Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MagicPen

Dany burning the Tarly's is not a indication of madness

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

This narrative really needs to stop. It's the go to narrative to try and justify the writing this season.

Jamie once posed a valid question to Ned: Would he have respected him more if he would have stabbed the Mad King in the belly, instead of the back.

Keeping that logic in mind, there's no difference between burning somebody alive, or killing them with a sword. Yes there are levels of cruelty in the act of killing, and of course flaying someone alive is more horrible than let's say decapitating a person.

Dany didn't kill Lord Tarly and his son out of cruelty. She killed them because they are her enemies ( who wish to kill her btw if that's not exactly clear ), who refused to bend the knee ( i know, i know its funny when she says it)  when beaten.

In times of war you cannot afford to show mercy to someone that wants to murder you, especially when you give them a chance to surrender and they spit on it. Now if you keep in mind that they these guys were generals, and they did this in front of their beaten army, there's no way Dany or any other ruler will have any other options than executing them.

Holding them hostage would not be an option either, as they hold no value. These are the guys that have just sacked Highgarden, she cannot put them in charge or anything after the war.

 

 

 

 

Edited by MagicPen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whole Dany plot since she came to Westeros is unconvincing. Everyone is shocked about this season but signs of it were already visible in s7. The show feels abbreviated synopsis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a sign of her having a ruthless streak, which makes her no different from Tywin.

Additional steps were required by the writers to establish madness. I'm sure it's easier to do that in a book, since you have POV, but it surely it needed something more than a two-episode meltdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daenerys' "Join me or Die" procomation is clearly madness. The expectation that a surrenduring force will join your cause out of fear is absurd. They were no longer enemy combatants, they were enemy POWs. There is a huge difference. They were disarmed and defeated. She had a responsibility as the victor to care for those she conqued. She can make an offer and allow them to join her side. That is acceptable, even reasonable. But to kill anyone who stands by their duty is madness. That is the Targaryen cruelty on display. The inability to see anything from another's perspective. The lack of Empathy. Wiping out an entire Noble house on a whim, against the advice of your consulars, because you are angry these people you defeated don't like you? Madness, clearly. 

For the sake of argumant let's make a comparison between similar events within the series. Daenerys fought the Lannisters at High Garden to a decisive victory and wished to have them join her cause. Stannis fought the Wildlings at Castle Black to a decisive victory and wished to have them join his cause. Both instances are easily comperable. 

Danerys offered all her POWs the choice to join or die. They refused. She then proceeded to wipe out an entire Noble House to instil fear in their men. Stannis in the same situation offerred the Wildlings pardons, land and titles south of the wall. They refused. He executed one man, condemned by his own actions (Mance deserted the Night's Watch). He then proceeded to save all of their families by using his ships and sailors to evacuate Hardholm. They refused to fight for him and he still saved all their lives executing one man. Stannis showed compassion and respect for his foes. He understood why they fought and took that into account. Danerys chose to rule through fear. She didn't care about anyone's perspective but her own and couldn't stand being spurned by a people she defeated. Madness vs Reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the manner of killing. Sword or fire. It's her inability to create love, faith respect. The Tarlys were the only honorable men there, the ones who did not bow just to save their lives. And hold to their oaths.
She was expecting men to break their vows. Thus she can't expect them to hold hers.

IMO, it was not madness. But inability or unwillingness to understand the others, her would be subjects. Otherwise said, her unfitness to rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Stannis-The True King said:

Daenerys' "Join me or Die" procomation is clearly madness. The expectation that a surrenduring force will join your cause out of fear is absurd. They were no longer enemy combatants, they were enemy POWs. There is a huge difference. They were disarmed and defeated. She had a responsibility as the victor to care for those she conqued. She can make an offer and allow them to join her side. That is acceptable, even reasonable. But to kill anyone who stands by their duty is madness. That is the Targaryen cruelty on display. The inability to see anything from another's perspective. The lack of Empathy. Wiping out an entire Noble house on a whim, against the advice of your consulars, because you are angry these people you defeated don't like you? Madness, clearly. 

For the sake of argumant let's make a comparison between similar events within the series. Daenerys fought the Lannisters at High Garden to a decisive victory and wished to have them join her cause. Stannis fought the Wildlings at Castle Black to a decisive victory and wished to have them join his cause. Both instances are easily comperable. 

Danerys offered all her POWs the choice to join or die. They refused. She then proceeded to wipe out an entire Noble House to instil fear in their men. Stannis in the same situation offerred the Wildlings pardons, land and titles south of the wall. They refused. He executed one man, condemned by his own actions (Mance deserted the Night's Watch). He then proceeded to save all of their families by using his ships and sailors to evacuate Hardholm. They refused to fight for him and he still saved all their lives executing one man. Stannis showed compassion and respect for his foes. He understood why they fought and took that into account. Danerys chose to rule through fear. She didn't care about anyone's perspective but her own and couldn't stand being spurned by a people she defeated. Madness vs Reason.

The Wildlings are explicitly foreigners from outside of the realm. They owed no lord or King any allegiance. 

The Tarlys are lords. They owe allegiance to the Iron Throne. They actively chose to side with a kinslaying, incestous usurper queen against a woman with a valid claim. The only valid claim as far as anyone knows. At that point they are traitors to Daenerys and she is well within her rights to execute them. She does not execute them on a whim Randyll Tarly is given a choice to bend the knee. He refuses. Tyrion suggests he take the black. He shoots that down. There is no third option beyond death for him. Dickon then also marches forward and chooses to die. Tyrion fails to persuade him not to commit suicide. What is Daenerys supposed to do at that point? It is not her fault that the Tarlys are both being unreasonable idiots and begging her to execute them. 

Do you honestly mean to say that if it was Stannis vs Cersei and Stannis captured a lord who had deliberately sided with Cersei against him, refuses an offer to bend the knee and refuses to go to the Wall Stannis wouldn't have executed him? That he would have thrown him in a cell until he reconsidered rather than obliging his death wish? Randyll was a traitor who spurned repeated offers of mercy and Dickon was a suicidal moron. It is not Daenery's job to talk people out of killing themselves and even if it was her failure to do so does not make her mad or unreasonable. 

If the scene with the Tarlys was supposed to present Daenerys as mad or unreasonable then it is a complete failure. It doesn't even need to be reworked much to make Daenerys actually appear in a bad light. Have everything go the same until Dickon steps forward at which point Randyll should try desperately to go back on his words and offer to take the black or bend the knee in order to spare his son. Then have Daenerys refuse (they made their choice) and burn them both. Now you have something approaching Mad Queen Dany. What we got was simply not that. 

Share this post


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

It's not the manner of killing. Sword or fire. It's her inability to create love, faith respect. The Tarlys were the only honorable men there, the ones who did not bow just to save their lives. And hold to their oaths.
She was expecting men to break their vows. Thus she can't expect them to hold hers.

IMO, it was not madness. But inability or unwillingness to understand the others, her would be subjects. Otherwise said, her unfitness to rule.

You mean the Tarlys who betrayed their liege lords (the Tyrells) and sided with Cersei Lannister over Daenerys Targaryen? Those honorable guys? 

Dickon you can make a case for being honorable.  He was just following his father. Randyll Tarly however is simply a xenophobic (to the point of absurdity), treacherous asshole who deliberately chose an incestous murderess with no claim to the Iron Throne over the last surviving Targaryen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, The One Who Kneels said:

The Wildlings are explicitly foreigners from outside of the realm. They owed no lord or King any allegiance. 

The Tarlys are lords. They owe allegiance to the Iron Throne. They actively chose to side with a kinslaying, incestous usurper queen against a woman with a valid claim. The only valid claim as far as anyone knows. At that point they are traitors to Daenerys and she is well within her rights to execute them. She does not execute them on a whim Randyll Tarly is given a choice to bend the knee. He refuses. Tyrion suggests he take the black. He shoots that down. There is no third option beyond death for him. Dickon then also marches forward and chooses to die. Tyrion fails to persuade him not to commit suicide. What is Daenerys supposed to do at that point? It is not her fault that the Tarlys are both being unreasonable idiots and begging her to execute them. 

Do you honestly mean to say that if it was Stannis vs Cersei and Stannis captured a lord who had deliberately sided with Cersei against him, refuses an offer to bend the knee and refuses to go to the Wall Stannis wouldn't have executed him? That he would have thrown him in a cell until he reconsidered rather than obliging his death wish? Randyll was a traitor who spurned repeated offers of mercy and Dickon was a suicidal moron. It is not Daenery's job to talk people out of killing themselves and even if it was her failure to do so does not make her mad or unreasonable. 

If the scene with the Tarlys was supposed to present Daenerys as mad or unreasonable then it is a complete failure. It doesn't even need to be reworked much to make Daenerys actually appear in a bad light. Have everything go the same until Dickon steps forward at which point Randyll should try desperately to go back on his words and offer to take the black or bend the knee in order to spare his son. Then have Daenerys refuse (they made their choice) and burn them both. Now you have something approaching Mad Queen Dany. What we got was simply not that. 

Stannis was in the same position. He did not threaten the Free Folk with death in exchage for service. Be fought them until they surrendered and made an offer to their leader in private. He gave Mance Rayder time to think over his options. He didn't just walk up to the man and force him to decide on the spot. He also offered compelling incentives for his people. When Mance still refused be was executed for his crimes. But that was the end of it. The conflict was over. Stannis didn't continue to harass the Free Folk into service or use the death of their King as a persuasive fear tactic. Had Tarly's men not joined Daenerys she would have executed them all one by one. Stannis would not have held the bannermen to the same standard as their lord. It was their duty to follow his orders. These are the people both characters believe are theirs to rule. For Stannis the most important title is "Protector of the Realm" for Daenerys it's simply "Queen". Even after the Free Folk refused Stannis' offer he took action to protect their lives and the lives of their families. Daenerys would simply kill anyone who doesn't immediatly call her Queen. Fire and Blood indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The One Who Kneels said:

You mean the Tarlys who betrayed their liege lords (the Tyrells) and sided with Cersei Lannister over Daenerys Targaryen? Those honorable guys?

If you go this way. Robert defeated the Targaryen. Daenerys has no legitimate claim. The Tyrells betrayed the crown. It's the crown's subject duty to stick with his king. In our real world, if your boss ask you to do something illegal, the justice will not care you had orders. You answer to the highest authority.

Just me, but oaths are crap. They are no better than the cause they serve. Serve a crap like Joffrey and you can't get more honor than he deserve. Beside, you always end up with dilemma. Like Jaime said, you can't keep them all. The bottom line is, Randyl did what he truly thought honorable, nothing for his petty advantage. And Daenerys burned him for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Lord Stannis-The True King said:

Stannis was in the same position. He did not threaten the Free Folk with death in exchage for service. Be fought them until they surrendered and made an offer to their leader in private. He gave Mance Rayder time to think over his options. He didn't just walk up to the man and force him to decide on the spot. He also offered compelling incentives for his people. When Mance still refused be was executed for his crimes. But that was the end of it. The conflict was over. Stannis didn't continue to harass the Free Folk into service or use the death of their King as a persuasive fear tactic. Had Tarly's men not joined Daenerys she would have executed them all one by one. Stannis would not have held the bannermen to the same standard as their lord. It was their duty to follow his orders. These are the people both characters believe are theirs to rule. For Stannis the most important title is "Protector of the Realm" for Daenerys it's simply "Queen". Even after the Free Folk refused Stannis' offer he took action to protect their lives and the lives of their families. Daenerys would simply kill anyone who doesn't immediatly call her Queen. Fire and Blood indeed.

He was not. The Free Folk, as I stated earlier, were not lords sworn to the Iron Throne. They were not taking part in a civil war for said throne. When you pick a side in a civil war you automatically become a traitor to the other side in that civil war. Traitors don't have any options other than bending the knee, exile, or death. Tarly spurned the first two. Executing him was the only option left. Every monarch would've had to do the same. In terms of following orders the Tarlys were bannermen to the Tyrells who sided with Daenerys. Randyll Tarly was a traitor in every way possible for a Westerosi lord. 

13 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

If you go this way. Robert defeated the Targaryen. Daenerys has no legitimate claim. The Tyrells betrayed the crown. It's the crown's subject duty to stick with his king. In our real world, if your boss ask you to do something illegal, the justice will not care you had orders. You answer to the highest authority.

Just me, but oaths are crap. They are no better than the cause they serve. Serve a crap like Joffrey and you can't get more honor than he deserve. Beside, you always end up with dilemma. Like Jaime said, you can't keep them all. The bottom line is, Randyl did what he truly thought honorable, nothing for his petty advantage. And Daenerys burned him for it.

And the Baratheons (real and fake) were all dead which makes the last surviving Targaryen a pretty good candidate no? But my point was not to say that the Tarlys owed Daenerys allegiance but that they certainly owed nothing to Cersei Lannister, a murderous usurper with zero claim to the Iron Throne. Siding with her over the Tyrells (their liege lord) was not an honorable move. Quite the opposite.

And Cersei's cause was a giant pile of crap. She was an incestous, kinslaying, mass-murdering usurper with a zombie bodyguard. Again there is no dilemma. You're starting from the perspective that Cersei Lannister had some sort of legitimate claim to the Iron Throne and she absolutely didn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, The One Who Kneels said:

And Cersei's cause was a giant pile of crap. She was an incestous, kinslaying, mass-murdering usurper with a zombie bodyguard.

That is what I said about serving crap. But Barristan did the same. I have no love for men like them. Barristan standing guard for murderous Aerys. But in this universe where oaths are put above anything else, Daenerys should have seen who of the Tarlys and the Lannisters deserved respect. She was a fool if she thought she would gain anything by threatening anyone there.

Share this post


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

That is what I said about serving crap. But Barristan did the same. I have no love for men like them. Barristan standing guard for murderous Aerys. But in this universe where oaths are put above anything else, Daenerys should have seen who of the Tarlys and the Lannisters deserved respect. She was a fool if she thought she would gain anything by threatening anyone there.

Barristan absolutely was sworn to Aerys though. The conflict between obeying your superior (and which superior to obey if there are lords between you and the king) and doing what's right is absolutely a real one that many characters face and many lords would face under conditions where both sides had a valid claim to the throne. There was no such conflict for the Tarlys. They had sworn no oaths to Cersei, Cersei had no claim to the Iron Throne, and were in no way beholden to her. But they freely chose to side with her while betraying the Tyrells. That's not honorable. 

You can call Randyll Tarly obstinate, stubborn etc. but you can't call him honorable based on what he did in S7. 

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
Sign in to follow this  

×