Jump to content
Rikard

Daenerys the Terrible?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Sigella said:

1 Then who arranged the defence and the human shields? 

2 Because they didn't help their own situation by playing into Cersei's hands.

1. That's my point. No one set up human shields. Cersei was banking on the golden company and euron's fleet, not any human shield.

2. Here is where we disagree completely. The people of KL could have done nothing to prevent the city being burned down. How could the people of KL not have played into Cersei's hands, as you put it? What could they have done? Stormed the gates? What would that achieve? Open the city to Dany? Why would dany think that wasn't a trap?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It occurred to me that since May 12th possibly more has been written about a fictional character fighting a fantasy war than any historical instance of mass civilian casualties since Vietnam. This is not to criticize, it is but human nature to respond more viscerally to horrors we can see and hear than those we only read about. (Although books have made me cry, including GoT. But reading is usually a private activity. Film and TV can reach millions simultaneously.) It makes little difference whether these are dramatizations or actual combat footage. Nor is this a recent phenomenon. I’m sure battle hardened veterans of the Peloponnesian Wars were reduced to tears by a performance of Antigone.

Vietnam was a special case in many respects, the first televised war with nightly updates, and likely for this reason, the most unpopular since the Civil War. Politicians and the military blamed media coverage for their failure and in subsequent wars severely restricted reporters in where they could go and what they could record, with the desired effect. Nowadays hardly a word is uttered opposing the use of drones and smart munitions against civilian targets in Asia and Africa. Even the bombardment of an entire city is readily accepted as a military necessity; e.g., Mosul and Baghuz Fawqani. Much earlier, politicians realized the propaganda value of dramatized atrocities. One could draw a direct line from the Odessa steps sequence in Eisenstein’s Battleship Potemkin to the burning of King’s Landing in The Bells. Kudos to the VFX crew. Not to say that Tsar Nicholas II was any better or worse than Queen Daenerys, the First of Her Name. Just keep in mind that we are being manipulated, presumably for dramatic purposes.

 

Share this post


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

It occurred to me that since May 12th possibly more has been written about a fictional character fighting a fantasy war than any historical instance of mass civilian casualties since Vietnam

If you mean at this particular forum, well it is a forum dedicated to Asoiaf, GoT and everything in between and around the periphery. Fictional characters are talked about here because that is the purpose of this place. I'm not sure why does that come as a surprise.

Share this post


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

1. That's my point. No one set up human shields. Cersei was banking on the golden company and euron's fleet, not any human shield.

2. Here is where we disagree completely. The people of KL could have done nothing to prevent the city being burned down. How could the people of KL not have played into Cersei's hands, as you put it? What could they have done? Stormed the gates? What would that achieve? Open the city to Dany? Why would dany think that wasn't a trap?

1 Cersei and Qyburn explicitly says she has invited them and that Dany will have to go through them so you are plain wrong in this.

2 They could have run away from the city, choose not to take refuge in it, storm the gates and escape, overrun the Red Keep and ring the bells waving white flags and open the gates and serve Cersei on a gold platter. Thats how they could have saved themselves but it didn't happen, because this is the story we've got and in this they didn't. 

It seems to me like you dug your heels in on the point that "all victim blaming is inherently wrong" which isn't true. Being a victim does not turn you into a saint, nor should it have to. If some guy travels to the suburbs flashing his fancy timepiece is less deserving of sympathy when his clock gets stolen than the old lady being robbed of her monthly rent, even if its the same person doing it and the proceeds/crime/violence are the same. Would you still call it victim blaming if the old lady got more/better legal* help than the guy?

*edit: more an public outpour of sympathy and what it entails is a better analogue 

Edited by Sigella

Share this post


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

1 Cersei and Qyburn explicitly says she has invited them and that Dany will have to go through them so you are plain wrong in this.

 

I was trying to find that quote the other night. Do you recall where it appears?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Rikard said:

I was trying to find that quote the other night. Do you recall where it appears?

ep 4, from the wiki:

"In King's Landing, Cersei Lannister gloats with Euron over their victory. From the Red Keep, Cersei watches the city gates as thousands of refugees flood into the city. Qyburnacknowledges that Cersei's true intention is proceeding as planned: thousands of commoners are coming into the city to seek "protection" behind its walls from Daenerys's army, when in truth Cersei wants them there as human shields."

https://gameofthrones.fandom.com/wiki/The_Last_of_the_Starks

Share this post


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

1 Cersei and Qyburn explicitly says she has invited them and that Dany will have to go through them so you are plain wrong in this.

2 They could have run away from the city, choose not to take refuge in it, storm the gates and escape, overrun the Red Keep and ring the bells waving white flags and open the gates and serve Cersei on a gold platter. Thats how they could have saved themselves but it didn't happen, because this is the story we've got and in this they didn't. 

 

1. I don't get your point. How were the people supposed to anticipate what Daenerys or Cersei were planning? So in essence there was a 50 50 chance of survival whether people stayed inside KL or stormed outside. There was no way for anyone to know where they would be safer. You are essentially bolstering my claim that there was no right answer for the people of KL. They were pretty much helpless and had no agency over their fate.

Cersei's defence wasn't a 'human shield'. It was an insurance policy. Which failed since the city surrendered and there was no need to sack it. I am having a hard time understanding what could the people of KL could have done to change their fate.

2. People did surrender the city. But Dany started burning everything before anyone could 'offer her Cersei on a gold platter'. Dany burnt the city within minutes of the bells being rung.

2 hours ago, Sigella said:

It seems to me like you dug your heels in on the point that "all victim blaming is inherently wrong" which isn't true. Being a victim does not turn you into a saint, nor should it have to. If some guy travels to the suburbs flashing his fancy timepiece is less deserving of sympathy when his clock gets stolen than the old lady being robbed of her monthly rent, even if its the same person doing it and the proceeds/crime/violence are the same. Would you still call it victim blaming if the old lady got more/better legal* help than the guy?

*edit: more an public outpour of sympathy and what it entails is a better analogue

I am adamant here because the people of KL could have done nothing to change their fate. The only people who could do things differently were Cersei and Dany. And they both could not care less about civilians. Whether the people of KL were beyond reproach is besides the point in this case.

Share this post


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

ep 4, from the wiki:

"In King's Landing, Cersei Lannister gloats with Euron over their victory. From the Red Keep, Cersei watches the city gates as thousands of refugees flood into the city. Qyburnacknowledges that Cersei's true intention is proceeding as planned: thousands of commoners are coming into the city to seek "protection" behind its walls from Daenerys's army, when in truth Cersei wants them there as human shields."

https://gameofthrones.fandom.com/wiki/The_Last_of_the_Starks

Thanks! I  thought it was in Ep 5. Pulling a Saddam Hussein. Human shields didn't work for him, either.

Share this post


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

I was trying to find that quote the other night. Do you recall where it appears?

Season8 episode4 (approx. 57min 25 sec)

After Cersei tells Euron she's carrying his child.

 

Euron: She's coming for you.

Cersei: Of course she is. [goes to the terrace] Keep the gates open. If she wants to take the castle she'll have to murder thousands of innocent people first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Rast-afari said:

Euron: She's coming for you.

Cersei: Of course she is. [goes to the terrace] Keep the gates open. If she wants to take the castle she'll have to murder thousands of innocent people first.

 

Thanks for the quote!

Evidence of complicity and no thought of surrender.

Some historical parallels here with Caesar's siege of Alesia (52 BC). Vercingetorix had initially permitted the local civilians to shelter within the walls. But with no supplies making it through the Roman siege lines these useless mouths were hastening starvation for all.  The Gallic council decided to evict the old, sick, wives and children, expecting Caesar to take them in. He didn't, calculating that the Gauls would have to take them back, or if they didn't that the lamentations of the trapped innocents would hurt the defenders' morale. Nevertheless, Vercingetorix refused to allow them to return. Consequently many died between the lines before the Gauls surrendered. Both commanders had their military reasons for this atrocity. The interests of the innocents were not considered.  

It would have been interesting if Daenerys had opted to besiege King's Landing with its bloated population.

Edited by Rikard
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOLOL  So, people are going with the idea that the commoners of KL could have really done anything to defeat Cersei themselves before the Bats in her Bellsfrey came calling with Drogon?  I also recall the Ds have Dany spout that type of nonsense pre mass murder spree, but it seems even The Ds forgot something AGAIN, LOL  They had Dany say something along the lines of the people of Meeren fighting themselves and taking the city for her.........without mentioning that she had Grey Worm and company infiltrate the city and give them tons of weapons. 

That's our Ds, forgetting their own facts, as always.  I don't understand why some cut them so much slack in it, though. 

 

Share this post


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

 

Thanks for the quote!

Evidence of complicity and no thought of surrender.

Some historical parallels here with Caesar's siege of Alesia (52 BC). Vercingetorix had initially permitted the local civilians to shelter within the walls. But with no supplies making it through the Roman siege lines these useless mouths were hastening starvation for all.  The Gallic council decided to evict the old, sick, wives and children, expecting Caesar to take them in. He didn't, calculating that the Gauls would have to take them back, or if they didn't that the lamentations of the trapped innocents would hurt the defenders' morale. Nevertheless, Vercingetorix refused to allow them to return. Consequently many died between the lines before the Gauls surrendered. Both commanders had their military reasons for this atrocity. The interests of the innocents were not considered.  

It would have been interesting if Daenerys had opted to besiege King's Landing with its bloated population.

It certainly would, even though I think a protracted starvation would mean greater suffering for the smallfolk than being burned was. I certainly would have liked it more if Cersei got stabbed by Jaime for starving them than what we got.

Share this post


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

1. I don't get your point. How were the people supposed to anticipate what Daenerys or Cersei were planning? So in essence there was a 50 50 chance of survival whether people stayed inside KL or stormed outside. There was no way for anyone to know where they would be safer. You are essentially bolstering my claim that there was no right answer for the people of KL. They were pretty much helpless and had no agency over their fate.

Cersei's defence wasn't a 'human shield'. It was an insurance policy. Which failed since the city surrendered and there was no need to sack it. I am having a hard time understanding what could the people of KL could have done to change their fate.

2. People did surrender the city. But Dany started burning everything before anyone could 'offer her Cersei on a gold platter'. Dany burnt the city within minutes of the bells being rung.

I am adamant here because the people of KL could have done nothing to change their fate. The only people who could do things differently were Cersei and Dany. And they both could not care less about civilians. Whether the people of KL were beyond reproach is besides the point in this case.

1 You said "she absolutely didn't" two posts ago and now "even if how was anyone supposed to know" :D

 No one never knows what is going to happen, we make the best assumptions we can and act on them, which is how it works in ASoIaF too. I can tell you still haven't bothered to look up agency.

2 People rang the bells and that was it. They could have rioted at any given moment during the week/weeks long siege that came before. Doing it after the ringing had begun with soldiers from all sides on all sides seems like the least favourable moment to me. Rioting right then is just silly, which is probably why you suggest it. Congratulations, you found one moment in time when rioting actually would be as ludicrous as you'd like it to be.

Maybe even some prep could have helped: imagine people sewing Targ banners and sitting ready to unfold them at the moment Cersei surrenders, but for that to happen people would have to think "what if the dragon lady wins?" (and do some needlepoint whilst huddling from the siege) which you don't seem to think reasonable for any one of a million people to do.

You vastly underestimate the smallfolk: "they don't know anything", "they have no responsibility for what's happening to them" and "they have no power" are all belittling descriptions straight from your posts.

Smallfolk are uneducated and often misinformed* but they are not dumb, neither is their behaviour determined like animals and they are not weak.

*Remember when Arya was living there in the streets selling nice fat pigeons? Everyone had the details different but they all knew Robert was dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Sigella said:

1 You said "she absolutely didn't" two posts ago and now "even if how was anyone supposed to know

I still say she didn't use a human shield. It was an insurance policy in case things turned out badly.

 

47 minutes ago, Sigella said:

People rang the bells and that was it. They could have rioted at any given moment during the week/weeks long siege that came before.

How would doing this guarantee a better outcome? For all they knew, Dany would burn them anyway.

 

You still haven't shown any foolproof way for the people of KL to not die at the hands of either cersei or dany. They didn't have any good option. They choose one of many bad options, which turned out badly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Sigella said:

Maybe even some prep could have helped: imagine people sewing Targ banners and sitting ready to unfold them at the moment Cersei surrenders, but for that to happen people would have to think "what if the dragon lady wins?" (and do some needlepoint whilst huddling from the siege) which you don't seem to think reasonable for any one of a million people to do.

Yeah, why not sew wolf banners in case the North decided to attack the South and why not just move to essos in case the NK won..

Share this post


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

I still say she didn't use a human shield. It was an insurance policy in case things turned out badly.

= human shields

Share this post


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

Yeah, why not sew wolf banners in case the North decided to attack the South and why not just move to essos in case the NK won..

Maybe you could reply to it all and not cut out some snippets that you throw "victim blaming" at until they go away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sigella said:

= human shields

Which the people of KL could not have known they were. So they couldn't be blamed.

3 minutes ago, Sigella said:

Maybe you could reply to it all and not cut out some snippets that you throw "victim blaming" at until they go away?

I like dealing with one point at a time. Make a reasonable case that you aren't blaming the victims here (which is my main point of contention) and I'll move on to the next.

Share this post


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

It certainly would, even though I think a protracted starvation would mean greater suffering for the smallfolk than being burned was. I certainly would have liked it more if Cersei got stabbed by Jaime for starving them than what we got.

Typically people will endure almost anything to live just one day more. To prefer immolation to starvation one would have to be very bad off.  I agree though that playing out the siege over a few episodes would have given several plot lines the chance to make interesting twists and turns. After the smoke from the funeral pyres begins to waft over King's Landing, Tyrion and Jon might appeal to Daenerys to end it all with some aerial dragon fire. Davos, Grey Worm and maybe Gendry might have infiltrated the city and fomented a popular uprising. Arya, Sandor and Jaime would have had time to attempt whatever it was they were planning. Cersei might just decide to ignite her wildfire stocks to cover her escape. And Euron might get some dramatic screen time.

Edited by Rikard
grammar

Share this post


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

Which the people of KL could not have known they were. So they couldn't be blamed.

I like dealing with one point at a time. Make a reasonable case that you aren't blaming the victims here (which is my main point of contention) and I'll move on to the next.

More like I’ve squashed your arguments but you refuse to acknowledge mine - you have this one faulty premiss that you repeat like a parrot.

I feel over this discussion with you. You dont understand my arguments and keep repeating “victim blaming” as your one single point (I have refuted it although you pretend I didn’t). Ugh.

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

×