[Spoilers] E801 Discussion

[Error-504]

5 minutes ago, TheValonqarThatWasAzorAhai said:

Did we ever see Cersei drink the wine?  I don’t remember her drinking.  I think that she was keeping up appearances to everyone until she had to reveal she was pregnant.  That is also why she slept with Euron, she needed someone that wasn’t related to her to be the father.  That look she had as she was walking out of the throne room said it all.  She knew she couldn’t keep her pregnancy a secret for much longer.  She plays a good game at pretending that she doesn’t care if people know she is banging her brother.  But at the end of the day she is about keeping her throne and power.

Another thought, what if the wheel that Dany is going to break is actually the wheel of the White Walkers returning?

So your saying the WW's want to preserve the wheel? That is an interesting thought......

[Error-504]

4 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

I can say she's hypocrite by her proclamation that she's more just alone. Don't need the breaking of the wheel term for that. I can use her words to Olenna and the Snakes and Varys and Tyrion during the war-council an episode before that for that too.

Sorry, I didn't understand that. 

[TheValonqarThatWasAzorAhai]

Just now, Error-504 said:

So your saying the WW's want to preserve the wheel? That is an interesting thought......

Yes, the wheel of them returning.  Remember the last time that they were active, there was no Targ presence in Westeros.

[sweetsunray]

2 minutes ago, Error-504 said:

Sorry, I didn't understand that. 

I can say she's a hypocrite based on her proclamation to her POW that she's more "just". 

[Error-504]

3 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

I can say she's a hypocrite based on her proclamation to her POW that she's more "just". 

Because the execution of the Tarleys was not "just"? 

 

[sweetsunray]

10 minutes ago, Error-504 said:

Because the execution of the Tarleys was not "just"?

Because the demand to "bend the knee or else" at that time was not "just" no, and executing people not to appear weak or to set as an example has nothing to do with justice... she did it for "pr" as much as she gave her speech for "pr" reasons, except both speech and the executions nullify one another, and the result were people bending the knee out of fear, nothing else. And as she already knows from Varys the episode before, loyalty from men bending the knee out of fear is also a fickle thing, especially if you fly off again to leave those same people vulnerable to Cersei, especially if you know Cersei managed to get all the Tyrell gold.

 

Edited April 16, 2019 by sweetsunray

[divica]

6 minutes ago, Error-504 said:

Because the execution of the Tarleys was not "just"? 

 

What he is saying is that she made the same decision that most rulers have done in that position instead of something better. 

She can t proclaim that she is diferent from everybody else if she is just doing the same...

[divica]

2 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Because the demand to "bend the knee or else" at that time was not "just" no, and executing people not to appear weak or to set as an example has nothing to do with justice... she did it for "pr" as much as she gave her speech for "pr" reasons, except both speech and the executions nullify one another, and the result were people bending the knee out of fear, nothing else. And as she already knows from Varys the episode before, loyalty from men bending the knee out of fear is also a fickle thing, especially if you fly off again to leave those same people vulnerable to Cersei, especially if you know she managed to get all the Tyrell gold.

 

I agree with what you are saying. However ironically loyalty from people that chose as their leader is also fickle… we just have to look at jon in the NW and as KitN…

Aparently the only loyal people in the show are savages or slaves...

[sweetsunray]

8 minutes ago, divica said:

I agree with what you are saying. However ironically loyalty from people that chose as their leader is also fickle… we just have to look at jon in the NW and as KitN…

Aparently the only loyal people in the show are savages or slaves...

Agreed. Even family loyalty is fickle to a certain extent, and sometimes imoral. Perhaps loyalty is not a realistic expectation in politics, no matter what type of society and should perhaps not be the foundation of it.

This is something that Dany does not seem to grasp yet. Jon makes other mistakes: he does not rely on loyalty, but he relies on reason, and that fails as well. And of course it's tough to be the "good guy" (or gal) in a feudal society where every layer depends on loyalty.

Edited April 16, 2019 by sweetsunray

[Error-504]

13 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Because the demand to "bend the knee or else" at that time was not "just" no, and executing people not to appear weak or to set as an example has nothing to do with justice... she did it for "pr" as much as she gave her speech for "pr" reasons, except both speech and the executions nullify one another, and the result were people bending the knee out of fear, nothing else. And as she already knows from Varys the episode before, loyalty from men bending the knee out of fear is also a fickle thing, especially if you fly off again to leave those same people vulnerable to Cersei, especially if you know she managed to get all the Tyrell gold.

 

I agree to an extent, however, who is to say that after a time the men wouldn't be allowed to leave on their own accord? The Unsullied are allowed to walk away anytime they want. 

From Dany's perspective, allowing someone that just tried to kill you is unwise, you might find yourself facing them again in a future battle. Bending the knee, why is it so much worse than incarceration? Isn't it just another form? 

Edited April 16, 2019 by Error-504

[l2 0 5 5]

Loved the episode. 

Bronn: Getting paid or getting laid, never change Ser Bronn. I thought for a solid 30 seconds that he was getting set up Sopranos style when Qyburn was talking about a carriage out of the city. I was wondering why our favorite rogue was still in KL considering he's aided both Tyrion and Jaime over the years, and Cersei currently has them labeled as public enemy number 1 and 2. I would not be there. I am not, however, Ser Bronn of the Blackwater. I know he's all about the coin, was damn near killed over it when Dany/Drogon attacked the hike back KL, but I can't see him killing the Lannister boys.

Young Umber: Seeing as the Last Hearth is indeed just that, and last major castle before reaching The Wall, I'm surprised Bran didn't interject when Jon sent him home to gather more men? He was surely aware of the proximity as he told Jon about the fall of The Wall, and the approaching army. I don't get that one. Poor fate for him, but a cool ass scene with Edd, Tormund and Beric.

Cersei: Crazy as ever. Guess she considered Euron and what he might do with the GC if she didn't keep him satisfied for the time being. I had a feeling for a minute that she was gonna have The Mountain butcher him in the throne room. KL felt and looked pretty empty, even though it was night. All the action is up North right now. Will be interesting to see what develops there.

Golden Company/Strickland: Curious to see what role he plays as he is cast much younger and physically capable than book Harry. It leaves me to wonder if he will absorb some book roles like Aurane/Faegon/Young Griff much like Jorah did with JonCon. I don't know, not much time to develop anything there seeing as we only have 5 eps left. Does the GC want to stay home in Westeros now that they've finally made it back in a welcoming fashion for once? Does Strickland have Blackfyre? Dark Sister? There was certainly some talk between Jon and Arya about their respective valyrian steel weapons, and that Long Claw was too heavy for her. I would think that LC and DS are more similar than Blackfyre. Arya always wished she had DS, and idolized Visenya. I would wager that at least Blackfyre has returned home.

Jon: Had a lot going on. Got to ride Rhaegal which was cool and scary to watch, and found out about his true parents finally. I would think that he talks this over with Dany next ep. 

Arya: Cool to see all of her reunions. Gendry and The Hound were cool, but her reunion with Jon was the best. Nice to see those two have a conversation and Arya show some of her old self with him, as we didn't get to really see that with Sansa and Bran. Not sure what she wants with the blade schematic she gave to Gendry. I don't buy any of this AryaWaif stuff as we've seen too many personal/intimate moments from her since she's returned to Westeros; i.e. meeting Nymeria and realizing her wolf has moved on from her, and the Frey butchering. Arya's too important to have died in a dark room off screen a couple seasons ago. 

Sansa: Has hardened as the series has gone on as per her conversation with Tyrion and Dany. I would think that she has something up her sleeve but she can really use all the damn help she can get. I think that someone is going to have to really pull something out of left field for her to make a power move but we will see.  

Jaime: Great reunion with Bran the second he comes to Winterfell. Saw someone on Twitter call that a real Curb your enthusiasm moment which made me laugh. Will be great to see him questioned in front of Dany next week. He has a great excuse for doing what he did to Aerys that I think Dany will let that slide.

All in all great episode. A lot of talking, but hey, there was a lot to talk about between all of these characters.

[sweetsunray]

1 minute ago, Error-504 said:

 

 

I agree to an extent, however, who is to say that after a time the men wouldn't be allowed to leave on their own accord? The Unsullied are allowed to walk away anytime they want. 

From Dany's perspective, allowing someone that just tried to kill you is unwise, you might find yourself facing them again in a future battle. Bending the knee, why is it so much worse than incarceration? Isn't it just another form? 

None of the Tarlies tried to kill her. They took Higharden with the Lannisters. Neither Dany herself or Dragonstone was attacked. Dany's the attacker here.

Because "bending the knee" demand comes with the alternative, execution, classically, and because she demands loyalty of people in a war that is not yet concluded. She won 1 battle, and she has an empty Casterly Rock and Westerlands, no Dorne, no fleet, and a weakened Reach up for the grabs. She cannot trust the "bend the knee" in such a situation, and thus has to leave the Dothraki there to occupy the Reach anyway, depleting her own defences at Dragonstone. Those men aren't thinking of their pride, but of their families who either may be subjected to Dothraki occupation or Cersei's revenge,. The result will be that either those men would turn against her once more or they and their families end up killed.

Now how does Dany "help the people" by demanding it of these men to bend the knee at the spot in the military strategic situation. She doesn't, nor does she have to reap the repercussions for it.

Incarcerated enemies she might hope to win over though is an entirely different situation. Sure, she still needs to leave the Dothraki to occupy the Reach, meanwhile she has "hostages" to keep their families in check, and Cersei has no pretext to avenge herself on them. Once, the military situation is more to Dany's benefit, that is the time she can ask them to bend the knee for her, and likely would. It's done all the time throughout history. And no "allowing captives to live without swithcing sides" is not unwise.

[Error-504]

3 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

None of the Tarlies tried to kill her. They took Higharden with the Lannisters. Neither Dany herself or Dragonstone was attacked. Dany's the attacker here.

Because "bending the knee" demand comes with the alternative, execution, classically, and because she demands loyalty of people in a war that is not yet concluded. She won 1 battle, and she has an empty Casterly Rock and Westerlands, no Dorne, no fleet, and a weakened Reach up for the grabs. She cannot trust the "bend the knee" in such a situation, and thus has to leave the Dothraki there to occupy the Reach anyway, depleting her own defences at Dragonstone. Those men aren't thinking of their pride, but of their families who either may be subjected to Dothraki occupation or Cersei's revenge,. The result will be that either those men would turn against her once more or they and their families end up killed.

Now how does Dany "help the people" by demanding it of these men to bend the knee at the spot in the military strategic situation. She doesn't, nor does she have to reap the repercussions for it.

Incarcerated enemies she might hope to win over though is an entirely different situation. Sure, she still needs to leave the Dothraki to occupy the Reach, meanwhile she has "hostages" to keep their families in check, and Cersei has no pretext to avenge herself on them. Once, the military situation is more to Dany's benefit, that is the time she can ask them to bend the knee for her, and likely would. It's done all the time throughout history. And no "allowing captives to live without swithcing sides" is not unwise.

None of the Tarlies tried to kill her. They took Higharden with the Lannisters. Neither Dany herself or Dragonstone was attacked. Dany's the attacker here.

I haven't even read the rest of your post yet, but this is a complete load of crap. An attack on your ally (the Tyrells) is an attack on you. End of story. Period. No discussion here. It speaks volumes to your understanding of war. At best, Dany's response is a counter-attack. 

Because "bending the knee" demand comes with the alternative, execution, classically, and because she demands loyalty of people in a war that is not yet concluded. She won 1 battle, and she has an empty Casterly Rock and Westerlands, no Dorne, no fleet, and a weakened Reach up for the grabs. She cannot trust the "bend the knee" in such a situation, and thus has to leave the Dothraki there to occupy the Reach anyway, depleting her own defences at Dragonstone.

It's common knowledge she (Dany) could end the war whenever she wanted to. More mis-understanding on your part. She doesn't have to leave the Dothraki there for anything, as Cersei cannot afford the forces to occupy the Reach with Dany at KL's doorstep. (you have to remember, this is before Dany committed to going North). Her refusal to do a direct assault on KL is further proof she is not like the others, as you want to make her out to be. (major oops on your part). The one thing that would take up a lot of time and resources is starting some POW camps. You brought up dungeons in dragon-stone. I highly doubt they are capable of holding 100's if not thousands of prisoners. BTW, I wonder how many live Tyrell soldiers the combined lannister/Tarley forces left behind? Or didn't you consider that? 

Now how does Dany "help the people" by demanding it of these men to bend the knee at the spot in the military strategic situation. She doesn't, nor does she have to reap the repercussions for it.

They are still alive, it's really not that hard to understand. 

Incarcerated enemies she might hope to win over though is an entirely different situation. Sure, she still needs to leave the Dothraki to occupy the Reach, meanwhile she has "hostages" to keep their families in check, and Cersei has no pretext to avenge herself on them. Once, the military situation is more to Dany's benefit, that is the time she can ask them to bend the knee for her, and likely would. It's done all the time throughout history. And no "allowing captives to live without swithcing sides" is not unwise.

Alliances changing sides during war happens all the time, do I need to point out when it has happened in history for you? Russia? Italy? 

Incarceration and occupation is a huge drain on a military. It's not a feasible option for Dany, regardless of how you might feel about the morality of it all. 

Edited April 16, 2019 by Error-504

[nymeria_2321]

So my main feeling from this episode was supreme awkwardness , everywhere between everyone - was a little cringe worthy at times. 

I think the discussion about Dany and the Tarlys is a complicated one, bit unfair for Sam to form a negative opinion based on just that given what he knows about his father (being rather an ass) and that he didn't really get the whole story. I personally think Dany was ok in doing it (I know Tyrion and Varys freaked out) but she gave them the chance to bend the knee and he refused. She has to be somewhat firm and can't just send him to NW or prison, that wouldn't have made much sense. It wasn't tyrannical to do it or make her like Cersei or mad king to burn them - she isn't going around burning innocents in their homes and restrained herself from attacking kings landing for the same reason. She attacked soldiers on the battlefield and gave them the chance to join her. And honestly not sure why death was preferable to Tarly - his allegiances are a bit all over, betrayed Tyrells knowing they had joined with Dany and sided with Cersei when she went all mad king and blew up the sept and doesn't have a good claim to the throw, so not sure why it would have been awful to join Dany. Dany is trying to walk a fine line of being merciful and being strong  - being respected and being feared, think you need both.

 

The Sansa and Dany bits were again kind of awkward, like Dany should realise/remember the Northerns have some feelings about Targs and having a different ruler than the one they choice, she came in all like everyone bow down even though you don't know me. So Sansa's reactions I kind of get, but if she ever trusted Jon she would give Dany a chance and not just assume he dropped to his knees out of lust or infatuation or something dumb. I get that Sansa wants to be respected but I feel she never gives Jon much respect. 

[NonoNono]

Cersei was definitely fake-drinking the wine. She is playing Euron, it’s pretty obvious. She will pull the same thing she did on Robert. She’ll tell Euron she’s pregnant from him to secure his loyalty. Remember Tytos warned her about Euron not being loyal, and she does need an heir. It just won’t be his son.

[Ser Gareth]

8 hours ago, divica said:

It is pretty funny that danny's major problems are that she is a foreigner that has never lived in westeros and is the daughter of the mad king (besides leading an army of dothriaki). However jon is a westerosi, son of a respected targ (if they show he didn t kidnap lyanna) and raised by a man everybody liked.

And we are supposed to believe that nobody will see that them marrying should make everybody sastisfied?

 

Won't satisfy Dany.  Her vision is to be defacto ruler.  Not the Queen to the ruler.

I doubt it will please Sansa either.  If Jon was KITN then she was in line to that throne if something happened to him.  If Jon ends up being King of Westeros then there is no KITN to be in line for.

[Gala]

On 4/15/2019 at 5:59 AM, direwoofwoof said:

Yes! That was a major theme in the Fire and Blood book. It took many years for rider AND dragon to get comfortable riding together and they grew up together (dragon egg was placed in child's crib). A few people died hopping on adult dragons for first time.

 

I would argue with that. Throughout the Fire and Blood book and the Dance with Dragons story (the real history, not the last book) it was almost explained that the dragonrider should have Valyrian blood and the dragon should "accept" the rider. It is not exactly necessary to have an egg placed in your crib (that tradition was established way later than dragonriders have existed). The bond between the dragon and the rider seems to be based on the "dared-accepted" concept. For example, Balerion the Black Dread had at least 3 other riders apart from Aegon and we don't know whether Aegon was the first, since Balerion was one of the dragons that were born in Valyria and it was brought to Dragonstone by Aenar (it seems by a dragonrider). Aegon rode Balerion when it was already more than 100 years old. There are countless examples of such bonding, when the dragon used to be somebody else's and then another Targ came and claimed it. It seems that a dragon without living dragonrider should "accept" the rider, who dared to claim it, or the would-be-rider dies. As far as we know, Valyrians (Targs, for instance) just went to the dragon "pits" at Dragonstone and chose the dragon, they never put eggs into the cribs until Rhaena did it for the fist time and sometime later it became a tradition.  

[Gala]

8 hours ago, NonoNono said:

Cersei was definitely fake-drinking the wine. She is playing Euron, it’s pretty obvious. She will pull the same thing she did on Robert. She’ll tell Euron she’s pregnant from him to secure his loyalty. Remember Tytos warned her about Euron not being loyal, and she does need an heir. It just won’t be his son.

Agree. Maybe that's why she wants both her brothers dead?
I do not understand why she would order to kill them. I am confused.

[sweetsunray]

10 hours ago, Error-504 said:

None of the Tarlies tried to kill her. They took Higharden with the Lannisters. Neither Dany herself or Dragonstone was attacked. Dany's the attacker here.

I haven't even read the rest of your post yet, but this is a complete load of crap. An attack on your ally (the Tyrells) is an attack on you. End of story. Period. No discussion here. It speaks volumes to your understanding of war. At best, Dany's response is a counter-attack. 

There's a difference between claiming "someone just tried to kill you" and "opposing sides of war". Jon and Tormund have a healthy take on that: "don't take it personal". Enemy soldiers who surrendered, surrendered, are disarmed. They are not in a position to attack and kill you. And killing them, or having them bend the knee is not the sole option to prevent having them stand against you again in battle.

Dany's attack was indeed a counter-attack, one given by impulse: she thought she was winning because she had Yara's fleet, the snakes and Olenna. Her fleet was gone, and so was the alliance with Dorne and the Lannisters had taken the Reach from her.

10 hours ago, Error-504 said:

Because "bending the knee" demand comes with the alternative, execution, classically, and because she demands loyalty of people in a war that is not yet concluded. She won 1 battle, and she has an empty Casterly Rock and Westerlands, no Dorne, no fleet, and a weakened Reach up for the grabs. She cannot trust the "bend the knee" in such a situation, and thus has to leave the Dothraki there to occupy the Reach anyway, depleting her own defences at Dragonstone.

It's common knowledge she (Dany) could end the war whenever she wanted to. More mis-understanding on your part. She doesn't have to leave the Dothraki there for anything, as Cersei cannot afford the forces to occupy he Reach with Dany at KL's doorstep. (you have to remember, this is before Dany committed to going North). Her refusal to do a direct assault on KL is further proof she is not like the others, as you want to make her out to be. (major oops on your part). the one thing that would take up a lot of time an resources is starting some POW camps. You brought up dungeons in dragon-stone. I highly doubt they are capable of holding 100's if not thousands of prisoners. I wonder how many live Tarley soldiers the combined lannister/Tarley forces left behind? or didn't you consider that? 

Indeed, Dany did not attack King's Landing with her dragons. She intended to starve King's Landing, like Renly (see she did try a tactic that others tried before), by having the Crownlands cut off from food supply from the Reach or Dorne or ship trade. That plan was made impossible once Yara's fleet was gone, the snakes were dead and House Tyrell finally exctinct. Worse, the Lannisters managed to get a food suppply and all the gold of the Reach.  There is no way you can starve King's Landing into surrendering, when you don't have the gold, don't have the food and King's Landing does.That is exactly why Dany was so upset and wanted to show her prowess. Her starving strategy was ruined.

At least she managed to kill off the most of the Lannister and Tyrell force, judging by the few remaining men that surrendered on screen. (That should answer your issue with the Dragonstone dungeons). I didn't even count 50.

Let's say, Dany hadn't gone North and instead focused on winning the war for the throne first. How do you think she had to do that, from thereon? She couldn't starve them anymore. Cersei would never admit defeat or surrender. There was but one option left: attack KL with dragons and her forces.

Now, I don't see how "starving" a city (the original plan) is more "just" or "different", or "better". It's just more PR. That said, choking a city into surrendering or attacking it are both valid warfare options. 

You seem to be under the impression that I don't believe Dany is trying or doesn't mean well. I actually do believe she wants to be a just queen beloved by everyone, who earned that love. She always has. I don't believe though that you can win a throne from an enemy such as Cersei in such a manner though, nor should you try to sugarcoat it with PR. To some extent, even Dany recognises that when after she tells Jon you have to do certain things to be in the power position to make the world a better place. It is why we say that "power corrupts". She cannot however claim to have been more just to people who surrendered.

10 hours ago, Error-504 said:

Now how does Dany "help the people" by demanding it of these men to bend the knee at the spot in the military strategic situation. She doesn't, nor does she have to reap the repercussions for it.

They are still alive, it's really not that hard to understand. 

Ah so "more just than the others" = "you live"?

10 hours ago, Error-504 said:

Incarcerated enemies she might hope to win over though is an entirely different situation. Sure, she still needs to leave the Dothraki to occupy the Reach, meanwhile she has "hostages" to keep their families in check, and Cersei has no pretext to avenge herself on them. Once, the military situation is more to Dany's benefit, that is the time she can ask them to bend the knee for her, and likely would. It's done all the time throughout history. And no "allowing captives to live without swithcing sides" is not unwise.

Alliances changing sides during war happens all the time, do I need to point out when it has happened in history for you? Russia? Italy? 

Incarceration and occupation is a huge drain on a military. It's not a feasible option for Dany, regardless of how you might feel about the morality of it all. 

Yup, alliances change during war, and they do so often without "bend the knee or die". Hell, Cersei proved that when she invited Tarly to KL. She didn't say "bend the knee or die", but painted the option of the two queens they could choose.

Yes, incarceration and occupation is a huge drain. Dany's options were indeed limited, after her battle against the Lannister forces. That's never been my point. Nor do I have an issue with it. I simply have an issue that Dany proclaims herself to be more just, when warfare and her choice how to deal with potential allies she cannot convince on the spot to acknowledge her isn't "more just". It's just "same old, same old".

[Gala]

On 4/15/2019 at 9:16 AM, Jabar of House Titan said:

I saw and still see nothing wrong with Daenerys' execution of the Tarlys.

Randyll Tarly made a vow to Olenna Tyrell, his liege. He then betrayed his liege for the likes of Cersei Lannister...and he had known Olenna Tyrell for what? 40-50 years? And then he made several racist comments towards Daenerys' men. And then he refused to bend the knee or take the black.

Janos Slynt did less than Randyll Tarly did...yet when Jon executed him, no one blinked an eye.

Dickon Tarly made a dumb decision. There was no need for him to do what he did. In fact, I hate Randyll Tarly even more for allowing his son (his "favorite" son at that) to join him in his execution.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with what Daenerys did. A lot of other people (Tywin, Littlefinger, Lysa,, Cersei, Aerys, etc.) would not have asked.

A dragonglass spear with a detachable spearhead. The detachable spearhead can be used as a dagger.

In the end that Dickon's dumb decision is Dany's dumb decision. Randyll is one thing, but as Varys said "not burn him alive along side his son", which basically means "leave at least one of them alive" - Dickon. I bet that Dickon's death will blow her in the face later, because no one should ever underestimate Sam (especially in combination with Bran). I am guessing Bran is not fond of Dany at all - he actually expressed his attitude by only one phase said almost with contempt "We don't have time for this..." I presume that he knows that Dany would never abandon her crown even to save her people, she lacks that kind of self-sacrifice features (her lame attempt to be a good queen by marring a man she despises does not count, she didn't have to put her crown aside, it was done more to establish her as a queen rather than otherwise)

Randyll Tarly is not a lovable character, but he is consistent at least. He chose Cersei over Olenna because of Dany's Unsullied and Dothraki, which is understandable. Racist or not...they are foreign invaders...I would like to see you making that decision when a foreign army is invading your country, mind you, there is war going on in my country right now (invaders are not of another race and that does not matter for me, invader is an invader).

Janos Slynt is absolutely different story since Janos was SWORN brother of the Night's Watch and disobeyed a direct order of his commander, while Randyll Tarly has no allegiance to Dany and her cause, he swore no oaths to her, he was her PRISONER. 

Let's not theorize about who would do what... why don't you compare what other characters would do then, characters like Rhaegar, Ned, Davos, Tyrion...It was Dany who made that idiotic decision. 

Additionally, her attitude to Westeros and Westerosi is sheer hypocrisy: one thing is to free slaves and expect blind loyalty (even Messandei does not question her decisions and just serves her blindly), the other thing is to inspire loyalty among non-slaves who are actually used to criticize and question decision...thus, she chose "free the slaves, but enslave the free" approach. So much for breaking the wheel and inspiring loyalty.