Jump to content
Ran

[Spoilers] Episode 805 Discussion

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I honestly don't think any of George's character ever tried to minimize deaths in their military campaigns.

Which is why George could never even write a character doing shit like that. I mean, even Victarion Greyjoy wouldn't do shit like that. Yes, he would drown a ship full of people if they serve no purpose, but he would never burn down a city and the inhabitants of a city he actually wants to conquer and rule.

If she burned the city for no reason - as she does in the show - yes, it would be over the top. If she burns a city for the same reason Aegon burned Harrenhal it would be just the deed of a successful conqueror.

Well, there is lip service - various UN treaties, international law, etc. stipulating that basically all direct targeting of civilians in war constitutes war crimes - and then there is the actual practice of war - in the past and present - which routinely includes such practices. I mean, even drone assassinations today don't go without 'collateral damage'.

In a medieval framework the destruction of a complete city doesn't strike me as particularly gruesome. And the very idea that anybody on the other side would give a damn about the lives of 'innocent civilians' on the enemy side is ludicrous. This is not something that would ever happen in the books, especially not in a scenario where the burning of a great city became an option. Just look what kind of person Lem Lemoncloak is right now. The fighting men would all ravel at the prospect of plunder and the chances to rape a couple of women. This is, more or less, why they follow some general to war.

From reading medieval texts of that period, especially in France, killing the civilian population, women and children included, after a surrender, would be a rare occurrence and if it happened would be absolutely looked down upon. You say it would be ludicrous for someone to care about innocent lives, you understand one of the tenants of knighthood was about protecting those who can’t protect themselves, right? Not to mention, the dynamic between the Church (the many Archibishops of cities, the Pope) and the temporal powers of the time. They would have been convicted of Heresy for those crimes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah didn’t say that. I gave you a reason that’s generally accepted by Westeroes as good enough reason for kings, and lords, etc to kill innocents. To punish the innocent person’s kin or loved one who is doing something they see as wrong and to deter others from acting out as well. Innocents taken hostage like Theon or the wildling children book Jon took, far from simply being collateral damage, are killed, through really no fault of their own. 

And it's not clear what you are trying to say. Let's be clear about this. Are you saying that targeting deliberately targeting innocents is viewed as okay in Westeros?

 

4 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yes. He did repeatedly through saying he thought it was dumb for the writers to have Daenerys do this for no real reason.He literally said GRRM wouldn’t write a character doing something for such stupid reasons in book in the post you quoted and accused him of trying to defend show Daenerys’ idiotic massacre. 

He is not very clear about what he thinks is appropriate. Does he think Tywin's actions in the Riverlands is okay?

6 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Oh my god yes! Like is me saying it was pointless not enough of a hint that I thought the move wasn’t good? Where are you getting I’m saying she did the right thing here? Stop strawmannirg me.

What's your point again? Are you going to just make some general assertion that innocents die in war. We already know that.

7 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

More condemnation if there is no real reason behind the action.

Supposing the deaths happened not as a result of trying to defeat the enemy's field forces but was done simply to terrorize the local population in order to make them amenable to being ruled to undermine their support for the current ruler. How would you feel about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

A masterpiece through and through. A nice corrective after the White Walkers stuff petered out.

Of course.

? It's possible for the show to falter on one part of its ending, but succeed on another. I thought episode 3 was good but disappointing. This episode I found great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LadyBlackwater said:

He did look like he was having a major internal struggle and just kind of made a snap decision though. I will have to rewatch as well.

If one wished to provide a sort of insightful credit to writers that they certainly have not earned in any way, it would be what happens when human beings achieve free will, rather than being enslaved objects of others' will.

Daenerys broke the Unsullied's chains.  They now have personality and character and choice, as we see grow within Grey Worm over several seasons.  Part of that was learning to love someone, someone, again enslaved,  helpless and without power, killed for no reason other than Cersei being the crazy mad eviLe b*tch she's always been, using Missandrei as an object lesson.  So, it was Torgo Nudho, meaning in High Valyrian,* "Grey Worm," who makes the free will choice -- his own choice, not an order -- to kill.

As I commented, the showrunners didn't earn that. It wasn't there on the screen.  I brought it.

*  I have no idea why at that moment Daenerys speaks to him with his name in High Valyrian.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zorral said:

If one wished to provide a sort of insightful credit to writers that they certainly have not earned in any way, it would be what happens when human beings achieve free will, rather than being enslaved objects of others' will.

Daenerys broke the Unsullied's chains.  They now have personality and character and choice, as we see grow within Grey Worm over several seasons.  Part of that was learning to love someone, someone, again enslaved,  helpless and without power, killed for no reason other than Cersei being the crazy mad eviLe b*tch she's always been, using Missandrei as an object lesson.  So, it was Torgo Nudho, meaning in High Valyrian,* "Grey Worm," who makes the free will choice -- his own choice, not an order -- to kill.

As I commented, the showrunners didn't earn that. It wasn't there on the screen.  I brought it.

*  I have no idea why at that moment Daenerys speaks to him with his name in High Valyrian.

 

*Probably the writers doing. 

Totally agree. All of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, FeastForCrows said:

From reading medieval texts of that period, especially in France, killing the civilian population, women and children included, after a surrender, would be a rare occurrence and if it happened would be absolutely looked down upon. You say it would be ludicrous for someone to care about innocent lives, you understand one of the tenants of knighthood was about protecting those who can’t protect themselves, right? Not to mention, the dynamic between the Church (the many Archibishops of cities, the Pope) and the temporal powers of the time. They would have been convicted of Heresy for those crimes. 

That's not true at all.  It happened a lot, particularly when the army was starving.

The accounts of what happened to cities during Henry 5's French campaigns, what happened -- my god, the sack of Rome in 1527 -- the Vandals never did anything like what these good Christian Europeans did to Rome.  There are endless examples of this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

*  I have no idea why at that moment Daenerys speaks to him with his name in High Valyrian.

I think it was a hint that Daenerys was planning something or had been planning things with her soldiers that completely excluded anyone who didn't speak High Valyrian.

I don't know. It was stupid.

In any case, Nathalie Emmanuel and the character Missandei was totally for Daenerys going apes--- on King's Landing and Cersei both. Just like how Daenerys did in Astapor.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

A tad hyperbolic no?

Rhaenys burned Plankytown (a floating town of several thousand people) to the waterline.  After her death, Aegon and Visenya torched every castle, holdfast, and village they could reach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, FeastForCrows said:

From reading medieval texts of that period, especially in France, killing the civilian population, women and children included, after a surrender, would be a rare occurrence and if it happened would be absolutely looked down upon. You say it would be ludicrous for someone to care about innocent lives, you understand one of the tenants of knighthood was about protecting those who can’t protect themselves, right? Not to mention, the dynamic between the Church (the many Archibishops of cities, the Pope) and the temporal powers of the time. They would have been convicted of Heresy for those crimes. 

It depends.  Massacring a town's population that immediately offered to surrender would be considered a crime.  Massacring a population that offered resistance, before then attempting to surrender, would not be.  And a town's inhabitants would usually be deemed liable for the acts of their rulers.  It's a wicked attitude, but one that was and is widespread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And it's not clear what you are trying to say. Let's be clear about this. Are you saying that targeting deliberately targeting innocents is viewed as okay in Westeros?

 

He is not very clear about what he thinks is appropriate. Does he think Tywin's actions in the Riverlands is okay?

What's your point again? Are you going to just make some general assertion that innocents die in war. We already know that.

Supposing the deaths happened not as a result of trying to defeat the enemy's field forces but was done simply to terrorize the local population in order to make them amenable to being ruled to undermine their support for the current ruler. How would you feel about that?

IMHO, in a real medieval society, Daenerys' actions would have been considered harsh, but legitimate.

That doesn't mean that we should not condemn such actions, or punish those who perpetrate them in our age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't Daenerys technically break the wheel this episode, by destroying Kings Landing and the Red Keep? 
(Albeit in the most brutal, horrific way possible.)

Bran surely must have a finger in all of this. He pushed Sam to tell Jon about his parentage at that moment for a reason, knowing that it would tear Jon and Daenerys up. He let Jon himself decide whether to tell Sansa and Arya about his parentage, fully knowing what the implications would be of that reveal. He knew what would happen when Daenerys went south, he's seen it in his visions, and yet he didn't tell anyone nor did he do anything to stop it

What if (cliche-warning) whatever happened in this episode had to happen, and happened for a reason?
Maybe the destruction of Kings Landing and the Red Keep is quintessential to whatever "a dream of spring" might entail?
After all, you don't create something new by refurbishing the old.
You start something new by throwing out (or burning...) the old, and then starting a new altogether. 

As much as I hate the parallels between GoT and LotR at this point, remember that in LotR the ring was a source of power but also of corruption, and it was ultimately destroyed (at great cost). The closest thing to the ring in aSoIaF is the Iron Throne and basically all of Kings Landing as the seat of power. What if they have to be destroyed before life can "begin a new"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, MinscS2 said:

Didn't Daenerys technically break the wheel this episode, by destroying Kings Landing and the Red Keep? 
(Albeit in the most brutal, horrific way possible.)

Bran surely must have a finger in all of this. He pushed Sam to tell Jon about his parentage at that moment for a reason, knowing that it would tear Jon and Daenerys up. He let Jon himself decide whether to tell Sansa and Arya about his parentage, fully knowing what the implications would be of that reveal. He knew what would happen when Daenerys went south, he's seen it in his visions, and yet he didn't tell anyone nor did he do anything to stop it

What if (cliche-warning) whatever happened in this episode had to happen, and happened for a reason?
Maybe the destruction of Kings Landing and the Red Keep is quintessential to whatever "a dream of spring" might entail?
After all, you don't create something new by refurbishing the old.
You start something new by throwing out (or burning...) the old, and then starting a new altogether. 

As much as I hate the parallels between GoT and LotR at this point, remember that in LotR the ring was a source of power but also of corruption, and it was ultimately destroyed (at great cost). The closest thing to the ring in aSoIaF is the Iron Throne and basically all of Kings Landing as the seat of power. What if they have to be destroyed before life can "begin a new"?

The analogy doesn't work. A throne, in the end, is just a symbol of political power; all its influence is in the minds' of men (and women). The shadows on the wall or whatever exactly Varys' metaphor was. If the Iron Throne goes and the kingdoms split up then there will just be more thrones to fight over: the chair in Highgarden, or Winterfell or Storm's End. The desire for power, and the ambition and jealousy that comes becomes someone else wields it, is never going to go away no matter how many chairs gets melted down. 

That's not to say the Iron Throne might not get destroyed; it very well may. But it would make no sense for that to end the game of thrones. 

Edited by Chaircat Meow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

And it's not clear what you are trying to say. Let's be clear about this. Are you saying that targeting deliberately targeting innocents is viewed as okay in Westeros?

Yeah it is. You’re being obtuse. To your question in certain instances-clearly. Why do you expect this medieval fantasy country to have modern views about how to treat non-combatants  during a war-campaign?  What did you think would happen to Theon if Balon rebelled while the boy was say 14 and still a hostage of the Starks? I gather he would most likely  be executed by his captors. Do you seriously think Book Jon would be condemned as a monster  in the north if he executed(as he said he would)  the wildling hostages in response to their kin’s misdeeds? 

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

He is not very clear about what he thinks is appropriate. Does he think Tywin's actions in the Riverlands is okay?

Yes. He is. He explains that Show Daenerys’ action was dumb because there was no real reason given for her to do so. Ask LV himself what he feels about his campaign in the RV if you want. It won’t shed light on his feelings on Show Daenerys’ action. He’s been rather explicit about it-for the reasons she did it on it was dumb. Not that hard to grasp. Not in any way complicated.

 

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

What's your point again? Are you going to just make some general assertion that innocents die in war. We already know that.

Here I was pointing out you were strawmaning me. I’ve repeatedly made clear I found Show Daenerys’ action to be wrong given the circumstance. I literally said it was pointless. Yet you still acted as if I held the opposite view. 

 

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Supposing the deaths happened not as a result of trying to defeat the enemy's field forces but was done simply to terrorize the local population in order to make them amenable to being ruled to undermine their support for the current ruler. How would you feel about that?

Again I must reiterate myself for some reason-it’d be pointless. It was pointless when Show Daenerys burnt KL for that reason, it’d be pointless if Book Daenerys did it for that reason. Like I’ve said before A country’s capital, is too valuable in terms of trade, culture, and its’ ability to grant legitimacy to its’ ruler to just destroy it as utterly as she did.

 

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

IMHO, in a real medieval society, Daenerys' actions would have been considered harsh, but legitimate.

That doesn't mean that we should not condemn such actions, or punish those who perpetrate them in our age.

I’d agree on the harsh aspect, but I’d contend such an action would show her to be illegitimate. If it was just some city in a country sure. But this was the country’s capital. 

.  

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, WarLord said:

Very very happy to see Dany becoming the mad queen. Hated her since I watched Season 1 in 2013.

What would you have against Dany in season 1? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jarl Halstein said:

Yes, raping and beating people. That's the Middle Ages. But all of them MASSACRING A CITY? That's different. That's the Mongols when a city wouldn't surrender.

I do think the only killing, destruction, and rape of this scale would be how much the Riverlands suffered during the war. I think Tywin encouraged a lot of it but the blame couldn't be placed because northerners and opportunists were taking advantage as well. Plus it's an unspoken 'perk' for the soldiers that nobody explicitly condones but they do accept. But I think the Lannisters reputation definitely changed, as people to be feared even more than they already were. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jarl Halstein said:

We saw how she approved of Tyrion's request that if they ring the bells to open the gates, the attack would be called off. She nodded to Grey Worm about that, so that was his order. He broke that order - an Unsullied, taught to obey 100% for every day of his life. Disobeying the queen he worships. Yes, then she started burning the city, but that was after he disobeyed the order.

I saw the opposite. I think that once she broke her own agreement, Grey Worm was smart enough to know her real intention. I don't think he would obey her 100% anymore, but it happened so abruptly, right after he looked up at the sky, that it seemed like it was his Unsullied training and complete obedience kicking in. Only when he was fighting did I see passion, like he was fighting for revenge for Missandei. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah it is. You’re being obtuse. To your question in certain instances-clearly.

"Certain instances" is one big qualification by you. "Certain instances" implies that there are other instances where it's not considered okay even within Westeros.

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yeah it is. You’re being obtuse. To your question in certain instances-clearly. Why do you expect this medieval fantasy country to have modern views about how to treat non-combatants  during a war-campaign?  What did you think would happen to Theon if Balon rebelled while the boy was say 14 and still a hostage of the Starks? I gather he would most likely  be executed by his captors. Do you seriously think Book Jon would be condemned as a monster  in the north if he executed(as he said he would)  the wildling hostages in response to their kin’s misdeeds? 

And I don't exactly expect them to have exactly modern views. But to say, that killing innocents under all circumstances is considered okay in Westeros is just not true.

10 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yes. He is. He explains that Show Daenerys’ action was dumb because there was no real reason given for her to do so. Ask LV himself what he feels about his campaign in the RV if you want. It won’t shed light on his feelings on Show Daenerys’ action. He’s been rather explicit about it-for the reasons she did it on it was dumb. Not that hard to grasp. Not in any way complicated.

Here is the original quote I responded to:

Quote

If that happened in the books it would be harsh, but it would be essentially just emulating the Conqueror's grand deeds. KL would just be another Harrenhal. Surely there was many a servant or child in Harrenhal which wasn't there because he or she was a die-hard loyalist of Black Harren. Yet in war innocents die.

If there is ever a scenario where thousands of people stand with a person like Cersei - or actually Cersei - in a compatible scenario then by the standards of George's shitty world - and also by the Hitler and Churchill's rationale on bombing civilian population centers - this wouldn't even be a war crime.

It's not clear to me what the point of that was. What was meant exactly by "If that happened in the books it would be harsh....". And then of course there is the part where he implies that burning KL would be okay because it would be like the strategic bombing campaigns of WW2. Except. those bombings haven't been without controversy. And my point was we shouldn't accept such analogies so easily.

21 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Here I was pointing out you were strawmaning me. I’ve repeatedly made clear I found Show Daenerys’ action to be wrong given the circumstance. I literally said it was pointless. Yet you still acted as if I held the opposite view. 

No. I have been confused about what your point actually is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Rory Snow said:

Just a few little nagging thoughts i had about Varys.. why did Varys take off his rings when he got 'arrested'? Was there some significance to the rings? Who was he writing to? Does he have yet another co-conspiritor?

I think he was leaving  the rings for his little spiders. Also, did people think that Varys had already started to make a move against Dany, by potentially poisoning her food? Or was the fact that he was told by the little girl "[Dany] hasn't eaten anything for days"  merely information? If so, why did he tell the little girl that rick and reward are commensurate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone else feel that Jon seems like an abuse victim? He seems terrified of Dany, is eager to placate her, says he loves her but in a pretty dull way. He sees what she does with dissenters like Varys. It also seems like she's trying to separate him from his family so he will be hers. The way she talked about Sansa as a traitor seemed like a threat. 

Plus of course the earlier 'dont share this life changing information with your family. Never ever tell anyone and let me keep this information to do with what I please." I felt bad for her when she got little credit at the Winterfell feast, but she should be happy for him that he is celebrated IN THE NORTH where he is ruler. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, madprofessah said:

I think he was leaving  the rings for his little spiders. Also, did people think that Varys had already started to make a move against Dany, by potentially poisoning her food? Or was the fact that he was told by the little girl "[Dany] hasn't eaten anything for days"  merely information? If so, why did he tell the little girl that rick and reward are commensurate?

I agree regarding his rings. The little spiders can get good money for those rings.

I think he was having Martha poison Dany. He said something about trying again at dinner time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×