Jump to content

[Spoilers] E801 Discussion


Ran
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Caligula_K3 said:

Everyone thought that Robb's decision was dumb though. In just about every way possible.

As for the Tarlys, their situation is more complicated. Yes, they're traitors to House Tyrell... who are traitors to Cersei, who is the person actually on the iron throne. It's Stannis' and Jaime's dilemma all over again. And from the perspective of a noble in Westeros, Cersei is evil (if you believe that she is responsible for blowing up the sept, since the official line is that Dany did it)... But Dany is the daughter of an equally evil king, leading Dothraki and with the potential to nuke Westeros. From the Tarlys' perspective, there are no good choices here.

Yeah... For the Tarlys it was a choice between cholera or the plague. Dany claiming she's more just than the other and then burn them for not taking her on her word made her words of being more just void.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Caligula_K3 said:

It's absolutely a concept with currency - for the highborn, and even occasionally for the lowborn. There have been tons of POWs taken throughout the course of the series, from Jaime Lannister to the men Arya frees at Harrenhal. Tyrion advocates for the position that they should take the Tarlys prisoner, so clearly the concept has currency.

@RhaegoTheUnborn I don't think it's hard to explain. People aren't robots. They feel things when family members die, even shitty family members.

They don't keep prisoners because of a concept of the rights of POWs. They keep them because they can be valuable. For example, Robb kept Jaime alive explicitly because he knew that killing him would endanger Sansa and Arya. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, El Guapo said:

They betrayed House Tyrell who had declared for Dany. So yes they betrayed Dany.

And house Tyrell betrayed Cersei. You can always in circles with these kind of arguments, because one of the major themes of the series is that this world's system of feudalistic honour is nearly entirely bullshit or impossible to maintain. When your liege lord and your king go to war against each other, to whom do you owe your loyalty? When you're in the kingsguard but your king is planning to burn down the city and kill your family, to whom do you owe your loyalty?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

They betrayed House Tyrell who had declared for Dany. So yes they betrayed Dany.

Olenna accepted that agreement with the Sand Snakes. Did Lord Tyrell? If not, then they didn't betray anyone. Unless Olenna was named Lady Tyrell, then it's not her decision to make. 

Edited by Ice Queen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ice Queen said:

And Robert Baratheon went on to help his enemies to their feet and win friends of them. 

Dany took the dictatorial "my way or the highway" approach--a foreign queen who had never set foot in Westeros, with a horde of Dothraki screamers, Unsullied and two dragons. She expected instantly loyalty because of course it's her god given right to have everyone in the world bow down before her. 

As I said in another thread, she's just like conquerors and dictators everywhere. 

He only did that after they kneeled. That is exactly what Tywin said--if they kneel help them to their feet.

Neither of them said you shouldn't execute enemies who refuse to bend the knee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Forlong the Fat said:

They don't keep prisoners because of a concept of the rights of POWs. They keep them because they can be valuable. For example, Robb kept Jaime alive explicitly because he knew that killing him would endanger Sansa and Arya. 

This is true, but there is also an expectation that if you're highborn and captured in battle, you won't be immediately executed just for fighting against the winning side. This is praised by many characters as one of Robert's virtues. Even Stannis, the most rigid man in the seven kingdoms, will take "traitors" prisoner and attempt to get them to join his side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Forlong the Fat said:

He only did that after they kneeled. That is exactly what Tywin said--if they kneel help them to their feet.

Neither of them said you shouldn't execute enemies who refuse to bend the knee.

Tywin said that. I don't think Robert ever did. He valued honesty and bravery and was willing to be merciful as long as his foe had those qualities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

There is no Lord Tyrell. As dumb as it Lady Olenna was leading House Tyrell and she pledged To Daenerys. 

And then she died, leaving the Tarlys without a liege lord. 

They owe Danaerys nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Forlong the Fat said:

They don't keep prisoners because of a concept of the rights of POWs. They keep them because they can be valuable. For example, Robb kept Jaime alive explicitly because he knew that killing him would endanger Sansa and Arya. 

Not every prisoner is a lord or a son of a lord. Robb had his nursing-lover treat common enemy soldiers medically treat them without requiring to bend the knee for him. Nor did he ever ask something like it of Jaime. If the kid lord of Darry had refused to join Robb Stark, he wouldn't have killed him, just locked him up.

It's quite clear that Westeros knows there's a difference between killing people in battle and killing people who surrendered their arms to you and are your captives. They don't need a geneva convention or a term such as POW to know they are effectively prisoners begotten through warfare, people who battled against you, but were eitehr disarmed or surrendered.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

And?  That explains why Highgarden fell so easily. Not sure what your point is.

Tarly didn't kill his own is my point ;) And Olenna should have taken Tarly to meet with Dany if she had been smart. Making a military decision without checking whether the guy who should lead it and provides the biggest levies is not smart.

Edited by sweetsunray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Caligula_K3 said:

Everyone thought that Robb's decision was dumb though. In just about every way possible.

But the point is that neither in the books nor the show the potentiality of Karstark taking the black comes up. That tells us something. The decision Emilia Clarke faced there was to allow those goons to go free and enemies or to execute them. The Wall didn't play a role there, nor does it - usually - in the books.

32 minutes ago, Caligula_K3 said:

As for the Tarlys, their situation is more complicated. Yes, they're traitors to House Tyrell... who are traitors to Cersei, who is the person actually on the iron throne. It's Stannis' and Jaime's dilemma all over again. And from the perspective of a noble in Westeros, Cersei is evil (if you believe that she is responsible for blowing up the sept, since the official line is that Dany did it)... But Dany is the daughter of an equally evil king, leading Dothraki and with the potential to nuke Westeros. From the Tarlys' perspective, there are no good choices here.

Lena is a usurper who had House Tyrell and Randyll's peers murdered in the Great Sept. And didn't she actually publicly brag about doing just that in the show (I just watched the episodes once two years ago)? Lady Olenna - the leader of House Tyrell - swore fealty to Clarke the season before that, making the Tarlys traitors to both her and Dany. You go where your liege lords lead you in a feudal society, you don't make your own choices there. Else there is nothing wrong in the betrayals of the Freys and Boltons, etc.

36 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Burning them in front of an army was a way of showing off, and frightening the survivors of that army into fighting for her.

The fact that Varys and Tyrion are perturbed by it suggests that in-universe, it's not considered the correct way of treating prisoners of rank.

There is no consistent place to be called 'in-universe' in this show. They don't give a damn about consistency. They just create moronic conflicts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, RhaegoTheUnborn said:

LOL! @ Jon having sexual relationship with his aunt the wholetime.

 

And can someone explain to me, why Sam got upset and most likely wont look at Daenaerys in a courteous manner, because she burned his father and brother to ashe? Like, his dad definitely showed no love to Sam and banished him from his own home. His brother was a bit more tolerable but his brother had this undying sense of loyalty toward his father, that he simply went along with every decision his father would make. And Sam knows Daenaerys is a queen and cant accept anything less than her enemies bending the knee. He's fully aware Daenaerys offered his father and brother a chance to live, but they both flat out refused it, What else was she supposed to, as a queen. Sparing enemies in that world is not an option. Sam should be fully aware of this, still he was about to cry and complained to Jon like ""youre a king, would you have spared him?"

 

I swear sometimes I sincerely depise Sams character.

As said upthread, people may still have some feelings for abusive parents.

However, there's another point.  Sam is part of an honour culture.  Even if you detest  your family, it's a matter of honour to avenge wrongs that have been done to your them, unless you've broken with them completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Caligula_K3 said:

This is true, but there is also an expectation that if you're highborn and captured in battle, you won't be immediately executed just for fighting against the winning side. This is praised by many characters as one of Robert's virtues. Even Stannis, the most rigid man in the seven kingdoms, will take "traitors" prisoner and attempt to get them to join his side.

Even Tywin allowed his captives of the Battle of the Blackwater some days to ponder it before the reward-victory ceremony in the Red Keep where they all were given the choice - swezar loyalty to Joffrey or die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But the point is that neither in the books nor the show the potentiality of Karstark taking the black comes up. That tells us something. The decision Emilia Clarke faced there was to allow those goons to go free and enemies or to execute them. The Wall didn't play a role there, nor does it - usually - in the books.

Lena is a usurper who had House Tyrell and Randyll's peers murdered in the Great Sept. And didn't she actually publicly brag about doing just that in the show (I just watched the episodes once two years ago)? Lady Olenna - the leader of House Tyrell - swore fealty to Clarke the season before that, making the Tarlys traitors to both her and Dany. You go where your liege lords lead you in a feudal society, you don't make your own choices there. Else there is nothing wrong in the betrayals of the Freys and Boltons, etc.

There is no consistent place to be called 'in-universe' in this show. They don't give a damn about consistency. They just create moronic conflicts.

I don't dispute that either.

But, I'm not convinced that turn or burn would be the norm in feudal societies.  One can find examples of it, but also examples to the contrary.  Edward III after all, did not execute captured French lords who refused to acknowledge him as King of France.  They were  kept for ransom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SeanF said:

I don't dispute that either.

But, I'm not convinced that turn or burn would be the norm in feudal societies.  One can find examples of it, but also examples to the contrary.  Edward III after all, did not execute captured French lords who refused to acknowledge him as King of France.  They were  kept for ransom.

Sure, but the standard in Westeros clearly is that if your monarch/the guy who defeated you in battle and has you by the balls offers you a chance to keep your life and holdings if you swear fealty than you do that. If not you get the noose or the axe of dragonfire.

Westeros is much more savage and brutal than the real middle ages. In the real middle ages you could defy your lord or king with impunity throughout your entire life, breaking hundreds of promises and you would still not be executed for treason if you were ever captured.

The Tarlys basically are Harren the Black or Loren Lannister facing Aegon the Conqueror. The former got what the Tarlys got, the latter did the reasonable thing, like Balon later did, too.

And the way the show set this thing up leaves no room for the Wall, actually. You have to want or at least to agree to take the black. How can you do that if you blatantly and foolishly try to ignore that you are beaten and basically have no choice but to do as you are told? If the Tarlys prefer death to their holdings and lives what on earth makes anyone believe they would want to go to the Wall? How does it make sense that these guys would even consider going to the Wall because Dany tells them to? Taking the black would also have been 'a pardon' they would have to take from the woman they despise for some reason - a completely nonsensical setup considering that the Tarlys actually fought for Aerys II during the Rebellion, both in the books and the show if I remember the first season correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...