Between Sansa and Daenerys, who would make the better ruling Queen?

[teej6]

14 hours ago, SeanF said:

Adam Feldman's essays were good, but neglected the fact that many slavers were bent on war at any price.  People like Hizdahr and the Yellow Whale were prepared to accept Meereen becoming a free state, and why not?  Hizdahr and his class retain almost all their wealth, and can hire people to work for them at a pittance.  They can invest in the slave trade in the other cities through agents.  The Yellow Whale, and those Yunkish who agree with him would just see more business for Yunkai, if Meereen was out of the slave trade.

But other slavers see a free Meereen as an existential threat, above all Volantis.  Dany's an inspiration to their laves.  They have to stamp out a free Meereen, and preferably bring Dany and her chief followers back to Volantis to be very publicly tortured to death, so that their slaves will know what the price of rebellion is.

But Hizdhar and the Yellow Whale are influential decision makers within their societies and can sway people to their views. It doesn't matter what their motives are for advocating peace, as long as they can maintain that peace. As the Green Grace tells Selmy "Peace is the the pearl beyond price." Anyway the point I was making is that Dany has given up on peace thinking that it goes against her natural instincts and inclination as a Targaryen. She tried making peace with her enemies but in the end came to the realization that it was too bitter a pill for her to swallow. 

[Kaibaman]

2 hours ago, Light a wight tonight said:

No comparison to Obama. He inherited an economic meltdown from the previous administration. Dany doesn't inherit her problems, she causes them. 

But your argument is that she should let someone else take over not that she creates her own mess. We should be looking at how she deals with her problems not whether she was the one who instigated them because that's besides the point.

But lets not also forget that when she gets to Westeros and takes the Iron Throne, she will be the one left holding the bag for the clusterfuck brought on by the War of Five Kings and other shit that have happened since. Now if she struggles to deal with the mountains of problems caused by others, would you still be getting on her case for failing as a ruler?

[Light a wight tonight]

11 hours ago, khal drogon said:

Trial and error will almost always skew towards the error side unless if you have luck. Don't you know it?

I bet even the competents would struggle ruling Slaver's bay. So till you show any person who was in as much difficult position as her there was no comparison. Definitely I can't see Sansa even surviving Slaver's Bay for a day before talking about ruling. 

There's a difference between error and massive screw-up, which is Dany's style. She has luck, which is the only reason she's still alive. Poisoned wine, cockatrice attack, ambush by the Titan's Bastard, lost in the desert, lost in the Dothraki Sea, poisoned honeyed locusts, any one of those  and more could have killed her. 

Sansa in Slaver's Bay? Dany wouln't have survived infancy in Westeros.

 

[Jon's Queen Consort]

12 hours ago, Kaibaman said:

she deals with her problems not whether she was the one who instigated them because that's besides the point

English isn't my first language so I might be wrong but do you actually mean that the fact that she creates havoc and all the problems doesn't matter? Are you serious?

Do you know how she deals with the problems she creates? By taking the money of the people who sell themselves into slavery and becoming a slaver herself.

[Hodor the Articulate]

On 10/09/2016 at 0:37 AM, teej6 said:

Even in Meereen, killing all the slavers I don't feel is the solution. She practically wiped out all the slavers in Astopar. Did that help? Even without the Yunkish invasion, Astopar had become a hell hole. The point of Meereen is that Dany tried peace and dialogue but she failed (at least in her thoughts) and decided to adopt a strategy of war and destruction to her enemies. There's a series of essays by Adam Feldman (which includes Dany's arc in Meereen) that shows an interesting perspective [https://meereeneseblot.wordpress.com/essays/] I believe that GRRM said Feldman's essay on Meereen understood what he was trying to convey by Dany's arc in Meereen. 

As for Westeros, Dany with her dragons will cause war and destruction, and I am pretty certain the scale of chaos and destruction that she leaves after will be significant. There is this line from Arianne's TWOW chapter hinting at it:

  Hide contents

Teora gave a tiny nod, chin trembling. “They were dancing. In my dream. And everywhere the dragons danced the people died.”

And yes, almost most nobles in Westeros share Dany's mindset that vengeance is justified. I don't disagree. But I disagree that Ned's primary motive for RR was vengeance. Perhaps Robert feels that way. Jon Arynn raised his banners because he didn't want to hand over the heads of innocents to a mad tyrant and that I feel is a just cause. 

The Meerenseblot essay is interesting, but my thoughts align more with Steven Attewell's analysis (x). The Sons of the Harpy may have quietened down, but with Volantis coming, whatever peace bought by the concessions that Dany made was only ever temporary. And I don't think Volantis will be as open to dialogue. Dany is a source of hope for the slaves - the other slaver cities wouldn't tolerate her for that reason alone.

I'm sure Dany will do plenty of damage in Westeros...just like every other character who has engaged in war. Is the problem that she can decimate armies more efficiently because of her dragons? I'd argue that, that doesn't necessarily mean more lives are lost, since the war would end much faster.

Re: Ned - I don't think he marched into battle to avenge his father and brother, per se, but he had a duty to his uphold his family's honour.

I don't believe for a second that Jon Arryn joined the rebellion for some noble cause. He didn't lift a finger to help the innocent smallfolk that suffered under Aerys. No one did. It wasn't until Aerys executed nobles, and there was a potential threat to their power, that the lords acted. And I'm cool with that, just as I'm cool with Dany's motivations for re-claiming Westeros.

[teej6]

1 hour ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

The Meerenseblot essay is interesting, but my thoughts align more with Steven Attewell's analysis (x). The Sons of the Harpy may have quietened down, but with Volantis coming, whatever peace bought by the concessions that Dany made was only ever temporary. And I don't think Volantis will be as open to dialogue. Dany is a source of hope for the slaves - the other slaver cities wouldn't tolerate her for that reason alone.

I'm sure Dany will do plenty of damage in Westeros...just like every other character who has engaged in war. Is the problem that she can decimate armies more efficiently because of her dragons? I'd argue that, that doesn't necessarily mean more lives are lost, since the war would end much faster.

Re: Ned - I don't think he marched into battle to avenge his father and brother, per se, but he had a duty to his uphold his family's honour.

I don't believe for a second that Jon Arryn joined the rebellion for some noble cause. He didn't lift a finger to help the innocent smallfolk that suffered under Aerys. No one did. It wasn't until Aerys executed nobles, and there was a potential threat to their power, that the lords acted. And I'm cool with that, just as I'm cool with Dany's motivations for re-claiming Westeros.

Whether the Yunkai and their allies break the peace is not the point. They probably will, especially now since they think they have the numbers and the people who were advocating for peace such as the Yellow Whale is dead. The point I'm making is that Dany in her final thoughts in ADWD has turned away from peace.

And I do feel a lot of lives will be lost in Dany's attempt to conquer Westeros based on Teora's prophetic dream. The field of fire is a perfect example of the damage the dragons can bring about. Granted, Dany's dragons are not as big and the damage they inflict will not be on the scale of the damage Balerion, Vhagar, and Meraxes did, but this would only give her opponents more reason to fight on. If Dany were to bring the Dothraki and the Ironborn along with her dragons to fight her opponents, I don't see any other outcome but prolonged war and destruction. 

Ned, I believe fought in RR because he had no other choice. It was fight or die and his family's honor may have eventually been restored but that was not what started the war. And I don't remember if the books state that the smallfolk were unhappy under Aerys. We are told that Tywin was a great administrator and that Aerys couldn't find a better Hand after him but nothing to indicate that the smallfolk were suffering in the latter years of Aerys rule. We know that several of the nobles disliked Aerys and were unhappy with him, and the mad king began suspecting treachery and plotting everywhere. But we don't know what Jon Arryn's thoughts were before RR and him not starting a war for the smallfolk is hardly a reason to doubt the man's character or motives. What we do know is that he raised his banners to defend two innocent lives, which I think is a just cause for war. 

[khal drogon]

13 hours ago, Light a wight tonight said:

There's a difference between error and massive screw-up, which is Dany's style. She has luck, which is the only reason she's still alive. Poisoned wine, cockatrice attack, ambush by the Titan's Bastard, lost in the desert, lost in the Dothraki Sea, poisoned honeyed locusts, any one of those  and more could have killed her. 

Sansa in Slaver's Bay? Dany wouln't have survived infancy in Westeros.

 

Yeah. Have it your way.

[Hodor the Articulate]

8 hours ago, teej6 said:

Whether the Yunkai and their allies break the peace is not the point. They probably will, especially now since they think they have the numbers and the people who were advocating for peace such as the Yellow Whale is dead. The point I'm making is that Dany in her final thoughts in ADWD has turned away from peace.

And I do feel a lot of lives will be lost in Dany's attempt to conquer Westeros based on Teora's prophetic dream. The field of fire is a perfect example of the damage the dragons can bring about. Granted, Dany's dragons are not as big and the damage they inflict will not be on the scale of the damage Balerion, Vhagar, and Meraxes did, but this would only give her opponents more reason to fight on. If Dany were to bring the Dothraki and the Ironborn along with her dragons to fight her opponents, I don't see any other outcome but prolonged war and destruction. 

Ned, I believe fought in RR because he had no other choice. It was fight or die and his family's honor may have eventually been restored but that was not what started the war. And I don't remember if the books state that the smallfolk were unhappy under Aerys. We are told that Tywin was a great administrator and that Aerys couldn't find a better Hand after him but nothing to indicate that the smallfolk were suffering in the latter years of Aerys rule. We know that several of the nobles disliked Aerys and were unhappy with him, and the mad king began suspecting treachery and plotting everywhere. But we don't know what Jon Arryn's thoughts were before RR and him not starting a war for the smallfolk is hardly a reason to doubt the man's character or motives. What we do know is that he raised his banners to defend two innocent lives, which I think is a just cause for war. 

She doesn't reject peace in all situations, though. If you look at the context of "dragons plant no trees"/"blood and fire", it was about Meereen, and how Dany isn't one of the Great Masters.

I don't disagree a lot of lives will be lost at the hands of Dany's army, but I'm not convinced the use of dragons automatically means more lives will be lost than usual. Nor do I agree that they'll encourage more dissent or prolong the war. In fact, they did just the opposite for Aegon I: the Field of Fire convinced Torrhen Stark to kneel.

I didn't say that avenging those that Aerys killed was the only reason for Robert's Rebellion, but it is one of the reasons Ned goes into it. To put another away, if Aerys hadn't called for his head, he would still have had a duty to avenge his family. Anyway, this is getting from my original point, which was that Dany would be expected to avenge her family by Westerosi, and therefore her war would be considered just.

Spoiler

On 9/09/2016 at 10:42 PM, Hodor the Articulate said:

Well, of course those who oppose her won't see her war as just...that's why they oppose her. It should be noted, though, that most of Westeros shares Dany's mindset, that blood vengeance is justified. More than that, it's considered a duty (Dany explicitly states this as her main motivation for re-claiming Westeros). In fact, that's what Robert's Rebellion was about, at least in part.

[teej6]

5 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

She doesn't reject peace in all situations, though. If you look at the context of "dragons plant no trees"/"blood and fire", it was about Meereen, and how Dany isn't one of the Great Masters.

I don't disagree a lot of lives will be lost at the hands of Dany's army, but I'm not convinced the use of dragons automatically means more lives will be lost than usual. Nor do I agree that they'll encourage more dissent or prolong the war. In fact, they did just the opposite for Aegon I: the Field of Fire convinced Torrhen Stark to kneel.

I didn't say that avenging those that Aerys killed was the only reason for Robert's Rebellion, but it is one of the reasons Ned goes into it. To put another away, if Aerys hadn't called for his head, he would still have had a duty to avenge his family. Anyway, this is getting from my original point, which was that Dany would be expected to avenge her family by Westerosi, and therefore her war would be considered just.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I disagree.  The "dragons plant no trees" vision of Dany is supposed to hint at her future arc be it how she deals with the slavers or her opponents in Westeros. Dany's last chapter in ADWD is about her coming to the realization that she is going to fight her enemies with fire and blood and damn the consequences. Dany's Meereenese arc is about Dany accepting compromise and peace inspite of her dislike for it because the alternative she knows is violence and destruction. Up until her last chapter in ADWD, Dany reminds herself of Hazzea and the terrible price she has to pay in unleashing her dragons and fire and blood.  If you remember, in her last chapter in ADWD, Dany cannot recall Hazzea's name, after which Dany fully accepts the Targarayen words of fire and blood, which she interprets as ruthlessness and mercilessness towards her enemies. 

Dany's dragons are not fully grown and are not as large as Balerion, Vhagar, and Meraxes and therefore will not seem as fearsome in the eyes of her opponents. I wouldn't be surprised if people tried to kill Dany's dragons with spears and trebuchets. Hence, I feel the wars will be more protracted and bloody until of course the WWs show up. 

I don't think Ned would have gone to war to avenge his family. Ned does not seem to feel that revenge is a just enough cause for war. We can see that in AGOT, when he's hearing the men of Riverrun. When Marq Piper asks Ned's permission to seek revenge on Gregor and his men, Ned responds: "Vengeance? I thought we were speaking of justice." Again, Ned refuses to send Loras to fight Gregor and his men stating "... we are about justice here, and what you seek is vengeance." Here we are given an insight into how Ned views vengeance. To Robert the rebellion was to seek vengeance, but we have no indication that Ned saw RR the same.  

[SeanF]

On ‎9‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 5:27 AM, teej6 said:

But Hizdhar and the Yellow Whale are influential decision makers within their societies and can sway people to their views. It doesn't matter what their motives are for advocating peace, as long as they can maintain that peace. As the Green Grace tells Selmy "Peace is the the pearl beyond price." Anyway the point I was making is that Dany has given up on peace thinking that it goes against her natural instincts and inclination as a Targaryen. She tried making peace with her enemies but in the end came to the realization that it was too bitter a pill for her to swallow. 

"Peace is the pearl beyond price" but it requires everyone to act in good faith, if it's to hold. (That said, few people were acting in good faith).

 

On ‎9‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 2:57 AM, Hodor the Articulate said:

The Meerenseblot essay is interesting, but my thoughts align more with Steven Attewell's analysis (x). The Sons of the Harpy may have quietened down, but with Volantis coming, whatever peace bought by the concessions that Dany made was only ever temporary. And I don't think Volantis will be as open to dialogue. Dany is a source of hope for the slaves - the other slaver cities wouldn't tolerate her for that reason alone.

I'm sure Dany will do plenty of damage in Westeros...just like every other character who has engaged in war. Is the problem that she can decimate armies more efficiently because of her dragons? I'd argue that, that doesn't necessarily mean more lives are lost, since the war would end much faster.

Re: Ned - I don't think he marched into battle to avenge his father and brother, per se, but he had a duty to his uphold his family's honour.

I don't believe for a second that Jon Arryn joined the rebellion for some noble cause. He didn't lift a finger to help the innocent smallfolk that suffered under Aerys. No one did. It wasn't until Aerys executed nobles, and there was a potential threat to their power, that the lords acted. And I'm cool with that, just as I'm cool with Dany's motivations for re-claiming Westeros.

Steven Attewell's analysis is interesting, but the conclusion seems to be that she should have behaved as tyrannically towards the free Ghiscari population (most of whom are middle and working class, rather than super-rich Masters)  as the Masters behaved towards the slaves.  Cleon was a slave trader, and allying with him would have meant that slavery continued in the region - albeit, with a  different set of victims.  Skahaz is a sadist, and giving him free rein to indulge his passion for torture would be ghastly.

[Hodor the Articulate]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

Steven Attewell's analysis is interesting, but the conclusion seems to be that she should have behaved as tyrannically towards the free Ghiscari population (most of whom are middle and working class, rather than super-rich Masters)  as the Masters behaved towards the slaves.  Cleon was a slave trader, and allying with him would have meant that slavery continued in the region - albeit, with a  different set of victims.  Skahaz is a sadist, and giving him free rein to indulge his passion for torture would be ghastly.

Yeah, I don't agree with everything in Attwell's essay. I was mostly referring to his belief that there was no real peace. Or a permanent peace, anyway.

18 hours ago, teej6 said:

I disagree.  The "dragons plant no trees" vision of Dany is supposed to hint at her future arc be it how she deals with the slavers or her opponents in Westeros. Dany's last chapter in ADWD is about her coming to the realization that she is going to fight her enemies with fire and blood and damn the consequences. Dany's Meereenese arc is about Dany accepting compromise and peace inspite of her dislike for it because the alternative she knows is violence and destruction. Up until her last chapter in ADWD, Dany reminds herself of Hazzea and the terrible price she has to pay in unleashing her dragons and fire and blood.  If you remember, in her last chapter in ADWD, Dany cannot recall Hazzea's name, after which Dany fully accepts the Targarayen words of fire and blood, which she interprets as ruthlessness and mercilessness towards her enemies.

The conversation in which "dragons plant no trees" appears in isn't about Westeros at all (except in the sense that, that is where she belongs). I think it's fair to interpret it as Dany not kowtowing to the Great Masters anymore, but I don't see anything that suggests she'll henceforth adopt a "damn the consequences" attittude and toss aside diplomacy. That's my main disagreement - not that Dany will be ruthless towards her enemies, but that she'll be all "fire an blood" whatever the situation.

I disagree that Meereen was about comprise+peace vs. violence+destruction, considering the compromises involved allowing violence and destruction. They weren't playing tiddlywinks in those fighting pits.

18 hours ago, teej6 said:

Dany's dragons are not fully grown and are not as large as Balerion, Vhagar, and Meraxes and therefore will not seem as fearsome in the eyes of her opponents. I wouldn't be surprised if people tried to kill Dany's dragons with spears and trebuchets. Hence, I feel the wars will be more protracted and bloody until of course the WWs show up.

Still not seeing how it would prolong wars. Either the dragons are a real threat and people surrender, or they aren't, and it will just be like any other war, except with extra flaming arrows.

Why are dragons, Dothraki, and Ironborn (if they even will be allying with Dany) inspiring extreme stubbornness in her opponents, anyway?

18 hours ago, teej6 said:

I don't think Ned would have gone to war to avenge his family. Ned does not seem to feel that revenge is a just enough cause for war. We can see that in AGOT, when he's hearing the men of Riverrun. When Marq Piper asks Ned's permission to seek revenge on Gregor and his men, Ned responds: "Vengeance? I thought we were speaking of justice." Again, Ned refuses to send Loras to fight Gregor and his men stating "... we are about justice here, and what you seek is vengeance." Here we are given an insight into how Ned views vengeance. To Robert the rebellion was to seek vengeance, but we have no indication that Ned saw RR the same.  

As I've already sad, it's not about Ned having an emotional urge to seek vengeance, but that was his duty to do so. The point was that Westerosi culture expects you to avenge your wronged family members, and that justice and vengeance are one in the same.

[teej6]

17 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

The conversation in which "dragons plant no trees" appears in isn't about Westeros at all (except in the sense that, that is where she belongs). I think it's fair to interpret it as Dany not kowtowing to the Great Masters anymore, but I don't see anything that suggests she'll henceforth adopt a "damn the consequences" attittude and toss aside diplomacy. That's my main disagreement - not that Dany will be ruthless towards her enemies, but that she'll be all "fire an blood" whatever the situation.

I disagree that Meereen was about comprise+peace vs. violence+destruction, considering the compromises involved allowing violence and destruction. They weren't playing tiddlywinks in those fighting pits.

Still not seeing how it would prolong wars. Either the dragons are a real threat and people surrender, or they aren't, and it will just be like any other war, except with extra flaming arrows.

Why are dragons, Dothraki, and Ironborn (if they even will be allying with Dany) inspiring extreme stubbornness in her opponents, anyway?

As I've already sad, it's not about Ned having an emotional urge to seek vengeance, but that was his duty to do so. The point was that Westerosi culture expects you to avenge your wronged family members, and that justice and vengeance are one in the same.

The "dragons plant no trees" comes from a dream/hallucination Dany has of Jorah. In her dream, Jorah tells her that he gave her good counsel when he asked her to leave Meereen and head to Westeros. Dany responds stating that she had to take Meereen to feed her people. Jorah then states that Dany had no need to linger in Meereen to which she responds that she wanted to rest, to laugh, to plant trees and see them grow. This is when Dany hears (Jorah's voice or her thoughts) "you are the blood of dragon... dragons plant no trees... remember what you are. Remember your words." How is this in the context of Meereen alone? That's a very narrow interpretation of the text. The way I see it is that this entire chapter is Dany coming to the realization that she is the blood of the dragon and that means taking what's rightfully hers through fire and blood. Dany has tried peace and compromise and it hasn't worked, so now she's decided to resort to war and conquest. By doing this, Dany understands there will be many Hazzea's but that is the price she has to pay and hence the dragons plant no trees.  Anyway, I don't think we are going to convince each other and let's just agree to disagree. 

Dany's dragons are not fully grown and even if they may be seen as a threat by her opponents, they won't instill the kind of fear Balerion, Vhagar, and Meraxes brought about. We are not going to see any Torrhen Stark like surrender is what I'm saying. 

Again, I don't know where you are getting this "Westerosi culture expects you to avenge your wronged family members" from. There's no standard requirement/practice as such mentioned in the books. I agree we've seen nobles in Westeros desiring vengeance but it's not some rule in Westeros to equate duty with vengeance. And certainly Ned in his thoughts and actions does not seem to think so. He sees vengeance and justice as two very separate things and that is why I quoted his words above. He clearly does not identify justice with seeking vengeance and that is why he refused to send Loras to bring Gregor and his men to justice. 

 

[Light a wight tonight]

On 9/12/2016 at 5:53 AM, spauldo17 said:

I'm not sure how this is even a comparison.  Dany may cause some problems but she does so while taking proactive action to right wrongs and become a good ruler. 

 

Delicious understatement. Dany causes all of Slavers' Bay and  various other city-states to raise armies to attack Meereen. Yes, "some problems".

[Kaibaman]

On 14/09/2016 at 3:01 AM, Light a wight tonight said:

Delicious understatement. Dany causes all of Slavers' Bay and  various other city-states to raise armies to attack Meereen. Yes, "some problems".

Ok so she has played a hand and failed. At least she has done something. Unlike Sansa who has pretty much sat on her ass the entire time. But still I guess Sansa would make a better queen because, well....................... I've got nothing, why don't you fill in the blanks for me.

[Light a wight tonight]

3 hours ago, Kaibaman said:

Ok so she has played a hand and failed. At least she has done something. Unlike Sansa who has pretty much sat on her ass the entire time. But still I guess Sansa would make a better queen because, well....................... I've got nothing, why don't you fill in the blanks for me.

 

Got one or you: Sansa actually knows something about Westeros. Quite a lot, actually. The actual kingdoms, the Great Houses and the lesser ones, who's who (remember how she aced the introductions in King's Landing?). Dany's knowledge is pretty much limited to "Usurper's Dogs" and wanting to emulate Aegon the Conqueror with Fire and Blood.  

I'm not saying that Sansa should be Queen, but that she'd be a capable one if it came to that. Dany, on the other hand, could easily become the Mad King's daughter.

[Kaibaman]

12 minutes ago, Light a wight tonight said:

 

Got one or you: Sansa actually knows something about Westeros. Quite a lot, actually. The actual kingdoms, the Great Houses and the lesser ones, who's who (remember how she aced the introductions in King's Landing?). Dany's knowledge is pretty much limited to "Usurper's Dogs" and wanting to emulate Aegon the Conqueror with Fire and Blood.  

I'm not saying that Sansa should be Queen, but that she'd be a capable one if it came to that. Dany, on the other hand, could easily become the Mad King's daughter.

Knowledge is important I grant you but then so too is merit and ability. If you're arguing that only people with a scholarly understanding of a place should be the ones governing it, then perhaps we should let the Maesters rule the world rather than having kings and queens and lords and knights etc. While its true that Dany doesn't have such an in-depth knowledge of the kingdom her family built, that does not mean she can't learn or adjust to Westerosi culture. She has already proven just how well she is at adapting to new cultures, learning their customs and even language very quickly like she did with the Dothraki. Besides now that Marwyn is coming, he will be her own personal maester which means she is going to get a comprehensive education of the kingdom she intends to rule.

Also like I've said before, Sansa has demonstrated absolutely no leadership skills or skills in administration. The whole the in King's Landing she only learns how to lie and play the game at court but that's about it. Even Arya has more experience as a leader from her time as a fugitive with Gendry and company.

[Lurid Jester]

Sansa?  Nope. Wouldn't want to live anywhere near her rule.  She's...  Yeah, just no.

Daenerys?  Nope. Wouldn't want to live anywhere near her rule.  Dragons are cool and all but damned if I'd want one or three flying overhead.  

[Equilibrium]

I am no fan of Sansa and we haven't seen her in any real rulership role, but given Daenerys' track record I think Stark girl would win this one.

[Lion of the West]

I think it would depend on when they rule. I think that Daenerys would be a stonger leader to get throught a time of strife, but in a time of peace I think that Sansa would be more skilled than Daenerys to play the game and maintain said peace.

[Light a wight tonight]

15 hours ago, Kaibaman said:

 

Also like I've said before, Sansa has demonstrated absolutely no leadership skills or skills in administration. The whole the in King's Landing she only learns how to lie and play the game at court but that's about it. Even Arya has more experience as a leader from her time as a fugitive with Gendry and company.

What she's learned is that there are a bunch of evil people in positions of power who will use and abuse you to further their own agendas. From the purge of the Starks in KL until she was abducted by Littlefinger she'd been an abused captive. She doesn't have a Jorah, Barristan, Strong Belwas, or Illyrio keeping her alive. You might review her actions during Barristan's attack on KL. Cersei wanted to have Ilyn Payne kill her (Cersei) and all her court ladies so that they couldn't be captured, but Sansa defused that situation. That's a form of leadership ability.

You could also say that all Dany has learned is to kill some people, then kill some people, then kill some more people. Fire and blood, and screw good governance.