Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Daemos said:

I’m saying that for her endgame and with the cards she has been recently dealt, what she did could be not purely emotional and was actually a strategy she decided on. Her own attack with Drogon was extremely calculated and choreographed afterall.

Taking this one step further, the kink in her strategy came when Cersi actually surrendered.  She wasn't expecting it and it gave her pause.  She'd probably been hoping to use the refusal to surrender as her excuse to burn the city.  With that justification gone, she had to decide to either push on or give up the throne (she may have won the battle of KL but she'd already lost the war for the Throne).  

I'd expect we will continue to see her acting rationally in the final episode by trying to change history and officially declare that Cirse never surrendered.  For the outlying kingdoms, that's probably not a hard thing to swallow, and given that they now will have quite a bit more food for the winter given the destruction of Kings Landing, something they might actually be happy about.

Of course the Starks aren't going to stand for it.  Not for the lies and not for the act itself.  Because even though what Dani did was coldly rational, it was also purely evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Sure.  That doesn’t make such deliberate wanton destruction a mere “part of war” after your enemy has surrendered.

It depends on what we are discussing. 

Destroying the entire city like that was of course extremely cruel, and quite crazy too. If D&D had been better writers, it would have been the culmination of Daenarys' gradual turn from an idealistic and considerate leader into a paranoid tyrant. 

But from a legal perspective, there are no codified rules governing warfare in Westeros, merely certain norms about acceptable behavior. According to those it seems like, much like in real history, the residents of castles and cities can only expect merciful treatment if they surrender before they are stormed.

For example, look at how even the very justice oriented Stannis Baratheon was expected to execute the garrison of Storm's End if he had stormed it, or sack King's Landing if he had won at the Blackwater. 

Edited by Khaleesi did nothing wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No.  Even Von Clausewitz would have objected to attacking the civilian population of an enemy after the surrender of that combatant government. What Dany did was not “Total War” it was unjustified slaughter.

You're right. but I wouldn't use modern theorists as an example but rather I'd compare what Dany did more to a Genghis Khan campaign. I think that's a better example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2019 at 12:14 AM, Centurion Piso said:

I don't get into logic debates when it comes to this show because it's not the real story.  I just want to point out that what we saw is the reality of war.  Every war kills civilians.  It's not only the soldiers who died when the Americans dropped the atom bombs in Japan.  A half-assed, uncommitted attitude will result in losing the war for your side.  

Casualties (broken down) estimates?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, olibar said:

Of course the Starks aren't going to stand for it.  Not for the lies and not for the act itself.  Because even though what Dani did was coldly rational, it was also purely evil.

Nothing rational about it. Seriously, her actions have destroyed her chance at ruling.\

There were a million better ways of dealing with the Jon problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

It depends on what we are discussing. 

Destroying the entire city like that was of course extremely cruel, and quite crazy too. If D&D had been better writers, it would have been the culmination of Daenarys' gradual turn from an idealistic and considerate leader into a paranoid tyrant. 

But from a legal perspective, there are no codified rules governing warfare in Westeros, merely certain norms about acceptable behavior. According to those it seems like, much like in real history, the residents of castles and cities can only expect merciful treatment if they surrender before they are stormed.

For example, look at how even the very justice oriented Stannis Baratheon was expected to execute the garrison of Storm's End if he had stormed it, or sack King's Landing if he had won at the Blackwater. 

The rules of war were codified in the nineteenth century, but customary norms have existed since the dawn of warfare. Did violations take place? Sure. But there's a reason something like, say, the Sack of Magdeburg became so infamous, even for the time.

That said, my objection is less about Daenerys doing this - I am fine with her as a villain - and more to do with inconsistency of characterisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys do realize that Cersei never surrendered. You do also realize that Cersei never told the Lannister soldiers to surrenders.

Lannister soldiers in the street acting on their own volition is one thing. The Red Keep, being the central seat of political power, is another.

The Red Keep never surrendered.

The fact that the bells were even supposed to miraculously mean surrender (it is established show canon that the bells have never meant surrender and not a single resident in the city knows that the ringing of the bells meant that the coast is clear and that everything is okay) is all Tyrion.

And Tyrion was trying to orchestrate a false, inauthentic surrender so that Cersei can be smuggled out of the city and no civilians will have to die (impossible with the city full of both enemy combatants and civilians).

Share this post


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

 Not necessarily, but for her to forge a new order, the old order must be destroyed. What happened to KL will become a potent symbol of purification, power, and eventually rebirth for Westeros. History will be redefined as Before Dany and After.

 

 

 

She's not forging a new order. She's claiming the throne as a Targaryen. And torching King's Landing won't destroy the old order as it exists elsewhere. The other kingdoms will kill her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

You guys do realize that Cersei never surrendered. You do also realize that Cersei never told the Lannister soldiers to surrenders.

Lannister soldiers in the street acting on their own volition is one thing. The Red Keep, being the central seat of political power, is another.

The Red Keep never surrendered.

The fact that the bells were even supposed to miraculously mean surrender (it is established show canon that the bells have never meant surrender and not a single resident in the city knows that the ringing of the bells meant that the coast is clear and that everything is okay) is all Tyrion.

And Tyrion was trying to orchestrate a false, inauthentic surrender so that Cersei can be smuggled out of the city and no civilians will have to die (impossible with the city full of both enemy combatants and civilians).

Cersei's army surrendered. Danny didn't wait to find out if Cersei actually surrendered herself, but if she couldn't wait for Jon and Greyworm to take the city, she could have flown over to where Cersei was likely to be and burn things there. Instead, she destroyed a city she meant to rule for zero gain. Except Cersei not getting away on a dinghy. 

Tyrion's plan didn't make it a false surrender. A fleeing Cersei surrenders her army, her possessions, and the city. That's not fake. 

Edited by darmody

Share this post


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

Cersei's army surrendered. Danny didn't wait to find out if Cersei actually surrendered. And if she couldn't wait for Jon and Greyworm to take the city, she could have flown over to where Cersei was likely to be. 

Instead, she destroyed a city she meant to rule for zero gain. Except Cersei not getting away on a dinghy. 

Tyrion's plan didn't make it a false surrender. A fleeing Cersei surrenders her army, her possessions, and the city. That's not fake. 

Cersei's army surrendered without her leave. She expected them to fight until the bitter end. The troops in the Reach that were working for Cersei and that swore themselves to Dany (notice how these troops never appeared again...another plot hole?) surrendered. It doesn't mean that Cersei herself surrendered when her Reachmen vassals did.

And yes: it's a false surrender because the ruler of the city, the enemy Daenerys is fighting against, never actually surrenders. The ruler of the city plans to flee, hide out in a safer location and plot her next move...up until she literally can't.

In any case, Daenerys is wise to distrust and disbelieve a surrender from Cersei. It is also completely human to be infuriated by the fact that Cersei is surrendering now of all times. But in any case, let's focus on Cersei surrendering. Cersei has surrendered, stood down and agreed to parleys, truces and armistices before only to come back with a surprise that she changed her mind or that she lied...and that same surprise usually results in somebody's death.

Cersei is also well-known for laying traps.

If a member of Genghis Khan's army announces that the city that they are attacking has surrender when the ruler of the city has not surrendered...how it is that valid? Will Genghis Khan take it seriously? Especially when he sees no sign that the city ruler has surrendered.

Moreover, why should Daenerys trust Tyrion when he says that the bells mean surrender? Why should she when Tyrion has been wrong more often than right and when he has consistently given bad advice? When Tyrion has been fooled before? his brother who has been caught sneaking around trying to get into King's Landing disappears, his shackles unlocked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SeanF said:

IMHO, it's quite possible that Aegon, his sisters, and (naturally) Maegor would have done the same.  Harrenhall, Planky Town, hundreds of unnamed Dornish settlements were torched. 

I don't remember all of Aegon's war campaigns - had any of the rulers or lords of those places surrendered to Aegon and his sisters first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Daemos said:

I’m saying that for her endgame and with the cards she has been recently dealt, what she did could be not purely emotional and was actually a strategy she decided on. Her own attack with Drogon was extremely calculated and choreographed afterall.

 

After observing Dany's face during the moments when she heard the ringing of the bells, I would say her decision was completely an emotional one; she looked torn, upset, angry, and somewhat confused.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Raksha 2014 said:

I don't remember all of Aegon's war campaigns - had any of the rulers or lords of those places surrendered to Aegon and his sisters first?

Surrender was an option for the Yellow Toad, and the leading nobles.  It was never an option for the Smallfolk. Once the leaders rejected surrender, the Smallfolk could expect no mercy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

You guys do realize that Cersei never surrendered. You do also realize that Cersei never told the Lannister soldiers to surrenders.

Lannister soldiers in the street acting on their own volition is one thing. The Red Keep, being the central seat of political power, is another.

The Red Keep never surrendered.

The fact that the bells were even supposed to miraculously mean surrender (it is established show canon that the bells have never meant surrender and not a single resident in the city knows that the ringing of the bells meant that the coast is clear and that everything is okay) is all Tyrion.

And Tyrion was trying to orchestrate a false, inauthentic surrender so that Cersei can be smuggled out of the city and no civilians will have to die (impossible with the city full of both enemy combatants and civilians).

 

If Daenerys believed that Cersei still intended to fight and had weapons and men to fight with, why didn't she head for the Red Keep and Maegor's and light it all up instead of torching her way through the city streets, streets of running, panicked, helpless civilians?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Raksha 2014 said:

 

If Daenerys believed that Cersei still intended to fight and had weapons and men to fight with, why didn't she head for the Red Keep and Maegor's and light it all up instead of torching her way through the city streets, streets of running, panicked, helpless civilians?  

Because (in her eyes) they are rebels and traitors, who deserve no mercy.  No mercy is what they get.  They were granted a chance to surrender, and they responded by beheading her best friend.  Dany is not making a distinction between Cersei, Lannister soldiers, and civilians. They all deserve death.

That is horrifying to us, but exactly the attitude that many commanders have taken in the past.

During these discussions, the point has often been made that foreign conquerors might act this way, but not a ruler to her own people.  But rulers have frequently behaved savagely towards rebel cities - "Kill them all, for the Lord will recognise his own."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

You guys do realize that Cersei never surrendered. You do also realize that Cersei never told the Lannister soldiers to surrenders.

Lannister soldiers in the street acting on their own volition is one thing. The Red Keep, being the central seat of political power, is another.

The Red Keep never surrendered.

The fact that the bells were even supposed to miraculously mean surrender (it is established show canon that the bells have never meant surrender and not a single resident in the city knows that the ringing of the bells meant that the coast is clear and that everything is okay) is all Tyrion.

And Tyrion was trying to orchestrate a false, inauthentic surrender so that Cersei can be smuggled out of the city and no civilians will have to die (impossible with the city full of both enemy combatants and civilians).

Individual soldiers throwing down their arms is not an invitation to the slaughter all the non-combatants who happen to be near them, correct?  Therefore, what possible justification is there for either Dany or Grey Worm’s actions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raksha 2014 said:

 

After observing Dany's face during the moments when she heard the ringing of the bells, I would say her decision was completely an emotional one; she looked torn, upset, angry, and somewhat confused.  

For the record that doesn’t in any way justify her slaughter of non-combatants or surrendering troops.

Share this post


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

Because (in her eyes) they are rebels and traitors, who deserve no mercy.  No mercy is what they get.  They were granted a chance to surrender, and they responded by beheading her best friend.  Dany is not making a distinction between Cersei, Lannister soldiers, and civilians. They all deserve death.

That is horrifying to us, but exactly the attitude that many commanders have taken in the past.

During these discussions, the point has often been made that foreign conquerors might act this way, but not a ruler to her own people.  But rulers have frequently behaved savagely towards rebel cities - "Kill them all, for the Lord will recognise his own."

 

 

But would Christ, who that man purportedly worshiped, have agreed with such sentiment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

But would Christ, who that man purportedly worshiped, have agreed with such sentiment?

No.  How people can justify mass slaughter in the name of Christ is a mystery.  But, plenty of people have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SeanF said:

No.  How people can justify mass slaughter in the name of Christ is a mystery.  But, plenty of people have done.

Plenty of people have attempted such justifications.  I don’t believe anyone has ever succeeded.

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

×