Jump to content
Ran

[Spoilers] Episode 805 Discussion

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

It will be ruled by a Great Council, representatives from each of the 7 kingdoms.  That's the only way it makes sense, starting and ending with an absolute monarchy would be an odd choice, especially for someone like GRRM.

Only seven?  Edmure, Yara, Gendry, Sansa and SweetRobin, the phantom Prince of Dorne, and whoever from Highgarden, long may they reign. Sorry, Yara, squids don't count. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bradam said:

i'm hoping for a Qyenton Tarrintino ending now.  Jon stabs Dany, Greyworm stabs Jon, Arya stabs Greyworm,  Tyrion stabs Arya, Davos stabs Tyrion,  Dany chucks a dagger at Davos face while falling to her death.. boom everyone dead. 

Remember, getting stabbed hardly matters in this universe. Jaime got stabbed several times, including in the lungs, and jogged through the castle to his Sister Girlfriend. Maybe the stabbing will calm them down enough to talk things out and realize they're not so different after all. 

Share this post


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

My 2 cents about a few things.

In GOT there are some subtle hints of what will happen in the future, starting from Hodor always saying "Hodor"....we have learned much later what it meant ^^

Many, many fans complain about Jon /Aegon doing nothing smart/heroic/significant....the phrase "You know nothing, Jon Snow" hinted to that: he is a good person, he got a kind heart, but that doesn't make him a hero, or a genius, or a strategist...in fact he is a good, but not exceptional fighter, he is a bad general/military leader (remember the Battle of the Bastards, for instance), he has no clue about how politics and ruling works, he is naive (Dany knew what Sansa would have done, once learned about Jon's true identity, he didn't, because..."he knows nothing".
He may be Aegon Targaryen, but he actually is and will remain Jon Snow, who knows nothing (until the truth is smashed on his face) and would be happy with Tormund, beyond the Wall, living a simple and free life.

About Dany: her vision in the House of the Undying was a huge spoiler (also for the final episode, I guess ^^): the half destroyed throne room covered in snow (...or ashes? ^^) where she is so close to the iron throne, but she can't touch it (we see the tips and especially the pummels of some of the swords)...that is, you won't get it, Dany ^^ Then she walks outside the gate of Castle Black through the Wall and reaches a tent where Khal Drogo and her son Rhaego are waiting for her (hint: the "North" will kill her).

Then, the mother (or the father) of all spoilers (I know...no news for many fans): Ramsey saying "If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention..." ^^

Dany's father, Aerys II, at first ruled benevolently...then succumbed to madness and Dany is "closing the circle": Jamie killed Aerys because he wanted to burn everyone in King's Landing with wildfire (and in fact we see also wildfire, together with dragon fire, in ep 8x5). Jamie was serving in the Kingsguard at that time, he was supposed to defend the king, no matter his decisions, because he made an oath (in fact Ser Barristan Selmy, Ned Stark, men of honor, and everyone else despise him for that (because he didn't tell anyone why he killed the king...and from that moment his "corruption" started).
Jamie was supposed to die with Aerys II and he dies when the King's daughter realizes his father's evil plan, years later (circle closed, as I wrote before).

Yes, I agree Dany's descent into madness is a bit too quick in the show, but there were hints: his brother was a piece of s**t, but do you remember her face and her words while he was burning? Did she look sane there? (I suggest you guys to go rewatching that scene: the "seeds" of the Mad Queen were already there).
The Masters crucified the the slaves, she crucifies the Masters.
She burns the Tarlys, who were war prisoners, not "traitors"...you burn prisoners on the battle field because they don't bend the knee? It's what Sam tells Jon: would u do that?
She starts to see treason and traitors everywhere (sometimes with good reason, sometimes not) and the deaths of Rhaegal and Missandei (one of the last few she trusted blindly) make her flip.
An eye for an eye often makes you become exactly what you wanted to fight. There are a lot of examples in our history: just think to the Holy Inquisition, which was established to fight the evil...and it became the evil! Dany has become a (mad) tyrant now...too bad, but that's it ^^
Yes, again...it seems too rushed (even if, what happens in minutes on screen, can require days or months in the show's timeline) but consider that: if Varys would have spotted gradual signs of madness in her, don't you think he would have her killed or poisoned long before, even not knowing about Jon's true identity? ^^

That said, it wasn't a perfect episode.
Tyrion's persistence in trying to save Cersei's life is just...out of place. 
Ok, he did it for Jamie and to save his child, but still, after everything Cersei did, including sending Bronn to kill both of them...seriously?.
Just free Jaime to repay your debt and let him go to do whatever he wants, but don't keep trying to personally save your murderous sister, come on!
You killed you father and Cersei is even worse than him!

Then...Drogon destroys everything too easily.
Again...Rhaegal was ambushed, they were flying slowly, etc., the scorpions can't be moved so quickly to follow a dragon flying close and at high speed, or if it attacks directly from above (they have a limited elevation)...but still everything seemed too easy, even if Drogon is bigger and stronger than his dead brothers.
So...not perfect, yes, I agree...but rating it with a 1 (or 2, or 3...etc) is utterly unfair (imho): writing is just a part of what should be considered when voting for an episode and, to me, it wasn't so bad as many ppl think, here and not only here.

Sorry for the long post.

 

This is an excellent post. Sums things up perfectly in my opinion. 

In regards to the development of the story as a whole, perhaps it was always the intention for kings landing to fall under the wrath of Dany or Cersei either way it was doomed, neither the Lannister’s or the Targaryen’s are fit to rule, the Targaryen’s remind me of Germany, pre as post the Prussian empire... somehow despite many a set back they rise to the become feared and a super power seamlessly crushing their enemies with no real morals. The Targaryen’s don’t need to be smart, rational or strategic thinkers when they are armed with Dragons, the desire to do right is often mistakes for the lust for power, what started as a good intention has ended up being a play for power, she’s been playing with madness as if it’s a toy for a while.

 

But when you’re a Targaryen, why would you fight for something you know deep down you’ll never have, when you can just watch it burn.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Entertaining episode, wish we had show producers who did not cite boredom as they count their $$ and fame as reasons for rush ending this but....nobody asked me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 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?

Yup, i got the feeling there was something nefarious happening with the food as well. The way the little girl was so paranoid made it seem that way.

As for the rings, someone else mentioned the ring was his seal for sealing the wax on messages. Leaving the ring behind would be a way for people to verify the messages came from him later, which seemed pretty plausible to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

OK. Just finished watching it.

The thing is a tragedy in every sense of the word. Spectacular visuals, but the root problem is that the show did not do its homework in setting up Daenerys for this. One can argue that it was coming - and to be honest, I have been suspecting it for the duration - but it needed to develop far more organically than it did. Ditto with Tyrion, Jon, Jaime, et al - it becomes character assassination because the plot has jerked them around, and forced them to be idiots, rather than having the situation being a result of authentic characterisation.

The sad thing is: I think it could have worked. After all, it is a direct call-back to the Sack of King's Landing during Robert's Rebellion (with Lannisters and Targaryens switching places). It was just horribly handled.

I agree. I guess the writing of late isn't as good as it used to be. I appreciate they were pointing the way for Dany to go mad queen since the beginning. But it still feels like we skipped a gear recently in getting her there. Even though Dany killed Cersei, her death is down below and unseen. That is bad writing, unless she survives it, crawls out and runs into Tyrion who decides to stab her. The big villain demands a more interesting death. Cersei got hosed. Dany too. Rushed, all of it. Ten years spent telling a story just to have it hurried in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Personally I think Aegon was an asshole.

Westeros doesn't agree with you.

3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

But if Dany were to burn KL, after her forces had clearly defeated the enemy forces, that would make her an asshole too. I'm not going to let you get away with making assertions that all destruction, no matter the particular circumstances in play, is basically okay. Even if it's something Aegon shithead allegedly did 300 years ago.

But that's not an assertion I did make, did I? I said the scenario as presented by the show is ludicrous - but it is equally ludicrous that a lot of people would make a fuzz about Dany killing a bunch of enemies because nobody in this world gives a rat's ass whether the smallfolk 'yields'. Nor has anybody at this point in this series actually ever expressed regret or doubt about the smallfolk on the other side of a conflict. There is literally zero consideration for this kind of thing.

People do care for their own smallfolk up to a point, and there are people, like Stannis, who refuse to punish the smallfolk for a betrayal of their lord. But this never extends to the point that wars or battles are not fought because the result could be the deaths of innocent bystanders on the enemy side. Nobody cares about that in this world.

And this should even be more true after the War for the Dawn is over. If Dany were to burn all five great cities of Westeros at that point people would likely just shrug. The winter they lived though should be much more horrible than anything we can imagine. As early as autumn Catelyn and her band of thugs are hanging people left and right. 

Care for commoners is a modern concept that has no place in George R. R. Martin's Westeros. There are small traces of this in Doran Martell's political approach and the softness of Edmure Tully - but that extends only to your own smallfolk, not to the smallfolk of your enemies. And curiously enough the only person who gave a rat's ass about the lives of innocents she basically had nothing to do with actually is Daenerys.

Tyranny in Westeros never was burning peasants. It was mistreating the nobility and limiting the powers of the Faith. If Dany does that she might become problems. But if she just burns down a city - with or without good reason - then nobody in this world is going to fault her for that.

I mean, just think of the Dance. The Two Betrayers burned down Tumbleton but they were not later betrayed and killed by their allies because they killed thousands of innocent commoners - they were killed because they were seen as lowborn scum who overreached themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does everyone keep saying that Dany has gone mad?  Her decision was perfectly rational.

Unlike her father, who was going to burn a city for no strategic reason, the razing of a city by an invader who has enough firepower in reserve and the will (or appearance of the will) to repeat the tactic on other locations is a sound military strategy.  

Furthermore, the complete destruction of the city will allow the victor to control the narrative of what occurred in the histories.  Dany can tell the world that the bells never tolled, that Circie fought until the bitter end, and there is no one alive who can or will say differently.  Or the very few who can can be labeled as Lanister sympathizers and executed.

On the flip side, let's say Dany stops the attack with the bells.  Best case scenario has her deposed within weeks as the call for the "true King" of the Seven Kingdoms to take the throne grows louder and louder.  If she kills Jon, the people revolt and she's lost.  Worst case scenario is that this was another Lanister trap, set up by Tyrion, that ends with her and Drogon dead.

There is no doubt that what Dany did was evil, but it was also sane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really loved this episode. Its one of my top favorites. Just everything about it was amazing to me.

I know alot of peple hated it and I see their point of view but I thought it was crazy and seeing Danny slowly snap was crazy and seeing her become the mad queen. 

Share this post


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

Only seven?  Edmure, Yara, Gendry, Sansa and SweetRobin, the phantom Prince of Dorne, and whoever from Highgarden, long may they reign. Sorry, Yara, squids don't count. 

What about Tormund, King Beyond the Wall?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours 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. 

Well, just think of the atrocities Richard the Lionheart committed during the crusades. He butchered an entire garrison of people just because they were not ransomed. Think of William the Conqueror laying waste to Northern England, effectively killing an entire generation of people there, think of Charlemagne butchering Saxons. Granted, those are not sacks of cities - those come later, in no small part due to the fact that you actually need actual cities to sack before you can sack them. But a great example for a pointless and cruel sack of a city in the middle ages would be the horrendous Sack of Constantinople in 1204.

And knighthood being an ideal and stuff is just romantic fiction. Fiction that was popular during a very short time during the actual middle ages.

I don't deny that the way the show portrays Dany is absolutely nonsensical. But that's not possibly a scenario that can happen in the books. Book Dany would have a reason for her actions. And within the framework of the story whatever reason she is going to have would be actually be pretty good.

Not to mention, you know, that a dragon burning down KL might not exactly feasible in the books, anyway. After all, it is winter and it already snows in KL. Is the fire of Dany's rather small dragons ever going to burn hot enough to incinerate a city shrouded in frozen water? I'm not so sure about that. I see greater chances for a proper sack and mass executions than for a Dany Holocaust. But even if KL were suddenly magically without snow and reasonably dry - there would be no need there for this ridiculous and quite maddening burn-feast we got in the show. Because in city built almost completely of wood fire should spread maddeningly swift even if it was caused by accident or a few crucial dragon attacks - on the Red Keep, say.

Also, the entire setting of people being actually trapped in the city when a dragon army arrives is insane. George already had this setting two times - during the Dance - and there the Kingslanders actually did their best to get out of the city before the dragons could burn it. And when both Alicent and Rhaenyra tried to prevent that because opening the doors would allow the enemy to sneak in, they both got riots on their hands.

Chances are about zero that in George's setting people are going to be as stupid as to search for safety in a city that is the main target of the dragons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Westeros doesn't agree with you.

Yeah, I'm sure they love him down in Dorne. 

24 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Westeros doesn't agree with you.

But that's not an assertion I did make, did I? I said the scenario as presented by the show is ludicrous - but it is equally ludicrous that a lot of people would make a fuzz about Dany killing a bunch of enemies because nobody in this world gives a rat's ass whether the smallfolk 'yields'. Nor has anybody at this point in this series actually ever expressed regret or doubt about the smallfolk on the other side of a conflict. There is literally zero consideration for this kind of thing.

People do care for their own smallfolk up to a point, and there are people, like Stannis, who refuse to punish the smallfolk for a betrayal of their lord. But this never extends to the point that wars or battles are not fought because the result could be the deaths of innocent bystanders on the enemy side. Nobody cares about that in this world.

And this should even be more true after the War for the Dawn is over. If Dany were to burn all five great cities of Westeros at that point people would likely just shrug. The winter they lived though should be much more horrible than anything we can imagine. As early as autumn Catelyn and her band of thugs are hanging people left and right. 

Care for commoners is a modern concept that has no place in George R. R. Martin's Westeros. There are small traces of this in Doran Martell's political approach and the softness of Edmure Tully - but that extends only to your own smallfolk, not to the smallfolk of your enemies. And curiously enough the only person who gave a rat's ass about the lives of innocents she basically had nothing to do with actually is Daenerys.

Tyranny in Westeros never was burning peasants. It was mistreating the nobility and limiting the powers of the Faith. If Dany does that she might become problems. But if she just burns down a city - with or without good reason - then nobody in this world is going to fault her for that.

I mean, just think of the Dance. The Two Betrayers burned down Tumbleton but they were not later betrayed and killed by their allies because they killed thousands of innocent commoners - they were killed because they were seen as lowborn scum who overreached themselves.

Okay.

1. Let me start with your basic premise that nobody cares about how about many small folk are killed. Should we care as readers? I'm not a huge, fan of pure moral relativism. Accordingly, while I'm willing to make some allowance for characters because of the norms they grew up in, I'm not quite willing to just dismiss the mass killing of innocents when thinking about these characters. You seem to believe that we should just throw all our ethical notions into the trash bin, and engage in pure moral relativism. Sorry, but I'm not going to do that. And by the way, just regurgitating the ethical norms in Westeros, as you believe them to be, isn't a convincing case we should do so.

2. You seriously think people like Ned Stark or Jon would just kill small folk indiscriminately and not care about it? And remind me again what was Connington's reason for not burning an entire city down? I'm not saying these characters wouldn't tolerate some deaths of innocents in certain circumstances. But, I think just saying nobody cares is a stretch. And what about Brienne when she got her face bitten off? I don't recall her trying to defend the children of the nobility.

3. So if Dany just ups and burns an entire city for no good reason and thousands of innocent people die, nobody in Westeros will care? Jon Snow wouldn't care? Ned Stark wouldn't care if he were alive? And even if nobody within ASOIAF cared, should we care as readers? If Dany just burned an entire city for no good reason, you really think we shouldn't be revolted by that as readers?

 

 

 

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Simsuy said:

She burned the slavers, she burned the tarlys and she burned the dothraki leaders. Everyone who crosses her gets burnt.

There has been multiple small hints of her hitting the breaking point or "going mad".

It's not the same, the dothraki leaders were willing to rape her, it was self defense. The slavers were disgusting people who crucified children. The Tarlys was  a  morally worse deed, but it wasn't so clear either, because they objectively betrayed their liege, and also she could have taken that decision as a way of not encouraging others in doing the same, so it could have saved lives in the long term. 

In short, nothing in her story had necesarily stablished the foundation for this, and the multiple small hints of her "going mad", were tempered by multiple small hints of her being just, and caring for the people, particularly the innocent people. 

And in just 20 minutes, they "subverted" all this, they turned her into a blood thirsty mass murder psychopath, with no valid political objective and no reason at all.

It's as if Truman had thrown the 2 atomic bombs, but after Japon surrendered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, just think of the atrocities Richard the Lionheart committed during the crusades. He butchered an entire garrison of people just because they were not ransomed. Think of William the Conqueror laying waste to Northern England, effectively killing an entire generation of people there, think of Charlemagne butchering Saxons. Granted, those are not sacks of cities - those come later, in no small part due to the fact that you actually need actual cities to sack before you can sack them. But a great example for a pointless and cruel sack of a city in the middle ages would be the horrendous Sack of Constantinople in 1204.

If I may add one more recent example, how about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WWII?  The US had won the war, but those bombings meant the war ended in the most favorable way possible to us.

Dany will no doubt claim that the destruction was necessary to bring a true end to the war, and will likely spin the narrative to say that the bells never tolled (since there are virtually no witnesses to attest otherwise).

Unless we are given reason to believe otherwise in the final episode, what Dany did was not insane or mad, but a calculated choice to win the last war.

Share this post


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

It's not the same, the dothraki leaders were willing to rape her, it was self defense. The slavers were disgusting people who crucified children. The Tarlys was  a  morally worse deed, but it wasn't so clear either, because they objectively betrayed their liege, and also she could have taken that decision as a way of not encouraging others in doing the same, so it could have saved lives in the long term. 

In short, nothing in her story had necesarily stablished the foundation for this, and the multiple small hints of her "going mad", were tempered by multiple small hints of her being just, and caring for the people, particularly the innocent people. 

And in just 20 minutes, they "subverted" all this, they turned her into a blood thirsty mass murder psychopath, with no valid political objective and no reason at all.

It's as if Truman had thrown the 2 atomic bombs, but after Japon surrendered. 

That's a rationalization and that is also the same way that Dany has/had rationalized her actions 'they were bad people' 'they deserved it'....it's not a matter of going mad, I don't think she went mad, she snapped.  But her fall back position has always always been 'dracarys' and so she has progressively burnt people who were less and less guilty.  She starts in Astapor, where the slavers are egregiously evil.  But she gets to Meereen, she crucifies random nobles, with no regard to whether they supported killing the slave children or not,then she burns a random noble.  Then she burns the khals instead of simply escaping, because she has a fucking messiah complex.  She's been telling people to bend the knee and live in  her world or die for years.  Then, she gets to Westeros and her messiah complex is met with a harsh reality, of people who don't see her as a savior, add in the heavy personal and ally losses....and she said 'fuck it' They won't love me they will fear me.

They needed a full season to make it work on the show, but the trajectory has always been there in the books for her to turn tragic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LucyMormont said:

It's not the same, the dothraki leaders were willing to rape her, it was self defense. The slavers were disgusting people who crucified children. The Tarlys was  a  morally worse deed, but it wasn't so clear either, because they objectively betrayed their liege, and also she could have taken that decision as a way of not encouraging others in doing the same, so it could have saved lives in the long term. 

In short, nothing in her story had necesarily stablished the foundation for this, and the multiple small hints of her "going mad", were tempered by multiple small hints of her being just, and caring for the people, particularly the innocent people. 

And in just 20 minutes, they "subverted" all this, they turned her into a blood thirsty mass murder psychopath, with no valid political objective and no reason at all.

It's as if Truman had thrown the 2 atomic bombs, but after Japon surrendered. 

It's not the same, but nor is it so big a leap.  Once you've got into the habit of killing your enemies horribly, it gets easier to create pretexts for killing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours 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?

We have no idea whatsoever that Dany never again ate anything at Dragonstone before she left; very most probably she did so. This gives plenty of space for a rather unsettling possible explanation about what happened to her. 

Think about all the voices in her head during the "Previously on" catch-up segment at the very start. Yes, those are from inside her own mind but imagine if she'd unknowingly eaten something somewhat hallucinogenic.  But was that a clue? It could have been.

Even when used in minute and otherwise undetectable quantities, many substances can put those who consume them into a state of extreme and even severe emotional lability.  Calls it emotional instability if you prefer, but it's not just that.  This could set Dany up to lose whatever cool she ever had and “go too far”, to overreact in anger or in despair. 

Given the many and frequently cited contributing factors leading up to this point in her life story, ones that have already moved her much closer to a breakdown, it wouldn't take all that much to push her over the edge and go on a fiery-and-bloody rampage.

Just like vipers, spiders are known for their venom. Varys the Spider doesn't have to have been Prince Oberyn Martell, the Red Viper himself, to pull this off. Powders and potions that can drive a dog mad or make a person hear or see things that aren't there have always been around, and those who made it their business to know about such things certainly did so.

Little Martha may well have succeeded with whatever Varys's plan was, and we would know only its results. It would be just like Varys to be subtle with his poisons to make her lose it and indict herself in the eyes of the entire realm instead of doing something to kill her outright.

Edited by CrypticWeirwood

Share this post


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

Yeah, I'm sure they love him down in Dorne.

They eventually sucked up to his descendants. But keep in mind that nobody who was conquered by this guy actually vilified him.

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

1. Let me start with your basic premise that nobody cares about how about many small folk are killed. Should we care as readers? I'm not a huge, fan of pure moral relativism. Accordingly, while I'm willing to make some allowance for characters because of the norms they grew up in, I'm not quite willing to just dismiss the mass killing of innocents when thinking about these characters.

You can care about that. I do, too. I just point out that people caring about the enemy's people isn't exactly something those people would do. In fact, pretty much nobody cares about the enemy's people during a war. And most definitely not to a degree to allow this concern to influence policy. Because if that was the case there would be no war.

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

2. You seriously think people like Ned Stark or Jon would just kill small folk indiscriminately and not care about it? And remind me again what was Connington's reason for not burning an entire city down? I'm not saying these characters wouldn't tolerate some deaths of innocents in certain circumstances. But, I think just saying nobody cares is a stretch. And what about Brienne when she got her face bitten off? I don't recall her trying to defend the children of the nobility.

Killing innocents themselves? Perhaps not. But the scenario we talk about is not them doing the thing themselves. It is about the framing. Did never ever give any indication he cared about the Sack of King's Landing aside from the Kingslayer's deed and the murder of Elia and her children and how Robert treated that? I don't think so, or do you recall Ned ever hectoring Robert for not taking Tywin's head for the Sack of KL which killed thousands or even tens of thousands of people? I don't.

Connington learned his lesson. He is not going to repeat that mistakes. There are people in this world who take ideals and stories far too seriously...

Brienne had to fight, didn't she? Was it even technically possible that she could just stand there and ignore what was happening?

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

3. So if Dany just ups and burns an entire city for no good reason and thousands of innocent people die, nobody in Westeros will care? Jon Snow wouldn't care? Ned Stark wouldn't care if he were alive? And even if nobody within ASOIAF cared, should we care as readers? If Dany just burned an entire city for no good reason, you really think we shouldn't be revolted by that as readers?

Sure, we should - which is why I cannot buy the idea that she would do that without a pretty good reason. I very much doubt Jon Snow is going to follow mundane human rules after his resurrection. People who have been dead usually have a drastically changed view of things, no? And he is likely going to be one of the people who are going to have to make much more cruel decision than whether a city should burn or not. He might have to decide who starved to death and who lives, who is going to get cannibalized by his brothers, who is going to be killed by the Others (for strategic reasons, because they cannot save all) and who gets a chance to live, etc.

Giving a damn about a bunch of coward traitors following whoever hold KL - and who, if the show can be trusted, betrayed mankind during the crucial war against the Others - is likely not exactly going to be at the top of his list.

3 minutes ago, olibar said:

If I may add one more recent example, how about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WWII?  The US had won the war, but those bombings meant the war ended in the most favorable way possible to us.

Yeah, that's another example. And actually, there are interviews with the heroic pilots bringing literally fire and blood to Japan who actually defend that action in old age precisely because it shortened the war. Those two bombs killed hundreds of thousands of civilians but this is seen as the lesser of two evils in a really disgusting manner.

If the US did not want to get more soldiers killed they could have stopped the war then and there without a Japanese surrender. Nobody forced them actually occupy all the islands, no? Not to mention that nobody invited them to Hawaii either, if my memory is correct, nor are those islands part of America...

The bottom line is that George's work is actually more complex than a pathetic and silly good vs. evil story in relation to things like that. In childish movies the good guys do no wrong, but in the real world nations commit horrible crimes in wars and actually presume to differentiate between worthy and unworthy lives/victims.

I'm not saying that's good or anything. I actually detest that kind of thing. But George's books are complex enough to actually include that kind of thinking. Nobody in camp Dany would ever give a damn about the followers of their enemies. And they would most definitely *never* allow the needs of the enemy smallfolk dictate their political and strategic decisions.

This is like Eisenhower always fretting about 'We cannot bomb the German civilians. What about the German civilians?!' or General Spaatz refusing to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki because of concern for the Japanese civilians.

People who fight a war don't act like that. They only behave like that in childish and clichéd movies. And George's book are more than that. In that sense, the entire plot around Dany's attack here makes no sense. Nobody would actually dissuade her from attacking KL, especially not on behalf of the smallfolk there - people dissuading her would cite the fact that they actually want to rule from KL rather than reduce it to a ruin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

They eventually sucked up to his descendants. But keep in mind that nobody who was conquered by this guy actually vilified him.

That matters because why?

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Connington learned his lesson. He is not going to repeat that mistakes. There are people in this world who take ideals and stories far too seriously...

Question is why did Connington make the "mistake" in the first place. Elaborate on that.

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Brienne had to fight, didn't she? Was it even technically possible that she could just stand there and ignore what was happening?

So the assertion here is that Brienne fought because she had no other choice? Or supposing she had a choice. Are you saying she just let those orphans be killed?

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, that's another example. And actually, there are interviews with the heroic pilots bringing literally fire and blood to Japan who actually defend that action in old age precisely because it shortened the war. Those two bombs killed hundreds of thousands of civilians but this is seen as the lesser of two evils in a really disgusting manner.

Supposing the bomb had been just dropped simply to teach the Japanese civilian population a lesson they wouldn't forget. Would you find that objectionable, even if you were otherwise okay with strategic bombing campaigns.

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 In childish movies the good guys do no wrong, but in the real world nations commit horrible crimes in wars and actually presume to differentiate between worthy and unworthy lives/victims.

So you wouldn't have a problem with anything. I mean do have a problem with Lt. Calley?

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

This is like Eisenhower always fretting about 'We cannot bomb the German civilians. What about the German civilians?!' or General Spaatz refusing to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki because of concern for the Japanese civilians.

Interesting enough I don't think Eisenhower approved of the bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. He was joined in his sentiment by Admiral Halsey, Nimitz, and Leahy.

Share this post


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

Why does everyone keep saying that Dany has gone mad?  Her decision was perfectly rational.

Unlike her father, who was going to burn a city for no strategic reason, the razing of a city by an invader who has enough firepower in reserve and the will (or appearance of the will) to repeat the tactic on other locations is a sound military strategy.  

Furthermore, the complete destruction of the city will allow the victor to control the narrative of what occurred in the histories.  Dany can tell the world that the bells never tolled, that Circie fought until the bitter end, and there is no one alive who can or will say differently.  Or the very few who can can be labeled as Lanister sympathizers and executed.

On the flip side, let's say Dany stops the attack with the bells.  Best case scenario has her deposed within weeks as the call for the "true King" of the Seven Kingdoms to take the throne grows louder and louder.  If she kills Jon, the people revolt and she's lost.  Worst case scenario is that this was another Lanister trap, set up by Tyrion, that ends with her and Drogon dead.

There is no doubt that what Dany did was evil, but it was also sane.

Uh... nope. No it wasn't rational at all.

The Red Keep was in front of her. She could have attacked it and killed Cersei, or at least scared the shit out of all the witnesses... but she chose to attack the commoners while Cersei watched from the window... if Cersei had half a brain cell, she could have escaped on time with Qyburn through the tunnels while Dany ruined her reputation on her own volition...

And "control the narrative..." the northeners were there. There are survivors escaping the city, and Lannister soldiers have probably escaped too. They will tell the truth, the tale of the Mad Queen... and there is a city down to cinders to prove it. What is Dany going to do, hunt the fleeing survivors across Westeros? She won't get them all. There is no way the tale of the Mad Queen won't spread around.

Or maybe she will invent the radio, TV and newspapers so her propaganda can drown the rumors?

Westerosi lords were already swearing loyalty to her. The King of the North was in her palm and in her bed. She could have taken power seamlessly. Now everybody will think she is mad. She will have to keep guard constantly, using terror as her only weapon to keep everybody in line... and is some day Drogon isn't there, she is dead... Not to mention Drogon can't protect her inside castles... she can be assassinated or poisoned...

I used to wish for her to return to Slaver's Bay and rule there, but now I think death would be a more merciful end... the character is ruined...

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

×