--the ultimate predators--excel at. If the Targaryens see leaders/princes as innately conquerors, like the Dothraki and their idea of the Stallion that Mounts the World, could explain why they might not be able to withstand the reality of Westeros and its impending long night: you can't defeat winter by defeating people. You have to rally them, not force them to kneel.

I'm thinking (as many have thought before me) that the same can be said of Mel asking for AA and seeing Snow. She probably wouldn't want the actual AA (given some of the speculation about him). She needs a hero (cue Bonnie Tyler). She sees what she wants, not what she thinks she wants.

But given how the Targs see ruling, how Dany embraced (at the end of Game) Viserys' idea of taking back "her" throne, of the fact that "dragons don't plant trees," and that the Stallion the Mounts the World is all well and good for the Dothraki, but terrible for all who aren't Dothraki--Dany's embraced the conquering ethic. Not the "hero" ethic. She may want to be Mysha. But she's Khalessi. 

Now this could work--Dany as the destroyer who opens the way for rebirth. She is the moon, wife of sun. The Moon with its changing face. I am just having a hard time seeing how the thoughts and ethics in her head, not to mention her being in front of a khalassar, will be anything but trouble for Westeros. Which is already falling apart. 

Yes yes yes. "Dark Dany" is one of my favorite theories/predictions in ASOIAF. We have learned to love (Jaime) or at least pity (Theon) characters that started out as "bad", but we have yet to learn to hate or fear  someone we initially rooted for. Arya is getting pretty dark, but her anger/bitterness is justified, and we saw her transform from feisty little noble girl into what she is now by successive tragic losses in her life. I don't think I could ever dislike her, no matter what GRRM has her do. 

Dany, on the other hand... has also had a rough childhood, but the people who might deserve her anger are pretty much all dead now, and I have always been a bit bothered by her sense of entitlement. Add to that, as you point out, that the Targaryen family words make it clear they are better at fighting than anything else, and her invasion of Westeros - already war-torn, freezing and on the brink of starvation- starts to sound like a complete nightmare. 

What really made me focus on this particular post though, is the phrase "dragons don't plant trees". Why? Well, we have another noble house with a very similar view. Dragons don't plant trees, and Krakens do not sow. This is essentially the same statement: we do war, not agriculture. I always wondered what made Euron think Dany would be interested in marrying him. But come to think of it, those two may be a match made in...  the Drowned God's watery halls.  

 

 

[Sly Wren]

I am way behind here on Heresy. Not sure if I have time to catch up, but will just dive in here.

Yes yes yes. "Dark Dany" is one of my favorite theories/predictions in ASOIAF. We have learned to love (Jaime) or at least pity (Theon) characters that started out as "bad", but we have yet to learn to hate or fear  someone we initially rooted for. Arya is getting pretty dark, but her anger/bitterness is justified, and we saw her transform from feisty little noble girl into what she is now by successive tragic losses in her life. I don't think I could ever dislike her, no matter what GRRM has her do. 

Dany, on the other hand... has also had a rough childhood, but the people who might deserve her anger are pretty much all dead now, and I have always been a bit bothered by her sense of entitlement. Add to that, as you point out, that the Targaryen family words make it clear they are better at fighting than anything else, and her invasion of Westeros - already war-torn, freezing and on the brink of starvation- starts to sound like a complete nightmare. 

Yup. Dany's sense of entitlement is frightening. Especially since she specifically says, after Vicerys is dead and Drogo gone, that she will take the Iron Throne as her brother would have.

The brother whose sense of entitlement got him "crowned" to death. Dany's really lost perspective--and it's even the end of Game. Seems like things haven't gotten worse. She seems set to pick up a khalassar, a force pretty much driven by  entitlement and violence. How on earth is that supposed to help anything? The original synopsis says they will all have to work together to defeat the Others. But given Dany's progression and khalassar, I'm thinking she may not do so, regardless of need. Or not be able to--because she's tied to a khalassar and a dragon.

What really made me focus on this particular post though, is the phrase "dragons don't plant trees". Why? Well, we have another noble house with a very similar view. Dragons don't plant trees, and Krakens do not sow. This is essentially the same statement: we do war, not agriculture. I always wondered what made Euron think Dany would be interested in marrying him. But come to think of it, those two may be a match made in...  the Drowned God's watery halls.  

OOH! Very good catch--you're right. It's the same basic idea. I've always wondered how the Greyjoys (or anyone with this philosophy) are supposed to notice that this means all they do is consume, not create. And that this might be a problem.

And you may be right about Euron--not just the dragon horn. But dragons and krakens think alike.

[Lord Fauntleroy]

Dany is so entitled and full of herself that I don't see why she couldn't be honestly convinced she's Azor Ahai.

The 'I'll just roll with it' stance was already done by Stannis, I don't think it's going to be very interesting if we just get the same opinion again from Dany.

She'll go full Fire And Blood, convinced she's the savior of the world wether the world likes it or not. Just like she did things in Mereen but without the rabbit ears act.

[Lady Dyanna]

I am way behind here on Heresy. Not sure if I have time to catch up, but will just dive in here.Yup. Dany's sense of entitlement is frightening. Especially since she specifically says, after Vicerys is dead and Drogo gone, that she will take the Iron Throne as her brother would have.

The brother whose sense of entitlement got him "crowned" to death. Dany's really lost perspective--and it's even the end of Game. Seems like things haven't gotten worse. She seems set to pick up a khalassar, a force pretty much driven by  entitlement and violence. How on earth is that supposed to help anything? The original synopsis says they will all have to work together to defeat the Others. But given Dany's progression and khalassar, I'm thinking she may not do so, regardless of need. Or not be able to--because she's tied to a khalassar and a dragon.

OOH! Very good catch--you're right. It's the same basic idea. I've always wondered how the Greyjoys (or anyone with this philosophy) are supposed to notice that this means all they do is consume, not create. And that this might be a problem.

And you may be right about Euron--not just the dragon horn. But dragons and krakens think alike.

The Dothraki fit right into the same pattern as well. Think of Viserys's statement when they first enter Vaes Dothrak and see all of the stolen statues. The savages only take what better men have built.

[cutuphalfdead]

I don't disagree with these assessments of Dany having turned into something ugly and violent and entitled, but what's to say she stays like that after successfully conquering or at least landing on and setting up a base of operations on westerosi soil?

 

Dany is still completely unaware of the threat of the Others. I could see that being game changing knowledge for her that leads her back to a more moderate path when it comes to her rule.

[Black Crow]

I refer you to the synopsis at the beginning of the thread wherein it is said that the Dothraki are the second great threat to Westeros and that having conquered the place Danaerys the Dragonlord finds herself facing the third threat in the form of the Others.

As to a more "moderate" path it also reckons that her task [no mention of big beasties with wings and bad breath] is to unite her shattered kingdom in order to fight the good fight.

[Lord Ravenstark]

Dany's entitlement goes straight into insanity. "Governing" as skill that must be learned by sending thousands into poverty and death doesn't seem sensate in any perspective.

[Balerion06]

Dany's desire for the iron throne is only entitlement by modern standards (and even then that's debateable), else you can make a pretty solid argument that every noble we meet is pretty much as entitled as her.

By this criteria, Stannis is entitled for waging his war for succession. Tyrion is entitled for unleashing Aegon on the small chance he may end up with Casterly Rock. Sansa is entitled for bringing the Vale into the war for reclaiming Winterfell. Robb was entitled for wanting to retake the North from the the Iron Born.

Why are we judging Dany so harshly?

[WhitewolfStark]

I've quoted this before in Heresy, but I believe it's important to understand. From the Juridical, Ethical, and Religious Aspects of War, from Philippe Contamine's War in the Middle Ages

 

Although the problem of the moral responsibility of combatants engaged in an unjust war was discussed fairly  infrequently, it gave rise to different solutions. One was the view of a good number of thirteenth-century moralists and theologians, such as Robert de Courcon: 'In illicit matters it is not necessary to obey temporal lords, thus knights when they feel a war is unjust should not follow the standards of the prince.' Similarly Stephen Langton argued that if the king of France declared an unjust war on the king of England, a French knight should indeed obey the royal summons but he should abstain or withdraw at the moment of combat. Yet again, Thomas de Chobham said bishops ought to exhort people to withdraw from an unjust war, at least if there was a chance that they would act unanimously following this advice with the result that all danger of sedition was excluded. For others, on the contrary, faithful to the Roman tradition of absolute obedience to the prince, it was for him to determine wither the war which he undertook was just or not, and his subjects had simply to follow, without their eternal salvation being endangered. Naturally, governing authorities had every reason to want this thesis to triumph and, in fact, at the same time as discipline in armies  was tightened and the system of military obligations became more coercive and rigorous, cases of conscience, concerning 'the condition of the soul', appear to have disappeared. At most, advocates of the golden mean like J. Lopez in the fifteenth century upheld the view that subjects could consider as just any war undertaken 'by order of their superiors', unless it appeared manifest to them that it was unjust and violent and that their lord desired to inflict oppression on others.

In the final analysis it was the criterion of animus which has taken most seriously and, in a certain measure, contributed to shaping attitudes in the late Middle Ages. There were plenty of acute minds who were ready to compare the causes and ends of wars with the extent of devastation caused. St Thomas Aquinas had already underlined the need for proportionality between the motives for an action and its consequences, but only regarding tyrannicide. In his eyes, revolt against a tyrant could only be legitimate if the wrong which it entailed was presumed to be less than the evil provoked by the existence and action of the tyrant. Philippe de Mezieres went further in his Epistre a Richard II King of England (1395). Having explained that the cause of a given conflict, while appearing just to the eyes of 'human wisdom' (sapience humaine) might very well not be accepted as such by God, he adds that it is necessary to take into account the extent of the miseries which war will bring once unleashed. He argues that it would be better for a prince to abandon to his potential enemy two-thirds of the object causing discord, for example two-thirds of a province which they both claimed, at the start of the problem. His reasoning implies shared responsibility in the case of the Franco-English conflict. Hence the necessity for both parties to repent: 'the suffering of the kings and the true repentance of their knights, both French and English, for the great wrongs which they and their fathers have perpetrated and cruelly carried out against God and their neighbors.'

Reflections of this type led to the contrasting of two kinds of war, according to the outward bearing of the combatants. In opposition to 'mortal' war, waged with fire and blood (de feu et de sang), where all sorts of cruelties killings and inhumanities' were tolerated, or even systematically prescribed, there was that form of war described as guerroyable: regular war, loyal war, honorable, bonne guerre, fought by 'good fighters' in conformity with the law of arms (droituriere justice d'armes), or according to the discipline of chivalry'. Not to respect the lives of messengers and heralds, says Philippe de Vigneulles, was 'an unaccustomed thing in a righteous quarrel or in a just war'.

To the extent that the precepts of good war were respected, soldiers did not compromise their eternal salvation in exercising their profession. As Honore Bovet said, in itself warfare was not evil, but the use to which it was put was all-important, and Le Jouvencel adds, 'Whoever wages war loyally and prudently in a good cause does a just thing which, I hold, pleases God. Le Victorial likewise provides assurance that one can even save one's soul in fighting against Christians if certain conditions are met: one should not kill the enemy, having captured him; churches should be respected and no injury done to those who had sought refuge in them, nor should any objects which they contain be taken, unless it is impossible to find enough food to preserve life elsewhere. In this case it was permissible to take food to meet the immediate need, but no more--just sufficient for oneself and one's horse. No woman should be taken or carried off, whether married or free, nor should the harvest or houses be burnt, for this action affected the innocent and poor who had done nothing to deserve such punishment.

...

Many elements, however, conspired to thwart efforts to humanize war. They may be divided into three principal tendencies:

1. States were often anxious to wage as total a war as possible, not sparring the enemy. The notion of lese-majeste, in particular served to justify large-scale massacre carried out in cold blood. On various occasions during the course of the Hundred Years War the English monarchy displayed implacable cruelty. Later Louis XI, like Charles the Bold, ordered his troops to carry out systemic devastation and had those who resisted them executed without pity. Similar atrocities on at least a comparable scale may be encountered during the crusade against the Hussite heresy.

2. The law of arms, the discipline of chivalry, with its more or less self-imposed constraints on combatants, could only apply to armies which were feudal and chiefly recruited from the nobility. But the late Middle Ages saw the appearance of a mass of adventurers who were scarcely amenable to this code--mercenaries including the great companies and Ecorcheurs in France, the Companies of Adventure in Italy, the Lansquenets in Germany, and the Albanian Estradiots during the late Italian wars. They were content to let their bestial and sadistic instincts run riot without any restriction, but, more importantly, they contributed to a modification of the general atmosphere of war even when this was being waged by the traditional military cadres.

3. In contrast to aristocratic warfare, which easily changed into a sort of great tourney, half serious, half frivolous, a series of adventures and 'apertises d'armes' sought after and experienced for themselves, the warfare of communes, popular war, offered behavior that was incontestably more violent. The Flemish communes systematically massacred the vanquished and refused the practice of ransoms, seen by them as cowardly and likely to lead to deception. Inevitably in battles where they faced the communes, nobles adopted a similar attitude. After the massacre of French knights during the battle of Courtrai, there was a massacre of Flemish craftsmen at Cassel and Roosebeke. One might link to this style of warfare, devoid of all courtesy, the warlike customs of the Irish and Swiss. The Kriegsordnung of Lucerne in 1499 stipulated that no prisoners were to be taken; all the enemy put to death. That of Zurich in 1444 thought it necessary to prohibit combatants from tearing out the hearts of their dead enemies and cutting up their bodies.

 

So the phrase "fire and blood" has connotations to a type of warfare which is literally destructive and devastating--total warfare. It's not any worse than what Westeros has already seen thanks to the Bloody Mummers and the War of the Five Kings, as shown in the final three bullet points by the Starks and Lannisters and the sellsword companies. I half wonder if we're meant to see Westeros recover from its own branch of total warfare and pick itself up to some regards only to be subjected to Dany's brand afterwards.

[MaesterSam]

Dany's desire for the iron throne is only entitlement by modern standards (and even then that's debateable), else you can make a pretty solid argument that every noble we meet is pretty much as entitled as her.

By this criteria, Stannis is entitled for waging his war for succession. Tyrion is entitled for unleashing Aegon on the small chance he may end up with Casterly Rock. Sansa is entitled for bringing the Vale into the war for reclaiming Winterfell. Robb was entitled for wanting to retake the North from the the Iron Born.

Why are we judging Dany so harshly?

Because Dany is the only one who thinks she is entitled to the whole of Westeros, along with anything she encounters along the way.

You are right though, all nobles have some sense of entitlement. By the laws of Westeros, they are entitled to their lands and castles. By law, Dany does have a claim to the iron throne. But, in my opinion, a good leader makes sacrifices to protect his/her people. Torrhen Stark knelt to Aegon so that his lands and people wouldn't be burned. Bran surrendered Winterfell to Theon to prevent a massacre. Doran Martell delayed his revenge so that Dorne wouldn't bleed. Even Balon Greyjoy bent the knee to prevent further destruction of his kingdom. 

And good leaders keep order in their lands, and protect their people (which Dany miserably failed to do after leaving Astapor and Yunkai). The Northmen love the Starks, and I imagine most of the noble houses are well liked by their subjects (Arryns, Martells, Tullys, Renly Baratheon...  not to mention Euron who was fairly elected!). This is not the case with Dany. The Westerosi will not want Dany to rule them, and will resist - so why would she want to lay waste to these lands she has never set foot on, rather than leave them be? 

I do see a possibility for  a different outcome. Maybe Dany arrives after the Others, and there are literally no Westerosi armies left to stand against her. She arrives, and KL is already destroyed, the people fled. She flies to Storm's End, only to find it devastated as well. Then Casterly Rock, Oldtown etc. All fallen. And THEN she has to rally who's left and fight her way to Winterfell. That could work. [Though I still prefer the scenario of the Others being needed to fight against her... ]

ps just for the record, I am not anti-Dany. But the mummer's version has really emphasized how "every time a Targaryen is born, the gods flip a coin", and she has already burned her first innocent. So the hints are definitely there... But she does mean well, I do believe that, and given the right circumstances could very well end up ultimately being a protagonist in the story.

[MaesterSam]

 

OOH! Very good catch--you're right. It's the same basic idea. I've always wondered how the Greyjoys (or anyone with this philosophy) are supposed to notice that this means all they do is consume, not create. And that this might be a problem.

And you may be right about Euron--not just the dragon horn. But dragons and krakens think alike.

Fire consumes. Ice preserves. Alliances are taking shape. On Team Fire, we have Dany, hubby Euron (with the ironborn behind him) and the Red Lot for support. This seems increasingly likely, as Dany can make good use of Vic's ships, and I suspect she will keep Moqorro around once she learns he can reliably tell the future. Just think, the three allies can have nightly fires where they burn their enemies as offerings to R'hllor. All of them are already cool with this practice, so no annoying head shaking or disapproving looks to deal with...

Team Ice is more mysterious, as it has been from the start. It's not even clear that there is a human Team Ice that is separate from the Others, who obviously have first claim to the title. There do seem to be humans who will under no circumstances bow to Dany and co - namely, the worshipers of the Old Gods. Especially as Bran begins more actively interacting via the weirwoods, the North's faith will be strengthened, and they will not accept Team Fire on their lands. 

I could almost see a scenario where the Northmen, in a desperate attempt to thwart Dany, ally with the Others. We know from Craster that it can be done; maybe they could take it a step further and get the Others to fight for/with them? It would surely require a lot of human sacrifices, but that's never stopped religious cults before. Maybe the ironic ending will be humanity killing itself off; not in war, but in the form of massive human sacrifices on both sides, which end up culling the population to a level that can survive the winter. 

[MaesterSam]

The Dothraki fit right into the same pattern as well. Think of Viserys's statement when they first enter Vaes Dothrak and see all of the stolen statues. The savages only take what better men have built.

Yes, you're right. They are all the same: Dothraki, Ironborn, Targaryens. Dany is uniting all the selfish assholes into a terrible, merciless "fire and blood" army. And yet, somehow we still think she's the hero.

I do love that statement by Viserys. He saw the Dothraki for what they really are. He was right in many things he said about them - his mistake was to say them out loud.