Jump to content
Rikard

Daenerys the Terrible?

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Martyn Bull said:

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?

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.

Yes, but the ethic of warfare is that if the commander of a city rejects the option of surrender (as Cersei did) then the victorious army is entitled to sack it.

Share this post


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

Yes, but the ethic of warfare is that if the commander of a city rejects the option of surrender (as Cersei did) then the victorious army is entitled to sack it.

Yes, but you didn't talk about the ethic of warfare, you talked about "the laws of chivalry":

48 minutes ago, SeanF said:

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

In my opinion she did things that was clearly breaking the chivalric code within the fictional world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Martyn Bull said:

Yes, but you didn't talk about the ethic of warfare, you talked about "the laws of chivalry":

In my opinion she did things that was clearly breaking the chivalric code within the fictional world.

Chivalry is not there to protect the Smallfolk.  The murder and rape of Elia was an outrage because she was Elia of Dorne.  If she had been Elia of Flea Bottom, nobody would have cared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rikard said:

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

 

When I said 'actors' , I meant the person (fictional) performing the action, not real life actors who play characters on a TV show.

 

3 hours ago, Rikard said:

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. 

I dunno about that. No one has stats, but I have exactly one friend who was ok with the ending. At least 7 hated it with a vengeance. In my anecdotal experience, majority of fans disliked the ending.

Share this post


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

Chivalry is not there to protect the Smallfolk.  The murder and rape of Elia was an outrage because she was Elia of Dorne.  If she had been Elia of Flea Bottom, nobody would have cared.

You said:

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

The chivalric oath of the 7 kingdoms is:

"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."

If you think Dany did adhere to this, I think we just must agree that we disagree, because I don't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Apoplexy said:

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. 

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

They would attempt to because they would be burnt to a crisp otherwise lol. Now maybe they didn't know but other kingdoms will.

Cersei used them all as human shields if not willing supporters so it's not completely illogical to make an example of such action making no difference.

IIRC Dany was only executing Lannister soldiers post victory not the entire population so her goal wasn't to kill everyone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Techmaester said:

They would attempt to because they would be burnt to a crisp otherwise lol. Now maybe they didn't know but other kingdoms will

They would need to be clairvoyant to anticipate what Dany was going to do.

16 hours ago, Techmaester said:

Cersei used them all as human shields if not willing supporters so it's not completely illogical to make an example of such action making no difference.

I think it's completely illogical to make defenseless civilians pay for cersei's actions. And extremely cruel.

16 hours ago, Techmaester said:

IIRC Dany was only executing Lannister soldiers post victory not the entire population so her goal wasn't to kill everyone.

?? She burnt the whole of KL down.

Share this post


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

They would need to be clairvoyant to anticipate what Dany was going to do.

I think it's completely illogical to make defenseless civilians pay for cersei's actions. And extremely cruel.

?? She burnt the whole of KL down.

When someone shows up with dragons it's a pretty fair thing to assume they are going to burn down your city if you don't surrender before the fighting starts, especially after your leader publicly beheads the enemies hand after going back on an agreement and ambushing them. I suppose the civilians didn't know the later fact but regardless their deaths were pretty expected, maybe not from a "liberator" but certainly from a conqueror(at that point I would be in the conquering mood also). She clearly didn't kill everyone since Grey Worm was practicing his knife skills on Lannister soldiers.

Ultimately we're reasoning from an abstract moral framework and the idea of "rules" when war happens but I don't agree that they apply in this setting as Cersei had already shown a complete willingness to violate them. Guess I just like Dany more than what ever peasants she roasted in the process of Cerseis removal. 

Edited by Techmaester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2019 at 10:58 AM, Martyn Bull said:

I would say she [Dany] at least bended it [the Oath of Knighthood] a little?

 

Well, Dany wasn't a knight. And if we start punishing characters for violating their sundry oaths, pledges and promises then even fewer would have made it to the finale. Just how is it that Jaime was still a knight after killing the king he swore to defend, pushing a child out a window, betraying another king by bedding his queen, attacking the hand of the king, ravaging the Riverlands in an illegal war, and murdering his cousin among other high crimes and misdemeanors? Brienne was all dreamy-eyed when he knighted her, but his authority to do so should have been challenged. Davos could have done the deed. Not as romantic, though. 

As for trying Dany for war crimes, no such crime in Westeros, and she was the commander of a victorious army. You don't try victors. They try their enemies. The only way to get rid of her was by assassination or death in battle. The latter would have been a more satisfying conclusion. After buying off the Unsullied and Dothraki (they would never have left Westeros empty handed), Jon could have made a legitimate claim to the throne. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Techmaester said:

When someone shows up with dragons it's a pretty fair thing to assume they are going to burn down your city if you don't surrender before the fighting starts, especially after your leader publicly beheads the enemies hand after going back on an agreement and ambushing them

Why? War not equate/ justify genocide.

16 hours ago, Techmaester said:

. I suppose the civilians didn't know the later fact but regardless their deaths were pretty expected, maybe not from a "liberator" but certainly from a conqueror(at that point I would be in the conquering mood also). She clearly didn't kill everyone since Grey Worm was practicing his knife skills on Lannister soldiers.

It's still genocide, not part and parcel of war.

16 hours ago, Techmaester said:

Ultimately we're reasoning from an abstract moral framework and the idea of "rules" when war happens but I don't agree that they apply in this setting as Cersei had already shown a complete willingness to violate them. 

There's nothing abstract here. Even in the westeros universe, there a code of morality. Being 'queen of the ashes' was considered amoral in westeros.

16 hours ago, Techmaester said:

Guess I just like Dany more than what ever peasants she roasted in the process of Cerseis removal. 

Again, not judging you personally, but this kind of thinking can only be deemed as amoral and wrong, by any standard. Not to mention bigoted and fanatical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Apoplexy said:

Why? War not equate/ justify genocide.

It's still genocide, not part and parcel of war.

There's nothing abstract here. Even in the westeros universe, there a code of morality. Being 'queen of the ashes' was considered amoral in westeros.

Again, not judging you personally, but this kind of thinking can only be deemed as amoral and wrong, by any standard. Not to mention bigoted and fanatical. 

We have different moral frameworks and a willingness to change them depending upon the setting. Ultimately the lives of enemy populations don't really matter, when you look at prior history mass killing wasn't carried out after conquest only to the extent you can get slaves out of the remaining population. Burning seems like a good way to instill fear in other kingdoms. You're still applying modern morality to a setting where one side was already happy to use their population as a meat shield and would have been more than happy to practice the same policies as dany(and in fact did).

I prefer the term loyal instead of fanatical as I feel it's a more accurate assessment, normally allies don't get killed for being too successful, universally valuing human life is a new concept and placing it above your loyalty to a leader who won your war just didn't happen in the past. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2019 at 1:14 PM, Rikard said:

Killing the residents of an enemy capital whose ruler had rejected generous terms is war as usual. To claim otherwise is hypocrisy. Shock and awe anyone?

Yes to the OP, all of it, and especially this last. I'd even go further. If King's Landing's smallfolk *had* risen against Cersei, what's stopping Daenerys from thinking, "Insurrectionist rabble! If these folk dare rebel against her, they could as easily do so against me," and putting them to the flame just the same?

Don't get the wrong idea: I'm as humble, self-effacing and peaceable as they come. I am, however, able to separate what happens in a fictional world from what happens in the real world.

In the real, modern-day world, Randyll Tarly would be in the slammer on charges of domestic violence, murder & witness intimidation. Sam Tarly would be flipping burgers in a fast-food joint and figuring out how to pay off his student debt and feed his growing family at the same time. Bronn would be dead in a gangland shooting. Tywin Lannister would be CEO of a transnational corporation, offshoring thousands of jobs to Special Economic Zones, bribing highly-placed government officials, and paying off the families of Joffrey's torture victims. Jon would be reviled as a deserter from the armed services. The women, if taken off Planetos and plunked into today's world, might (depending on where they landed) actually be marginally better off. Even the highborn ones with personal servants. It could be debated.

The point is that none of these make-believe people are IN the modern world. They are in a fictional setting and must be judged accordingly. If there is no direct in-universe explanation, one proceeds to the next-nearest fictional or historical analogue. For the world of Ice & Fire, that is The War of the Roses, feudal monarchy generally, every fairytale ever (those Brothers are called Grimm for good reason), and pretty much any blood 'n' thunder deity you'd care to name.

@Rikard@SeanF and others in this thread have done an excellent job drawing parallels with historical human societies with similar features, social organization & tech to Westerosi society. I do find it droll trying to imagine how best to draw up battle strategies against an army of the not-nearly-dead-enough, but that's just me. :)

Share this post


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

Yes to the OP, all of it, and especially this last. I'd even go further. If King's Landing's smallfolk *had* risen against Cersei, what's stopping Daenerys from thinking, "Insurrectionist rabble! If these folk dare rebel against her, they could as easily do so against me," and putting them to the flame just the same?

Don't get the wrong idea: I'm as humble, self-effacing and peaceable as they come. I am, however, able to separate what happens in a fictional world from what happens in the real world.

In the real, modern-day world, Randyll Tarly would be in the slammer on charges of domestic violence, murder & witness intimidation. Sam Tarly would be flipping burgers in a fast-food joint and figuring out how to pay off his student debt and feed his growing family at the same time. Bronn would be dead in a gangland shooting. Tywin Lannister would be CEO of a transnational corporation, offshoring thousands of jobs to Special Economic Zones, bribing highly-placed government officials, and paying off the families of Joffrey's torture victims. Jon would be reviled as a deserter from the armed services. The women, if taken off Planetos and plunked into today's world, might (depending on where they landed) actually be marginally better off. Even the highborn ones with personal servants. It could be debated.

The point is that none of these make-believe people are IN the modern world. They are in a fictional setting and must be judged accordingly. If there is no direct in-universe explanation, one proceeds to the next-nearest fictional or historical analogue. For the world of Ice & Fire, that is The War of the Roses, feudal monarchy generally, every fairytale ever (those Brothers are called Grimm for good reason), and pretty much any blood 'n' thunder deity you'd care to name.

@Rikard@SeanF and others in this thread have done an excellent job drawing parallels with historical human societies with similar features, social organization & tech to Westerosi society. I do find it droll trying to imagine how best to draw up battle strategies against an army of the not-nearly-dead-enough, but that's just me. :)

It's quite amusing to imagine what would happen in today's world.

Dany would certainly be facing multiple charges at the Hague that could result in life imprisonment (ie genocide, mass murder, torture, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners etc).  OTOH, modern social media would go wild for someone so young, beautiful, and charismatic, so she'd probably get treated far more leniently than she deserved.

Share this post


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

It's quite amusing to imagine what would happen in today's world.

Dany would certainly be facing multiple charges at the Hague that could result in life imprisonment (ie genocide, mass murder, torture, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners etc).  OTOH, modern social media would go wild for someone so young, beautiful, and charismatic, so she'd probably get treated far more leniently than she deserved.

You're not wrong. :D And young actresses would mob their casting agents for a shot at playing her in the biopic.

Share this post


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

You're not wrong. :D And young actresses would mob their casting agents for a shot at playing her in the biopic.

And, just imagine all the soft interviews with magazines like Grazia, Cosmopolitan, and Hello, the friendly TV interviews, the online petitions, the celebrity endorsements, Dany's tweets to her 50 m followers worldwide. 

Share this post


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

And, just imagine all the soft interviews with magazines like Grazia, Cosmopolitan, and Hello, the friendly TV interviews, the online petitions, the celebrity endorsements, Dany's tweets to her 50 m followers worldwide. 

Isn’t a former Disney pretty playing serial psycho in some theatre near you?

Playing poor rich girl/dear lovely Khaleesi/nazi psycho would be a career making move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Techmaester said:

We have different moral frameworks and a willingness to change them depending upon the setting. Ultimately the lives of enemy populations don't really matter, when you look at prior history mass killing wasn't carried out after conquest only to the extent you can get slaves out of the remaining population. Burning seems like a good way to instill fear in other kingdoms. You're still applying modern morality to a setting where one side was already happy to use their population as a meat shield and would have been more than happy to practice the same policies as dany(and in fact did).

 

Not quite. I'm using Westerosi morality standards. By modern standards, westeros would be a democracy and dany would have no right to invade it, let alone kill anyone.

8 hours ago, Techmaester said:

I prefer the term loyal instead of fanatical as I feel it's a more accurate assessment, normally allies don't get killed for being too successful, universally valuing human life is a new concept and placing it above your loyalty to a leader who won your war just didn't happen in the past. 

By that logic, nothing is wrong if you are loyal to a leader. Killing children, genocide, torture, you name it. This was amoral even by Westerosi standards.

Share this post


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

It's quite amusing to imagine what would happen in today's world.

Dany would certainly be facing multiple charges at the Hague that could result in life imprisonment (ie genocide, mass murder, torture, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners etc).  OTOH, modern social media would go wild for someone so young, beautiful, and charismatic, so she'd probably get treated far more leniently than she deserved.

Ah, no.  Short list: Vladimir Putin (civilian targets in Chechnya and Ukraine), Bashar al-Assad (civilian targets in Syria), Mohammad bin Salman (civilian targets in Yemen), George W. Bush (civilian targets in Iraq and Afghanistan, "torture, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners"). If you have powerful allies or are powerful yourself there is nothing to fear from the International Court. And none of these guys are particularly beautiful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/4/2019 at 8:31 PM, Apoplexy said:

They would need to be clairvoyant to anticipate what Dany was going to do.

If only they could use Arya's awesome "skills":

- Sees burned city and thousand's dead.

-"I know killer when I see one!"

Edited by Eltharion21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/27/2019 at 11:14 PM, Rikard said:

n. Leaders were routinely assassinated but never for killing too many Gauls, Germans, Celts, Carthaginians, Parthians, Sassanids, Jews or assorted rebels. Just the opposite, the greater the body count the greater the triumph; e.g., Scipio at Carthage, 146 BC; Titus at Jerusalem, 70 AD; and, Aurelian at Palmyra, 273 AD.  As Caesar wrote, "murum aries attigit" (the ram has touched the wall; meaning after the assault had begun there was no more negotiation, only destruction). Romans did prefer victories at little cost to themselves. Terror was good policy, cities were less likely to resist. Later examples of city carnage include Attila; the Crusaders at Jerusalem, 1099 AD and at Constantinople, 1204 AD; Genghis Kahn; Timur; and Ivan the Terrible at Novgorod, 1570 AD. The last example is instructive as Ivan was considered by many to be deranged. Yet, he died a natural death. 

 

Just to correct your history here, which I think vastly oversimplifies things: true, someone like Caesar was not assassinated for his treatment of the Gauls. But, before the civil wars, his rivals and opponents did want to put him on trial for, among other things, waging war against allies and peaceful tribes without the permission of the senate and people of Rome, cruelly enslaving and slaughtering many Gauls, etc... Caesar refused recall and trial; he marched on Italy. The Romans had did develop a body of law dealing with treatment of allies and subjects, the extortion court; Roman elites were convicted for cruel treatment of those they had conquered or governed. This body of law continued into the imperial period. Others were criticized (if not legally charged) for acting too brutally during sieges against declared enemies; Lucius Mummius, who sacked the city of Corinth in the same year as Scipio sacked Carthage, provides one example. Even Scipio had to emphasize that the burning of temples in Carthage, with civilians and asylum seekers inside, was done by accident: it was his naughty soldiers, not him! And the Greek historian Polybius was struck by the brutality of Roman sieges. 

On a bigger level, your post is conflating a siege during civil war with a siege during a foreign war. Julius Caesar was assassinated for many reasons, but one was that he was responsible for the deaths of many Romans despite trying to maintain a policy of clemency, in contrast to Marius and Sulla, who had both treated the city of Rome brutally. Mass killings, enslavements, and property confiscations throughout Italy led to many future conflicts and many of the problems of the Late Republic. And victors in civil wars had to be very careful; their triumphs were always presented as being over foreign enemies, not their fellow citizens, even though they received much criticism for the hypocrisy of celebrating triumphs after civil wars at all.  There's a reason Augustus presented the end of his civil wars against Marc Antony in 31-30 as being against Cleopatra and Egypt. Later imperial civil wars nearly always showed the victors blaming their opponents for damage to the capitol and its citizens; Vespasian's army inflicted much damage on Rome in 69 A.D., including the burning of the Capitoline Temple; you can look at Tacitus' Histories 3.71-73. Vespasian and his sons had to spend a lot of money (taken from the Judeans) to rebuilt parts of the city and have buildings like the Colosseum built to gain popularity.   

Killing lots of your own people in civil wars has always been a dangerous game. I don't know that we have a case in which someone like Jon Snow killed someone like Dany specifically because they were cruel, but then again, archtypical fantasy heroes like Jon Snow tend to be pretty absent from ancient and medieval history, as do weapons of mass destruction like Drogon that far outstrip other technology.

Edited by Caligula_K3

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

×