My biggest issue with the finale is that they tried to make us feel guilty for supporting Daenerys' journey.

[SeanF]

3 minutes ago, RYShh said:

Irrelevant. You must be joking if you think Robb ordered to hang those tavern girls, if Robb knew he would hang these men for that crime.

Daenerys specifically killed and executed prisoners, then she did the same at KL.  Both Robb, and even Tywin held prisoners in the war. You're basically reaching to defend Daenerys.

Tywin held prisoners as slaves and to be tortured for information.  That places him in a worse light than Daenerys giving the choice to switch sides or die.

Robb conducted a chevauchee into the West, and seized livestock belonging to peasants.  That may seem like no big deal, but it would mean that thousands of civilians would starve.  I'm not saying that to make out that Robb is a monster, simply pointing out that medieval warfare is brutal.  I'm not claiming Dany is a saint;  simply saying that her brutality was nothing out of the ordinary, until D & D decide to have her burn 500, 000 people for reasons.

[RYShh]

Just now, SeanF said:

Tywin held prisoners as slaves and to be tortured for information.  That places him in a worse light than Daenerys giving the choice to switch sides or die.

Robb conducted a chevauchee into the West, and seized livestock belonging to peasants.  That may seem like no big deal, but it would mean that thousands of civilians would starve.  I'm not saying that to make out that Robb is a monster, simply pointing out that medieval warfare is brutal.  I'm not claiming Dany is a saint;  simply saying that her brutality was nothing out of the ordinary, until D & D decide to have her burn 500, 000 people for reasons.

Dude, you're spreading misinformation seriously. Tywin asked why those prisoners are not in their cells, then they said they have no room left in the cells for prisoners since they had too many prisoners , then Tywin find another solution and asked them to use in the work, not as slaves, but as labors. I can't believe you're actually arguing against this by using a false information.

Daenerys is not giving a choice at all, that's what cruel tyrants do, join me or die. That's savagery, not suitable for Westeros. She can do that to slaves at Essos, but there are no slaves in Westeros.

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, RYShh said:

Dude, you're spreading misinformation seriously. Tywin asked why those prisoners are not in their cells, then they said they have no room left in the cells for prisoners since they had too many prisoners , then Tywin find another solution and asked them to use in the work, not as slaves, but as labors. I can't believe you're actually arguing against this by using a false information.

Daenerys is not giving a choice at all, that's what cruel tyrants do, join me or die. That's savagery, not suitable for Westeros. She can do that to slaves at Essos, but there are no slaves in Westeros.

What do you think would have happened to a prisoner of Tywin's who refused to labour?  Harrenhall under Tywin was a concentration camp.

[RYShh]

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

What do you think would have happened to a prisoner of Tywin's who refused to labour?

That's something they didn't prefer, because they had no room left for prisoners, it's still better than forcing them to bend the knee.

Daenerys specifically said she will take no prisoners, that's the end of it. And even Tywin was better than her in that regard, not even talking about Robb or other nobles in Westeros.

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, RYShh said:

That's something they didn't prefer, because they had no room left for prisoners, it's still better than forcing them to bend the knee.

Daenerys specifically said she will take no prisoners, that's the end of it. And even Tywin was better than her in that regard, not even talking about Robb or other nobles in Westeros.

Personally, I don't think there's much choice between fight for me or die and labour for me or die, except the conditions in Dany's army were likely better than the conditions in Harrenhall.

[Br16]

16 minutes ago, RYShh said:

They all fought for Rhaegar, not for Aerys. When Rhaegar died on Trident, it was all over. Even that's irrelevant since House Targaryen lost the crown, lost the IT, and lost Westeros. Taryls were obeying the current ruler of Westeros, and the Iron Throne and the crown.

What Daenerys had? Unsullied army and Dothraki, savages were fighting for Daenerys, not even a Westeros army. Randyll was defending his own country from savages and the beasts that breaths fire. Even at some point Targaryens had to lock all of their dragons in the city, not only using savages also using the dragons could considered as a crime. Tarlys had no reason to bend the knee while their Queen still holds the Iron Throne, Daenerys had no right to execute prisoners, because she wasn't the queen, plain and simple. This the reason why Tyrion and then Varys started to plot against her. Defending Daenerys at this point is totally baseless.

Their hearts may have been with Rhaegar, but the law was with Aerys, who as the Sovereign was the head of House Targaryen. 

Remember, this is Absolute Monarchy we are talking about, in their view they can never lose power no matter how hopeless the situation was, unless they bent the knee. As Viserys and later Daenerys never bent the knee, they considered themselves the rightful rulers of Westeros, and everybody else was a traitor. How cruel, how foreign or how scary Dany's army was is irrelevant  as the Monarch, being above the law, may hire whoever they wish to be in their armies. Cersei may sit the Iron Throne, but from a Targaryen legal perspective, Cersei has no more rights than a thief or a squatter. So from Dany's legal perspective, everyone fighting against her should be begging for pardons.

 

[RYShh]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

Personally, I don't think there's much choice between fight for me or die and labour for me or die, except the conditions in Dany's army were likely better than the conditions in Harrenhall.

Because their cells were flowing with other prisoners?  

And he still doesn't ask to bend the knee, just asking them to work so he could stop the execution. Daenerys doesn't care, takes no prisoners in any circumstances. That's the difference you need to understand.

[RYShh]

4 minutes ago, Br16 said:

Their hearts may have been with Rhaegar, but the law was with Aerys, who as the Sovereign was the head of House Targaryen. 

Remember, this is Absolute Monarchy we are talking about, in their view they can never lose power no matter how hopeless the situation was, unless they bent the knee. As Viserys and later Daenerys never bent the knee, they considered themselves the rightful rulers of Westeros, and everybody else was a traitor. How cruel, how foreign or how scary Dany's army was is irrelevant  as the Monarch, being above the law, may hire whoever they wish to be in their armies. Cersei may sit the Iron Throne, but from a Targaryen legal perspective, Cersei has no more rights than a thief or a squatter. So from Dany's legal perspective, everyone fighting against her should be begging for pardons.

 

 

Good, because Daenerys wasn't the monarch, she wasn't holding the KL, the capital and the Iron Throne. And no one swear fealty to her, especially not Taryls.

 

[Br16]

5 minutes ago, RYShh said:

 

Good, because Daenerys wasn't the monarch, she wasn't holding the KL, the capital and the Iron Throne. And no one swear fealty to her, especially not Taryls.

 

Holding KL gives the holder strong de facto power. But Sovereignty lies in the person of the monarch not the city or Iron throne. So from House Targaryen's legal perspective, Daenerys was the Queen Regnant the moment Visery's died, and Robert, Joffrey Tommen and Cersei were just a string of squatters. Moreover, She considers herself the rightful heir to all the oaths of fealty sworn to Aegon I Conqueror, which includes the Tarlys. 

[Nowy Tends]

47 minutes ago, RYShh said:

Not taking any prisoners after a battle is something only savages would do.

Sure, like Henry V did after the battle of Agincourt… 

History is marked by massacres of prisoners for various reasons, the most common of which is the impossibility to feed and monitor them.

[Nowy Tends]

31 minutes ago, RYShh said:

That's savagery, not suitable for Westeros. 

Are you kidding? What about the Boltons and their habit of skinning people alive? What about Locke and his charming companions? 

Do you think Amory Lorch wanted to make prisoners when he attacked Yoren's party?

[RYShh]

18 minutes ago, Nowy Tends said:

Are you kidding? What about the Boltons and their habit of skinning people alive? What about Locke and his charming companions? 

Do you think Amory Lorch wanted to make prisoners when he attacked Yoren's party?

I think you are kidding most of the time when you're blindly defending Daenerys. Boltons were under the Stark's command, they outlawed the flaying skins. 

''Robb: My father outlawed flaying in the North.''

-S02E04

Amory Lorch? You're totally kidding yes, even that guy took prisoners, Arya and Gendry's group. They just needed to kill Robert's bastards due to Joffrey's orders.

Once again you're comparing Daenerys to the Boltons, which is only helping to explain my point.

[RYShh]

46 minutes ago, Br16 said:

Holding KL gives the holder strong de facto power. But Sovereignty lies in the person of the monarch not the city or Iron throne. So from House Targaryen's legal perspective, Daenerys was the Queen Regnant the moment Visery's died, and Robert, Joffrey Tommen and Cersei were just a string of squatters. Moreover, She considers herself the rightful heir to all the oaths of fealty sworn to Aegon I Conqueror, which includes the Tarlys. 

Her perspective doesn't matter, only the facts does. She didn't have the capital and the Iron Throne. She even said to Tyrion that they will discuss the succession after she wears the crown, because she was not the monarch yet, Cersei and House Lannister were.

[Br16]

3 minutes ago, RYShh said:

Her perspective doesn't matter, only the facts does. She didn't have the capital and the Iron Throne. She even said to Tyrion that they will discuss the succession after she wears the crown, because she was not the monarch yet, Cersei and House Lannister were.

The facts are that Cersei's has no claim to the throne under either Baratheon or Targaryen law. Baratheon usurped the crown from Targareyn,  and Lannister usurped the crown from Baratheon. the capital and iron throne does not matter since a thief cannot pass title, just like if you stole the crown jewels and possessed them, it does not make you King. 

"Wearing the crown" merely refers to the coronation. In succession law, the moment the King dies, the heir becomes king crowned or not. This is also the law used by British Monarchy. Moreover, she only said that to fob Tyrion off for the moment, it was not an admittance of not being Queen. 

[Nowy Tends]

4 minutes ago, RYShh said:

Once again you're comparing Daenerys to the Boltons, which is only helping to explain my point.

I'm not comparing anyone to anyone, and you simply don't have a point when you say "savagery is not suitable for Westeros". 

What happened to the Ironborns in Moat Cailin, again? Did Ramsey said "hey guys you're lucky: Ned Stark outlawed flaying in the North!"

[RYShh]

4 minutes ago, Br16 said:

The facts are that Cersei's has no claim to the throne under either Baratheon or Targaryen law. Baratheon usurped the crown from Targareyn,  and Lannister usurped the crown from Baratheon. the capital and iron throne does not matter since a thief cannot pass title, just like if you stole the crown jewels and possessed them, it does not make you King. 

"Wearing the crown" merely refers to the coronation. In succession law, the moment the King dies, the heir becomes king crowned or not. This is also the law used by British Monarchy. Moreover, she only said that to fob Tyrion off for the moment, it was not an admittance of not being Queen. 

And Targaryens usurped the North from Starks, and then they usurped the Westerlands from Lannisters, they usurped the Dorne from martells, etc. etc. That's what they call right of conquest, no one usurping anything because there is no end to that excuse.

The fact is she didn't have the capital, the iron throne and she didn't wear the crown yet, thus she wasn't the Queen of Tarlys, she had no right to execute them for betrayal, especially if you think Targaryens still are the monarch after losing the war to the Robert Baratheon and after losing the entire Westeros, you're totally wrong.

6 minutes ago, Nowy Tends said:

I'm not comparing anyone to anyone, and you simply don't have a point when you say "savagery is not suitable for Westeros". 

What happened to the Ironborns in Moat Cailin, again? Did Ramsey said "hey guys you're lucky: Ned Stark outlawed flaying in the North!"

Thanks for comparing Daenerys to the Boltons, I can agree with that notion that Daenerys is as cruel as Boltons and she deserved to die like Boltons did.

[Br16]

13 minutes ago, RYShh said:

And Targaryens usurped the North from Starks, and then they usurped the Westerlands from Lannisters, they usurped the Dorne from martells, etc. etc. That's what they call right of conquest, no one usurping anything because there is no end to that excuse.

The fact is she didn't have the capital, the iron throne and she didn't wear the crown yet, thus she wasn't the Queen of Tarlys, she had no right to execute them for betrayal, especially if you think Targaryens still are the monarch after losing the war to the Robert Baratheon and after losing the entire Westeros, you're totally wrong.

The difference is that the Starks, Martells and Lannisters bent the knee to House Targaryen, and the ones that didn't (Gardners) were made extinct.  A Royal house can only lose power by either bending the knee, or being made extinct.

House Targaryen is headed by Daenerys, who did not bent the knee to either Baratheon or Lannister. Thus, no matter how much de facto power the Lannisters amass, they have not yet solidified their right of conquest. Therefore, House Targaryen are still the rulers of Westeros even after they were forced into exile. Why do you think Robert was so obsessed with assassinating Daenerys? It was an attempt to extinguish Targaryen legal power. 

Thus, the legal facts are that title to the iron throne belongs to Daenerys, and that the oaths of fealty sworn by the Tarlys to House Targaryen during the conquest are still valid as House Targaryen has not yielded and is not extinct.  Thus, as soon as Tarly was captured, the matter was not of being between two legitimate combatant parties with POW style rights, but between judge and traitor. 

[RYShh]

17 minutes ago, Br16 said:

The difference is that the Starks, Martells and Lannisters bent the knee to House Targaryen, and the ones that didn't (Gardners) were made extinct.  A Royal house can only lose power by either bending the knee, or being made extinct.

House Targaryen is headed by Daenerys, who did not bent the knee to either Baratheon or Lannister. Thus, no matter how much de facto power the Lannisters amass, they have not yet solidified their right of conquest. Therefore, House Targaryen are still the rulers of Westeros even after they were forced into exile. Why do you think Robert was so obsessed with assassinating Daenerys? It was an attempt to extinguish Targaryen legal power. 

Thus, the legal facts are that title to the iron throne belongs to Daenerys, and that the oaths of fealty sworn by the Tarlys to House Targaryen during the conquest are still valid as House Targaryen has not yielded and is not extinct.  Thus, as soon as Tarly was captured, the matter was not of being between two legitimate combatant parties with POW style rights, but between judge and traitor. 

You forget the fact that Tarlys bent the knee to House Lannister as well, they openly switched sides and swear fealty to them, because Lannisters were holding the throne. Targaryens rule lawfully has extinguished after Robert's war, bending to knee to them isn't important as they were running away from them, they lost their kingdom and they lost their throne. Targaryens lost their monarch legally due to right of conquest and they were in exile. Robert's coronation happened and the entire Westeros accepted Robert as their king while Targaryens were on exile. They didn't have any right after Robert's coronation, and that's law, like it or not.

Robert was obssessed with assasinating Daenerys because he hates Targaryens. He specifically said that to Ned, because of what Rhaegar did, lol. And you are asking this question? Seriously? 

Daenerys has no right to talk about Targaryen line when she didn't even try to stop his brother Viserys's execution, so according to you, and according to her claim, Viserys was the rightful king, and he was her king. Yet she did nothing to stop Drogo when they killed ''king'' Viserys. She doesn't care any of that. And she know she wasn't the queen yet as she admitted to Tyrion, plain and simple.

[Nowy Tends]

22 minutes ago, RYShh said:

Daenerys has no right to talk about Targaryen line when she didn't even try to stop his brother Viserys's execution, so according to you, and according to her claim, Viserys was the rightful king, and he was her king. Yet she did nothing to stop Drogo when they killed ''king'' Viserys. She doesn't care any of that. And she know she wasn't the queen yet as she admitted to Tyrion, plain and simple.

Wow, you "read" this story (book or show it doesn't matter for this scene) as it were a news item related by the Daily Mirror…

Something else is happening in this scene. 

Not even talking about the fact that under no circumstances could she have saved Visery's head.

[tallTale]

1 hour ago, RYShh said:

Daenerys has no right to talk about Targaryen line when she didn't even try to stop his brother Viserys's execution, so according to you, and according to her claim, Viserys was the rightful king, and he was her king. Yet she did nothing to stop Drogo when they killed ''king'' Viserys. She doesn't care any of that. And she know she wasn't the queen yet as she admitted to Tyrion, plain and simple.

You conveniently are omitting the part where Viserys held a weapon to Daeny's throat and threatened her and her unborn baby's life. Viserys deserved his fate, and Daeny was right not to stop his execution (not that she had the authority to do so anyways!)