Jump to content

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Deminelle said:

In a sense this could be viewed as Dany "taxing" from Cersei the people she didn't send to help them against NK. Instead Cersei cowardly waited for the fight against the dead weaken the Northern troops and then conquer them.

I don't understand what you're trying to say.  If Cersei HAD sent anyone to help against the NK, it would have been soldiers, not civilians.  She promised her army, not everyone man, woman and child in KL.  So if Daenerys wanted to "tax" Cersei for the people she should have sent (which I think is a terrible, nonsensical thing to do, but I'll play along) why wouldn't she have just targeted the Lannister army, and leave the smallfolk alone?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Red Dragon10 said:

I don't understand what you're trying to say.  If Cersei HAD sent anyone to help against the NK, it would have been soldiers, not civilians.  She promised her army, not everyone man, woman and child in KL.  So if Daenerys wanted to "tax" Cersei for the people she should have sent (which I think is a terrible, nonsensical thing to do, but I'll play along) why wouldn't she have just targeted the Lannister army, and leave the smallfolk alone?  

If she wanted to tax them, to make good Northern losses. then she could have just taxed them.  

Share this post


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

If she wanted to tax them, to make good Northern losses. then she could have just taxed them.  

I'm guessing Deminelle is going for a "eye for an eye" type justification.  Where money would not be sufficient to pay for lives. 

Edited by Red Dragon10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Red Dragon10 said:

I don't understand what you're trying to say.  If Cersei HAD sent anyone to help against the NK, it would have been soldiers, not civilians.  She promised her army, not everyone man, woman and child in KL.  So if Daenerys wanted to "tax" Cersei for the people she should have sent (which I think is a terrible, nonsensical thing to do, but I'll play along) why wouldn't she have just targeted the Lannister army, and leave the smallfolk alone?  

 

1 hour ago, Red Dragon10 said:

I'm guessing Deminelle is going for a "eye for an eye" type justification.  Where money would not be sufficient to pay for lives. 

Thanks, "eye for an eye" is close to what I mean. It's hard for me to formulate my thoughts in English on this.

Because since Cersei did not send her men to help North, she already sentenced lots of common people to die. Even though it's only in theory. We can only guess how many more could have survived if she had sent her army to help.

Yet it's the thought that counts. Cersei didn't give a damn about them and without actually doing anything violent, she caused the death of many. 

That is sort of equivalent to Dany killing Cersei's people.

Edited by Deminelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is again trying to shift blame from Dany.

Cersei did not make her nuke the city. Sansa did not. It was Dany's action, Dany's decision. Dany made it pretty clear it has nothing to do with any "tax" or so - it has to do with expressing love for her. Westeros didn't, so she will rule by fear. And to drive the fear home, she will immolate the biggest city. She did not want to make the people of King's Landing afraid. She wanted to make the whole continent afraid. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2019 at 1:22 PM, OldGimletEye said:

I wonder if she changed her opinion after meeting the legions of Suetonious Paulinus. One doesn't just casually mess around with a couple of Roman Legions.

It turned out badly for her, and Paulinus behaved just as horribly in victory as she did, before he was recalled (of all people, Nero realised that the Britons had been pushed too far).

I think it's an interesting parallel, because while she had very real grievances against the Romans, she didn't just direct her revenge against the Romans.  She regarded any Briton who had accepted Roman rule, including their women and children, as being just as guilty as the Romans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2019 at 6:29 PM, Hoo said:

It's not for the heck of it.  Bottom line, strategic goal is to destroy the enemy.  Part of that is to destroy the population. because when there is no enemy population, there is no enemy, and the goal is to destroy the enemy.  Which is why civilians suffered throughout the history, they were a strategic enemy. 

Not quite.  The goal of aerial bombardment is to 1. destroy the enemies ability to conduct the war (destroy factories and infrastructure) and 2. to destroy the morale of the enemy population so that they force their government to surrender.  Destroying the enemy population outright was never a goal.

#2 was a common belief during WW2 that has been discredited since.  Bombing creates a 'bunker mentality' that actually unites the enemy population through their shared horrors.

Share this post


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

Not quite.  The goal of aerial bombardment is to 1. destroy the enemies ability to conduct the war (destroy factories and infrastructure) and 2. to destroy the morale of the enemy population so that they force their government to surrender.  Destroying the enemy population outright was never a goal.

#2 was a common belief during WW2 that has been discredited since.  Bombing creates a 'bunker mentality' that actually unites the enemy population through their shared horrors.

But, most importantly, the Allies didn’t continue bombing after fighting forces laid down arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/15/2019 at 1:36 AM, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

the residents of castles and cities can only expect merciful treatment if they surrender before they are stormed.

True, this was (unfortunely) the way medieval warfare was like. Just look at the 1st Crusade. The whole Bells=surrender=unconditional mercy is just wishful thinking only Tyrion ( who wanted to desperately save Jaime's happiness) and somebody raised by Ned Stark would believe in.

Edited by Br16

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

×