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

[Oracle.Clear.Rivers]

4 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Everyone stop using the TV series even in spoilers. This is the forum about the books not the series.

Sorry. We'll be moving it to the TV series section if the discussion about it continues. 

[Ser Snowflake]

1 hour ago, Marcus corvinus said:

# first about slavery and the usa, i'm not an american, i'm a south asian.

But i still strongly disagree with your statement. If something can be done and can bear profit, it will be done. Slavery lost its value 18th and 19th centuries with the advent of Adam smith's new economic theories, the decline of feudalism and nobility, nationalism and most importantly the industrial revolution.

All this factors made slavery useless and burdensome. Why go into all the burden of having slaves when those slaves add far less to your economy than normal workers? A slave has no purchasing power at all, so he or she no matter how much labor they put in can't consume the products they're making. Thus demand is low, production is low, profit is low and further industrial growth is low. 

And early economists, statesmen and industrialists took note of this. see henry ford for example.

Furthermore nationalism made it unfashionable to bring in other ethnic groups into your country and as education levels rose and a conscious, educated and nationalistic middle and lower class evolved from the old peasantry; the idea of business moguls bringing in slaves to artificially lower wages became more and more unfeasible. 

The bottom line is that slavery didn't die out due to the greatness of a few individuals like lincoln, it was an inevitability of time. The change of technology and society drove the institution to extinction. If Lincoln hadn't abolished slavery in 1860, it would've died out eventually anyway by the dawn of the 20th century due to the aforementioned reasons.

Its the same with feminism. The feminist movement didn't bring the government to its heels and ''freed'' women as the media likes to paint it. But rather the establishment of woman's rights, participation in the workforce and sexual liberty was an inevitable consequence of time and necessity.

The industrial revolution led to a shortage of workers, in order to fill that gap women had to be recruited. And with the advent of time the need for well educated workers rose rapidly as work became more and more cognitively demanding. Thus more women began entering higher education to serve the nation's economic needs. 

Due to technological advances women gained access to birth control and eventually due to all these factors became economically independent. Free sex and choosing their spouses inevitably followed.

This same pattern followed in countries that didn't have large militant feminist movements. Look at urban india, south korea, japan or turkey...

Every great change or revolution that happens in one age is the inevitable result of technological and its accompanied social change in the previous age.

The printing press ended the dark age and the oppression of the church. The advent of gunpowder ended feudalism and the tyrannical yoke of the nobility not great movement leaders.

I have to disagree regarding slavery in the US...our founding fathers compromised at the very beginning, and agreed to put the issue of slavery on the back burner in order to get the southern colonists onboard with the revolution. Some of the northern rebels were reluctant to do so for they too saw the rank hypocrisy of fighting a war of independence against British Crown while profiting from the spoils of chattel slavery. 

 

The north and south compromised again when the west became open for settlement. The south wanted to expand slavery to the west, while the north wanted no part of that. Both sides came to an agreement with the Missouri Compromise. It was because of all the land the US gained from Mexican War that the Civil War was even fought. Toward the end of slavery in US, it's practioners were trying to expand it.  Individual freedoms are rarely given to oppressed people, no matter what the circumstances.  People have to fight for it. Sometimes these fights are somewhat peaceful (like Ghandi vs British Empire), but most of the time you have to fight for it. The US had to fight for its independence from King George. The free world had to fight the Nazis to stop their final solution.

 

The south fought tooth and nail to preserve their status, which was propped up by slavery. And even with abolition, it took years for them to stop treating blacks like second hand citizens. Show Dany said it best...."I'm not going to re-make the wheel....I'm going to break the wheel." Like the slaves in Slavers Bay....the slaves in the US would have worked and died all the way into the 20th century before their deliverance if the Civil War was not fought.  Slaves don't have the luxury of waiting on the inevitability of time for their deliverance.....not when and their children are living and dying without a single taste of freedom.

 

it takes moral and physical courage in the face of tyranny to defeat oppression, not the slow inevitability of time. The Feminist movement resulted in universal suffrage. WW2 stopped the Holocaust, The Civil War ended slavery, The Russian Civil War killed feudalism in Russia (although the replacement was much worse IMO)

 

its going to take battle and war to liberate Syria and Iraq from ISIS. It always does in the end. We all know that the caliphate is trying to impose a medieval system of justice and governance in a modern world. We all know that it's tactics are killing more of its civilians that the US, Russia, and Assad combined. In theory the people living under ISIS rule should just rise up and kill their masters. That may as well happen eventually, but in the end whether it's an internal revolt, or US military action; it's going to take blood and fire to liberate the Middle East of the cancer called ISIS. It always does. It's hard to wait when people are getting brutalized everyday  

 

 Dany is the only one who sees that IMO. Despite the fact that the slaves in Slavers Bay are technically nothing to her, she fights for them unable to see them suffer for one more day. She empathizes with them and understands that the slavers will never give up their status willingly. That's why she killed the masters and freed the slaves. 

[Commander Jon Snow]

5 minutes ago, The Pimp that was Promised said:

I have to disagree regarding slavery in the US...our founding fathers compromised at the very beginning, and agreed to put the issue of slavery on the back burner in order to get the southern colonists onboard with the revolution. Some of the northern rebels were reluctant to do so for they too saw the rank hypocrisy of fighting a war of independence against British Crown while profiting from the spoils of chattel slavery. 

 

The north and south compromised again when the west became open for settlement. The south wanted to expand slavery to the west, while the north wanted no part of that. Both sides came to an agreement with the Missouri Compromise. It was because of all the land the US gained from Mexican War that the Civil War was even fought. Toward the end of slavery in US, it's practioners were trying to expand it.  Individual freedoms are rarely given to oppressed people, no matter what the circumstances.  People have to fight for it. Sometimes these fights are somewhat peaceful (like Ghandi vs British Empire), but most of the time you have to fight for it. The US had to fight for its independence from King George. The free world had to fight the Nazis to stop their final solution.

 

The south fought tooth and nail to preserve their status, which was propped up by slavery. And even with abolition, it took years for them to stop treating blacks like second hand citizens. Show Dany said it best...."I'm not going to re-make the wheel....I'm going to break the wheel." Like the slaves in Slavers Bay....the slaves in the US would have worked and died all the way into the 20th century before their deliverance if the Civil War was not fought.  Slaves don't have the luxury of waiting on the inevitability of time for their deliverance.....not when and their children are living and dying without a single taste of freedom.

 

it takes moral and physical courage in the face of tyranny to defeat oppression, not the slow inevitability of time. The Feminist movement resulted in universal suffrage. WW2 stopped the Holocaust, The Civil War ended slavery, The Russian Civil War killed feudalism in Russia (although the replacement was much worse IMO)

 

its going to take battle and war to liberate Syria and Iraq from ISIS. It always does in the end. We all know that the caliphate is trying to impose a medieval system of justice and governance in a modern world. We all know that it's tactics are killing more of its civilians that the US, Russia, and Assad combined. In theory the people living under ISIS rule should just rise up and kill their masters. That may as well happen eventually, but in the end whether it's an internal revolt, or US military action; it's going to take blood and fire to liberate the Middle East of the cancer called ISIS. It always does. It's hard to wait when people are getting brutalized everyday  

 

 Dany is the only one who sees that IMO. Despite the fact that the slaves in Slavers Bay are technically nothing to her, she fights for them unable to see them suffer for one more day. She empathizes with them and understands that the slavers will never give up their status willingly. That's why she killed the masters and freed the slaves. 

You articulated it so much better than I ever could. Very well written

This is why I never bought the idea that Dany would be a Mad Queen. It goes against everything we've seen in her own internal thoughts and character development

[Winter's Cold]

11 minutes ago, Commander Jon Snow said:

You articulated it so much better than I ever could. Very well written

This is why I never bought the idea that Dany would be a Mad Queen. It goes against everything we've seen in her own internal thoughts and character development

I don't like or dislike Dany but I always wonder where this Mad Queen theory is coming from. Is it mainly because of the madness of her father and brother or is there something that she has done during the course of the books that hints at it? 

[Tucu]

15 minutes ago, Commander Jon Snow said:

You articulated it so much better than I ever could. Very well written

This is why I never bought the idea that Dany would be a Mad Queen. It goes against everything we've seen in her own internal thoughts and character development

 

Just now, Winter's Cold said:

I don't like or dislike Dany but I always wonder where this Mad Queen theory is coming from. Is it mainly because of the madness of her father and brother or is there something that she has done during the course of the books that hints at it? 

A ruler should be judged by a balance of their successes and failures. So far Dany is a great conqueror, but a terrible ruler.

 

[Marcus corvinus]

4 hours ago, Lady Ren said:

Nice.

Slavery is unnatural and beneficial to no one, that's why it died.

Not to mention that a few great minds may have freed some, but they didn't change the world. Ghandi's protest helped my ancestors, but it was a reflection of the collective crisis. Colonists were fighting a losing battles with indentured slavery all over. The masses followed because they wanted to survive and retain some benefits. Today, the sugar cane fields still bring in money for certain companies, but the workers sometimes own the land (so they get a piece of it),  and they're free (and mentally fit to work as a result) which makes for better business. Plus the country is still Commonwealth, so free trade. 

S6 

  Reveal hidden contents

Tyrion's attempt to let the Harpy's phase out slavery was smart and bold. Killing all slavers, like Dany wanted to do from the beginning, would have amounted to a form of genocide or cleansing. Unfortunately the men Tyrion negotiated with were unable to add 2 and 2. 

The fact that Dany's the Breaker of Chains is supposed to be her biggest pro - a just and benevolent ruler. But then on the other hand, we have a former slaver as her confidant. Like Tyrion she prides herself on her good deeds and kindness, and strives to stand apart from the rest of her family. But she's very lacking in awareness.  That sense of entitlement is so dangerous, and her speech was pure conquerer.  But with people pledging their lives to her and treating her like a goddess when she was just 13/14, well I guess this is what happens. 

 

Listen i mean no offense by what i'm about to say but bear with me:

I'm no fan of Gandhi all right. Yes, nelson madela was inspired by him, Barack obama was inspired by him and he's the archetypical liberal, good guy etc etc. but his ideology was ridiculous. Its of the same vibe as communism; its somewhat of a reaction to an age, an extreme ideology formed from emotion not ration. 

When france fell in 1940, the british viceroy in India spoke to Gandhi, Gandhi advised him to take the route of peace and surrender to hitler to prevent further bloodshed and end the war. Can you imagine the consequences? While the media deify pacifism and all that, imagine if the british actually followed Gandhi's advice? Great britain's entire population would've been harvested by the nazis.

Ideologies like this and communism run counter to the ultimate truth of nature: evolution. Its man's nature to compete against each other supremacy. Evolution made him and all other life forms that way. As long as there isn't a greater threat men never unite under one banner.

[Little Scribe of Naath]

Marcus,

Gandhi's ideology worked for India in the state it was at the time. However, I will admit that some external factors, such as the decline of the British Empire around the world and the aftermath of WW2 played a role in India's independence.

I am in agreement with you though that social reform is a long drawn out process, and is heavily influenced by economical and practical factors. Simply blood and fire wont work, as Dany found out in Astapor.

[Marcus corvinus]

3 hours ago, The Pimp that was Promised said:

I have to disagree regarding slavery in the US...our founding fathers compromised at the very beginning, and agreed to put the issue of slavery on the back burner in order to get the southern colonists onboard with the revolution. Some of the northern rebels were reluctant to do so for they too saw the rank hypocrisy of fighting a war of independence against British Crown while profiting from the spoils of chattel slavery. 

 

The north and south compromised again when the west became open for settlement. The south wanted to expand slavery to the west, while the north wanted no part of that. Both sides came to an agreement with the Missouri Compromise. It was because of all the land the US gained from Mexican War that the Civil War was even fought. Toward the end of slavery in US, it's practioners were trying to expand it.  Individual freedoms are rarely given to oppressed people, no matter what the circumstances.  People have to fight for it. Sometimes these fights are somewhat peaceful (like Ghandi vs British Empire), but most of the time you have to fight for it. The US had to fight for its independence from King George. The free world had to fight the Nazis to stop their final solution.

 

The south fought tooth and nail to preserve their status, which was propped up by slavery. And even with abolition, it took years for them to stop treating blacks like second hand citizens. Show Dany said it best...."I'm not going to re-make the wheel....I'm going to break the wheel." Like the slaves in Slavers Bay....the slaves in the US would have worked and died all the way into the 20th century before their deliverance if the Civil War was not fought.  Slaves don't have the luxury of waiting on the inevitability of time for their deliverance.....not when and their children are living and dying without a single taste of freedom.

 

it takes moral and physical courage in the face of tyranny to defeat oppression, not the slow inevitability of time. The Feminist movement resulted in universal suffrage. WW2 stopped the Holocaust, The Civil War ended slavery, The Russian Civil War killed feudalism in Russia (although the replacement was much worse IMO)

 

its going to take battle and war to liberate Syria and Iraq from ISIS. It always does in the end. We all know that the caliphate is trying to impose a medieval system of justice and governance in a modern world. We all know that it's tactics are killing more of its civilians that the US, Russia, and Assad combined. In theory the people living under ISIS rule should just rise up and kill their masters. That may as well happen eventually, but in the end whether it's an internal revolt, or US military action; it's going to take blood and fire to liberate the Middle East of the cancer called ISIS. It always does. It's hard to wait when people are getting brutalized everyday  

 

 Dany is the only one who sees that IMO. Despite the fact that the slaves in Slavers Bay are technically nothing to her, she fights for them unable to see them suffer for one more day. She empathizes with them and understands that the slavers will never give up their status willingly. That's why she killed the masters and freed the slaves. 

All those movements described succeeded in a permanent way because the circumstances allowed it. Look at the revolt of spartacus against rome. Even if it had succeeded and the rebels escaped across the alps it would be no different. Rome would've gone back to slaving instantly.

There were many peasant rebellions against the nobles in the dark age. Some succeeded in defeating their lord. The consequence: nothing. They were later suppressed and serfdom returned with its bear hug. They couldn't achieve lasting change because the circumstances didn't allow it.

500 knights could easily slaughter 20,000 peasants head on and terrorize the rest into submission. It wasn't until the advent of gunpowder that a true change started. Nobles no longer had the monopoly on warfare, knights in heavy armor were useless. Nations had to recruit commoners in tens or even hundreds of thousands to fill the ranks of the army.

It was this development that allowed the french revolution. If knightly warfare was the norm in 1789 do you think there would've been a revolution? The nobles and their retainers simply would've cut anyone down. But as there was a standing army of commoners there were sympathizers in the ranks and the army split into two in support for the royalist and republican cause.

 

Its about the situation and the circumstances of the time. Slavery will return to slaver's bay after dany dies or leaves. Even if she had children and established a dynasty it would've returned. Because the economy and society allowed it. There was no nationalism or industrial economy to oppose it.

The region is urbanized and barren with practically no resources. The city merchants can always profit from free labor. So they'll just re-introduce it under different names. 

It actually even happens in the TV show and books where many maters just hire their former slaves in exchange for food.

That is Dany's folly. She's naive and idealistic as most are in her age. She thinks she can change everything magically in one day but you can't achieve everything through brute force.

Look at the targareyn rule in westeros itself. Even when the targareyns where at the peak of their power with aegon, his sisters and their dragons and the pre-dance of dragon kings, they were unable to change barely any westerosi custom be it over-bearing lords, oppressive serfdom or superficial, greedy noble culture. Instead they adopted it

[Britisher]

33 minutes ago, Winter's Cold said:

I don't like or dislike Dany but I always wonder where this Mad Queen theory is coming from. Is it mainly because of the madness of her father and brother or is there something that she has done during the course of the books that hints at it? 

When angered Daenerys can be unpredictable, inconsistent and unmerciful: one example being when she decides to crucify 163 masters (at random) in response to the crucifixion of 163 slaves along the road to Meereen by the masters... She also gives the order for Shavepate to torture two wineseller's daughters in front of a wineseller who sold poisoned wine to her unsullied so that she might gain information about the Sons of the Harpy... And she issues a blood tax against the great families of Meereen based on the actions of the Sons of the Harpy.

When Daenerys is angry she makes terrible decisions which harm innocents.

[Lady Ren]

45 minutes ago, Marcus corvinus said:

Listen i mean no offense by what i'm about to say but bear with me:

I'm no fan of Gandhi all right. Yes, nelson madela was inspired by him, Barack obama was inspired by him and he's the archetypical liberal, good guy etc etc. but his ideology was ridiculous. Its of the same vibe as communism; its somewhat of a reaction to an age, an extreme ideology formed from emotion not ration. 

When france fell in 1940, the british viceroy in India spoke to Gandhi, Gandhi advised him to take the route of peace and surrender to hitler to prevent further bloodshed and end the war. Can you imagine the consequences? While the media deify pacifism and all that, imagine if the british actually followed Gandhi's advice? Great britain's entire population would've been harvested by the nazis.

Ideologies like this and communism run counter to the ultimate truth of nature: evolution. Its man's nature to compete against each other supremacy. Evolution made him and all other life forms that way. As long as there isn't a greater threat men never unite under one banner.

Interesting. But that's what I said no? That the protest was reflective of what was already going on and really didn't help displaced people at all? That part about commonwealth and less mental illnesses was supposed to be a little sarcastic. 

I'm not disagreeing here, for the most part. It was a token and empty victory. It brought no true rewards to the people being freed, and most of them had started to rebel anyway. But it happened because there was a collective need for the worlds support. If Ghandi took the route of a pacifist it was because violence does not garner the world's sympathy and outrage. It doesn't lend a cause legitimacy. It never will. The loser will lie in wait and then attack when they're strong enough again. For example, abolishment of slavery and civil war, current climate of US. 

@bold: I disagree. I think it's a lack of consciousness and connectivity that leads humans to compete against each other. People aren't wired for competition because of human nature and evolution, they're just comfortable and hate being forced to think for themselves. And the world will continue to live in wilful ignorance until people realize conflict isn't the answer, collaboration is. This idea that life is competition, that everything exists in modicum and we all must fight for it is ridiculous. Human nature is whatever we let it be. 

Edit: No offence meant from me either btw. This topic really gets me going lol

[Lady Ren]

40 minutes ago, Marcus corvinus said:

Its about the situation and the circumstances of the time. Slavery will return to slaver's bay after dany dies or leaves. Even if she had children and established a dynasty it would've returned. Because the economy and society allowed it. There was no nationalism or industrial economy to oppose it.

The region is urbanized and barren with practically no resources. The city merchants can always profit from free labor. So they'll just re-introduce it under different names. 

It actually even happens in the TV show and books where many maters just hire their former slaves in exchange for food.

That is Dany's folly. She's naive and idealistic as most are in her age. She thinks she can change everything magically in one day but you can't achieve everything through brute force.

Look at the targareyn rule in westeros itself. Even when the targareyns where at the peak of their power with aegon, his sisters and their dragons and the pre-dance of dragon kings, they were unable to change barely any westerosi custom be it over-bearing lords, oppressive serfdom or superficial, greedy noble culture. Instead they adopted it

I agree with it all. The bold particularly. 

Dany is very idealistic and her greatest setback are the people who incite her on. Would Stannis have made different choices had it not been for people like Davos or the Red Witch? 

She definitely has the power to take Westeros, but she's not very understanding of things. I'm really curious about where she's headed. 

[Darth Sidious]

Dany is my clear choice.  She brought freedom to 8000+ Unsullied and she is fighting to keep the free people of Meereen free.  She has the leadership skills. 

[Tucu]

2 minutes ago, Lord High Papal said:

Dany is my clear choice.  She brought freedom to 8000+ Unsullied and she is fighting to keep the free people of Meereen free.  She has the leadership skills. 

She abandoned the now dead city of Astapor and left Meereen during a siege. Not exactly Alexander the Great.

[Marcus corvinus]

5 hours ago, Lady Ren said:

Interesting. But that's what I said no? That the protest was reflective of what was already going on and really didn't help displaced people at all? That part about commonwealth and less mental illnesses was supposed to be a little sarcastic. 

I'm not disagreeing here, for the most part. It was a token and empty victory. It brought no true rewards to the people being freed, and most of them had started to rebel anyway. But it happened because there was a collective need for the worlds support. If Ghandi took the route of a pacifist it was because violence does not garner the world's sympathy and outrage. It doesn't lend a cause legitimacy. It never will. The loser will lie in wait and then attack when they're strong enough again. For example, abolishment of slavery and civil war, current climate of US. 

@bold: I disagree. I think it's a lack of consciousness and connectivity that leads humans to compete against each other. People aren't wired for competition because of human nature and evolution, they're just comfortable and hate being forced to think for themselves. And the world will continue to live in wilful ignorance until people realize conflict isn't the answer, collaboration is. This idea that life is competition, that everything exists in modicum and we all must fight for it is ridiculous. Human nature is whatever we let it be. 

Edit: No offence meant from me either btw. This topic really gets me going lol

Apparently human nature is not whatever we let it be. A great deal of our daily life preferences, even trivial things like coffee or tea is determined by genetics. And competition and survival are the very core tenets of evolution. The tall man beats out the short, the pretty blonde woman beat out her uglier sister and ....you get the point.

And as far co-operation goes, the greatest example is europe. France and england were mortal enemies for nearly 500 years, from the hundred years war to the battle of waterloo. Prussia, austria and the german states who where lesser powers where more often than not britain's ally in this struggle. Yet when germany unified in 1871, the balance of power shifted. Germany was the biggest boy in class now and the eternal enemies france and england now joined forces to meet this even greater threat.

Then fast forward to the world wars and the korean war; europe lay in ruins. The soviet behemoth seems to be on the verge of conquering all. So what do they do? france, britain, germany and italy... countries who had been at total war just 5-8 years ago banded together to form the nato with USA. 

These germany and france/england who had been mortal enemies for 70 years now became allies, when faced with a greater threat.

So you see, its this fear of a great threat that stimulates reconciliation and co-operation. As long as the push doesn't come, man will always compete with his neighbor. Even little children completely oblivious about the world compete for mommy's attention, even innocent 6-8 year olds argue over whose daddy is better. Its human nature and mankind will never unify as one unless there's a greater danger ahead(aliens, machine rebellion...)

[Marcus corvinus]

3 hours ago, Lord High Papal said:

Dany is my clear choice.  She brought freedom to 8000+ Unsullied and she is fighting to keep the free people of Meereen free.  She has the leadership skills. 

Robert Baratheon saved 10-30 million people from the mad king's decaying reign and won two wars. He was unparalleled as far as charisma and fighting skills went and was a great leader of men. Even his defeated enemies often converted to his side.

But when he sat the throne, was that enough?

[Marcus corvinus]

6 hours ago, Britisher said:

When angered Daenerys can be unpredictable, inconsistent and unmerciful: one example being when she decides to crucify 163 masters (at random) in response to the crucifixion of 163 slaves along the road to Meereen by the masters... She also gives the order for Shavepate to torture two wineseller's daughters in front of a wineseller who sold poisoned wine to her unsullied so that she might gain information about the Sons of the Harpy... And she issues a blood tax against the great families of Meereen based on the actions of the Sons of the Harpy.

When Daenerys is angry she makes terrible decisions which harm innocents.

This is true, she definitely feels betrayal at these events and this stems from her entitlement complex that everyone owes her their loyalty. She forgets that this their land and she is a foreign invader. And the Crucifixion of the masters while badass is a terrible decision both from a tactical and moral point of view.

This action immediately alienates all native born mereneese to her rule, burning all bridges for any sort of reconciliation. This action also paints her as a brutal foreign conqueror of the same ilk as the ancient valyrian freeholders. After this action dany has no choice but to assume the role of military dictator.

And its a bad action from a moral standpoint as well. A conversion from Batman Begins sums it up perfectly:

Rhas al gul: Your compassion is a weakness your enemies will not share

Bruce wayne: That's why its so important, it separates us from them

[Little Scribe of Naath]

44 minutes ago, Marcus corvinus said:

This is true, she definitely feels betrayal at these events and this stems from her entitlement complex that everyone owes her their loyalty. She forgets that this their land and she is a foreign invader. And the Crucifixion of the masters while badass is a terrible decision both from a tactical and moral point of view.

This action immediately alienates all native born mereneese to her rule, burning all bridges for any sort of reconciliation. This action also paints her as a brutal foreign conqueror of the same ilk as the ancient valyrian freeholders. After this action dany has no choice but to assume the role of military dictator.

And its a bad action from a moral standpoint as well. A conversion from Batman Begins sums it up perfectly:

Rhas al gul: Your compassion is a weakness your enemies will not share

Bruce wayne: That's why its so important, it separates us from them

Well said. I'd also like to add - that action is indicative of one of her worst qualities - the fact that she passes judgement based on her own emotions at the time. She does not seem to understand the concept of ascertaining guilt, and dealing punishment accordingly - basically having a set law with set punishment. Everything depends on what her mood feels at the time; if she is enraged, she blindly orders punishment just to satisfy her own need of revenge.

It occurs repeatedly in her arc, from Astapor, to the crucifixion of the children, to the winesellers daughters, to her telling a lady who's house was turned into a brothel that she's lost the right to the house (WTF? By that logic, she's lost the right to Westeros too.). Anyway,in her many many failings as a ruler, this is the worst of all. 

IMO, this is extremely dangerous from a citizen's perspective, and it is exactly the problem with many of the monarchs we see in the series. The people are subject to their whims and fancies of the ruler. It's completely reasonable why the Meereenese might see her as some kind of dictator.

How easy would it have been for one of the Meereenese nobles to have handed over some innocent lackeys to her to crucify? Do we even know whether the people she crucified were actually the criminals who committed the crime? There's a good reason that we have the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

It's easy for us to feel she is very different from the other rulers we see in the books because we are seeing things completely from her own POV, where she believes she is in the absolute right. 

[Hodor the Articulate]

12 hours ago, Winter's Cold said:

I don't like or dislike Dany but I always wonder where this Mad Queen theory is coming from. Is it mainly because of the madness of her father and brother or is there something that she has done during the course of the books that hints at it? 

Isn't it obvious? She's a woman and she has emotions.

[Lady Ren]

10 hours ago, Marcus corvinus said:

snip

I'm not denying the value of genetics, I'm saying human nature is not cruel. 

Wars happen because of a lack of communication and understanding, not because we're all hardwired to want to kill each other. Getting together to stop a common enemy hardly goes against that. And that definitely seems to be where this story is going. Collaboration time. If people understood that the common enemy is their own stupidity then the world would get together and stay that way. 

[Britisher]

10 hours ago, Marcus corvinus said:

 

 

9 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

 

Two fantastic posts which I completely agree with !!