Daenerys the Terrible?

[Rose of Red Lake]

Cersei is just doing what any other Targaryen would have done, in her love life and in her political moves. The Targaryens gave Cersei the script and she's just following it. Of course Dany would have her own Harrenhal but with more pizazz! because she's special like that. 

[Techmaester]

6 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Daughter of Mad King arrives with horde of Dothraki, Ironborn, Dornish, Unsullied, Huge flying monsters , I doubt most of the Westerosi population which Southerners are largest part, would consider her liberator. Cersei, Aegon or Tyrells using fear to gather support isn't far fetched in the books though show implemented it poorly, with lacking focus on effect of Daenerys huge army on countryside.

White Walkers only reached to Winterfell so there isn't widespread knowledge of effort to stop them.

Tyrant's suffer consequences of their actions too, though in real world is too rare, their successors more often pay the price.

What happens when every other lord decides to do the same thing and use their population as human meat shields? Does Dany just stop? Of course not. While maybe not the optimal move, showing an indifference to their lives will prevent future lords from hiding behind their populations as the populations themselves will rebel before. 

Dany is a Tyrant only in so far as she punishes and disregards the lives of those who have worked against and betrayed her. So far she doesn't fit the definition, I can think of other rulers that ruled like her and I wouldn't call them tyrants. Rome itself went on campaigns of complete destruction. 

[Eltharion21]

2 hours ago, Rikard said:

My Dresden digression was meant to illustrate two points.

First, that a mass WWII bombing by nearly 1500 aircraft is a poor template for depicting the depredations of a single mythical creature striking at roof top level, who can be downed with a single well-placed scorpion bolt, albeit with an apparently endless supply of incendiary fluid. Godzilla, maybe. His 1954 star turn was “heavily inspired” by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Second, and more seriously, the use of Dresden as a model raises the question of moral equivalence. If Daenerys deserved to be put down like a rabid dog for targeting civilians, what of the thousands of airmen who crewed those American and British bombers, and their military and civilian leaders? Were they all war criminals, too? Does it make any difference if you see your victims up close or from several miles up? Whether the pilot is acting on her own within the rules of engagement or under direct orders? Remotely piloting or flying in the aircraft? If it’s a good war or a bad war? Be careful how you answer, your father or grandfather may have been one of those airmen. And not just in WWII, but also Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen. It’s not at all obvious.

Considering the 1944 plot, its members knew what Hitler was by 1934. The mass murder of Jews, Communists, Socialists, homosexuals, mentally handicapped and POWs, and the terror bombing of civilian targets disturbed some, but the immediate prospect of unconditional surrender to the vengeful Allies was intolerable to all. They wanted to negotiate a peace and salvage something from the wreckage. But it was far too late. 
 

I feel that Daenerys should have been put to trial and answer for her crimes, unfortunately that wouldn't be possible and Jon judged to use treachery to stop further destruction .

Even today Airman do their tasks of bombing targeting infrastructure that is being used for military, though they usually widen that definition and sometimes civilians get hurt which is some have gall to call it "collateral damage", any deliberate targeting of civilians should be considered a crime,

That topic deserves definitely deeper analysis, taking account all conventions, laws, does retribution for German crimes annuls breaking of moral principles. Pragmatically we need to take account also that despite WW2 ending , Cold War immediately started so either side would be loath to trial leaders, soldiers and generals they would soon need.

Huge difference in pilots obeying commands and having limited information about state of War in Germany and possibility of surrender is that Daenarys was chief commander of her army and also was aware of established sign for surrender of city which she deliberately ignored, deciding to make an example of civilian's of King's Landing for entire World not just Westeros.

Majority of German conspirators probably had those interests, though I hugely doubt that out of all involved not one individual had moral motivation to assassinating their Fuhrer. 

[Rikard]

2 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Huge difference in pilots obeying commands and having limited information about state of War in Germany and possibility of surrender is that Daenarys was chief commander of her army and also was aware of established sign for surrender of city which she deliberately ignored, deciding to make an example of civilian's of King's Landing for entire World not just Westeros.

 

Not just the crews and pilots, but everyone up the chain of command to the President himself. Every President from FDR has ordered air strikes that killed civilians, either as deliberate terror ("shock and awe") attacks or regrettable collateral damage ("That Taliban commander just happened to be attending a village wedding when the drone struck. Sorry about that.").  

And the Bells business was a showrunner invention that was not even consistent with a past episode (the one written by Martin, Season 2, Episode 9). By the time of the attack Dany knew that Tyrion had countermanded her order to hold Jaime. She clearly distrusted him; the bell signal was likely a ruse to allow Cersei to escape, too. Nevertheless, Danny did pause before torching the city. For a long moment she searched the Red Keep for some sign of surrender, perhaps a white flag, opening the gates, a Targaryen banner.  As such a signal could only come from Cersei herself, Dany might have accepted it. But we know that until the destruction began Cersei believed her soldiers would prevail.  And then her only thought was to escape.  Dany had accepted advice to spare King's Landing before only to be tricked by Cersei, losing many men, ships, Rhaegal and Missandei. She now had the opportunity to totally destroy her enemy and give every other lord in Westeros cause to fear her.  It is what Drogo, Aegon, Viserys, Robert, Tywin, Stannis, Oberyn, and even Robb would have done under the circumstances. Why expect a woman to act differently?

[CrypticWeirwood]

17 minutes ago, Rikard said:

Dany had accepted advice to spare King's Landing before only to be tricked by Cersei, losing many men, ships, Rhaegal and Missandei. She now had the opportunity to totally destroy her enemy and give every other lord in Westeros cause to fear her. 

How were the peasants her "enemy"?

[Apoplexy]

On 6/1/2019 at 11:53 PM, Techmaester said:

One could make an argument that if you know your leaders actions will result in you being burnt to a crisp, you're going to rebel and put their head on a spike on your own. 

 

How exactly would unarmed civilians achieve this against a battle ready army that Cersei had? ALso, no one could've anticipated being burnt to crisp. 

On 6/1/2019 at 11:53 PM, Techmaester said:

The people of Kings Landing facilitated Cersei existence, failing to oppose her and went along with her plan. Jons own plan would have attempted to do the same thing as Dany but using starvation instead(and allowing Cersei's escape). War's a shitty business, you suffer the consequences of your leaders actions regardless of if you like it or not.  

How exactly? what could they do to dethrone her. Also, why would they attempt to do it?

[Apoplexy]

On 6/1/2019 at 5:55 PM, Rikard said:

Terrible in battle, certainly. A desirable trait for a conqueror. The difference is that Cersei fatally underestimated her opponent, and then sacrificed her soldiers and people to escape. 

Killing civilians is not a desirable trait for anyone. It's just plain cruelty.

[Rikard]

29 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

Killing civilians is not a desirable trait for anyone. It's just plain cruelty.

Nobody in GOT is a pacifist. The Game is all about cruelty, murder, treachery, betrayal, atrocities, and bloody battles. Fans seem to enjoy the carnage. The deaths of civilians, peasants, commoners, slaves, and the lower orders are of little note to the players.  Only Daenerys has shown some concern. We'll just have to wait to read how she behaves in Westeros. I don't take seriously anything presented since Dance of Dragons.  

[Apoplexy]

9 minutes ago, Rikard said:

Nobody in GOT is a pacifist. The Game is all about cruelty, murder, treachery, betrayal, atrocities, and bloody battles. Fans seem to enjoy the carnage. 

Yes, GoT is about violence, but actors perpetrating it are judged accordingly. And I would dispute the bolded.

11 minutes ago, Rikard said:

The deaths of civilians, peasants, commoners, slaves, and the lower orders are of little note to the players.  Only Daenerys has shown some concern. We'll just have to wait to read how she behaves in Westeros. I don't take seriously anything presented since Dance of Dragons.  

Yes, most players don't care about the violence, but again, they are judged through that lens. And Dany is not by any means the only one remotely sympathetic. 

And past sympathy doesn't erase present acts of mass murder.

[dannyk65]

On 6/1/2019 at 9:19 AM, CrypticWeirwood said:

For that one we can surely blame Tyrion, even if by his own admission his Valyrian is a bit nostril.  Notice how as Dany was spelling out her jihadist mission statement to her troops, Tyrion was drinking to eat the skull keeper!  Even after morghulis Cersei’s bittersweet spirits still caused Tyrion’s nasal drinking and gnoming things to Aegon Jon’s zombie’s brains about Dany.

What I'm still trying to figure out is how all those Dorkthraki screamers mangled to learn Valyrian so quickly. Hidden heliotropes, you think?

I just assumed they all practiced using Rosetta Stone on the trip down from Winterfell.

[Rikard]

2 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

Yes, GoT is about violence, but actors perpetrating it are judged accordingly. And I would dispute the bolded.

Yes, most players don't care about the violence, but again, they are judged through that lens. And Dany is not by any means the only one remotely sympathetic. 

And past sympathy doesn't erase present acts of mass murder.

Actors should be judged by their performances, not the characters they portray. Emilia is a very nice person in real life.

Perhaps it’s worth emphasizing that Daenerys is a fictional character. Since the publication of Dances with Dragons her story has been continued by Benioff and Weiss. For whatever reason, they decided to end it all this season. They wanted the finale to be spectacular and shocking. Not surprisingly they chose to include a long and expensive sequence of epic human carnage inspired by the Dresden firestorm. It got huge ratings. The fans seemed to like it. 

 

[Martyn Bull]

22 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

I feel that Daenerys should have been put to trial and answer for her crimes, unfortunately that wouldn't be possible and Jon judged to use treachery to stop further destruction .

Yes, that could've been cool. Especially if combined with Jon actually making his claim for the throne. She will stand trial, and as the King, he'll carry out the sentence himself! Then he can retire and take the black to end the Targaryan rule.

[SeanF]

24 minutes ago, Martyn Bull said:

Yes, that could've been cool. Especially if combined with Jon actually making his claim for the throne. She will stand trial, and as the King, he'll carry out the sentence himself! Then he can retire and take the black to end the Targaryan rule.

What grounds would there have been to try Daenerys?

[Martyn Bull]

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

What grounds would there have been to try Daenerys?

I don't know enough about the juridical system of Westeros to really answer that, but I guess Sam could dig something up ...

That wouldn't actually be the worst shortcut they've made, but there is at least two other ways they could have gone around. They could have made Jon to actually act and claim the throne. As a king, he would have the authority (I suppose), or they could have made a kind of tribunal (or perhaps a combination). That could have picked up in a cool way on the "power resides where the people believes it reside", that in the end it is the "people" of Westeros that decides that they are finished with Targaryan dragonlords.

[SeanF]

19 minutes ago, Martyn Bull said:

I don't know enough about the juridical system of Westeros to really answer that, but I guess Sam could dig something up ...

That wouldn't actually be the worst shortcut they've made, but there is at least two other ways they could have gone around. They could have made Jon to actually act and claim the throne. As a king, he would have the authority (I suppose), or they could have made a kind of tribunal (or perhaps a combination). That could have picked up in a cool way on the "power resides where the people believes it reside", that in the end it is the "people" of Westeros that decides that they are finished with Targaryan dragonlords.

Dany has committed no crimes under Westerosi law.

if Jon did successfully bid for the Iron Throne, Dany would be quietly strangled or poisoned.

 

[Martyn Bull]

28 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Dany has committed no crimes under Westerosi law.

if Jon did successfully bid for the Iron Throne, Dany would be quietly strangled or poisoned.

 

As I said, my knowledge of Westerosi law isn't good enough to say wether she's broken any laws, but we have seen that it's the within the King's power to judge. In my opinion it would be cool if Jon had to judge Dany, and eventually pick up from S01E01 and have Jona have to do the execution. 

[SeanF]

6 minutes ago, Martyn Bull said:

As I said, my knowledge of Westerosi law isn't good enough to say wether she's broken any laws, but we have seen that it's the within the King's power to judge. In my opinion it would be cool if Jon had to judge Dany, and eventually pick up from S01E01 and have Jona have to do the execution. 

For sure, if Jon had seized power, he could have executed Dany for any reason he chose.  Likely, he would have declared her a usurper, as Aegon II did with Rhaenyra, and executed her for treason.

[Martyn Bull]

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

For sure, if Jon had seized power, he could have executed Dany for any reason he chose.  Likely, he would have declared her a usurper, as Aegon II did with Rhaenyra, and executed her for treason.

Yes, you are right, he could have executed her for whatever reason, but I don't think he would have. Martin is moving to some kind of "breaking the wheel" as Dany phrases it (at least in my opinion), and I think it's more likely it would be some kind of tribunal or council that would've judged Dany.

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, Martyn Bull said:

Yes, you are right, he could have executed her for whatever reason, but I don't think he would have. Martin is moving to some kind of "breaking the wheel" as Dany phrases it (at least in my opinion), and I think it's more likely it would be some kind of tribunal or council that would've judged Dany.

Dany did nothing that was contrary to the laws of chivalry, in the show.

Yes, they could have shown her being tried and hanged for war crimes, according to the standards of 1946, but that would be terribly contrived (not that D & D mind terrible contrivances).

[Martyn Bull]

5 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Dany did nothing that was contrary to the laws of chivalry, in the show.

Oath of Knighthood:

"In the name of the Warrior I charge you to be brave. In the name of the Father I charge you to be just. In the name of the Mother I charge you to defend the young and innocent. In the name of the Maid I charge you to protect all women."

I would say she at least bended it a little?

8 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Yes, they could have shown her being tried and hanged for war crimes, according to the standards of 1946, but that would be terribly contrived (not that D & D mind terrible contrivances).

Don't necessarily disagree with you here. However, it would feel less contrived than the "and now let's choose a ruler" - at least to me.