Jump to content
Tyrion1991

Dany the Mad Queen was a terrible idea

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, RYShh said:

I thought it was the Northern houses or any other noble houses from Westeros.

The mountain clans _are_ northeners. Northeners who didn't want to join the Stark kingdom and had to be conquered, subdued, and held docile via child hostages, who were sometimes executed, for a long time before they accepted the Kings of Winter as their overlords.

Quote

They only did that to protect the North. Not for gaining power or stealing power from them.

Of course they did it to increase their power - to "steal" it from competitors. Nobody elected the Starks to rule the North - they conquered and massacred and murdered until their rule became uncontested. As did all the formerly royal Houses of Westeros.

19 hours ago, RYShh said:

Since when? Robb didn't execute Lannister prisoners. Even Tywin stopped the execution of prisoners at Harrenhal.

In the books, simple soldiers aren't taken prisoner after a battle - they either manage to run away after a defeat, or they are killed. Sometimes, they may be lucky enough to be able to change allegiance - but that's usually only something that mercenaries can get away with. If their lord bends the knee, they get spared with him. Robb was chivalric towards nobles and knights in the books - he didn't care about the commoners at all, except for the personnel of Winterfell.

Did he take simple soldiers captive in the show? Even if he did, it was far from normal. He also did nothing to stop his own soldiers depredations on the allied Riverfolk, as, IIRC, was demonstrated via Brienne in the show.

As to Tywin  he only stopped execution of civilians in the show, because he knew that he would be staying at Harrenhal for some time and needed servants. In the books, some folks, including Arya, were just rounded up and driven to Harrenhal for this purpose.  After the Battle of the Blackwater, all Stannis's nobles, who had been taken prisoner, were given the choice of swearing to Joffrey or dying. Only the R'llor fanatics among them chose the latter.

 

16 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

The story was never going to allow her to win cleanly - she would eventually have to admit that the people don't matter as much as her "success." 

This should have been the case for any winner, if the narrative remained somewhat realistic. There was no need to stoop to "kill them all!" insanity to show this. No effective leader can be a good person with clean hands - certainly not back in the Middle Ages and not even now.

One of the things that distinguish the great Danish show "The Killing" (Forbrydelsen) from it's US copycat, is the brilliant depiction of the moral fall of a genuinely idealistic and promising politician, who has to compromise his principles again and again, in the attempt to win an election.

And yet, what is the solution? Not to try at all?

 

Quote

Jorah convincing her to buy the unsullied because they would never rape and murder in war and perfectly do her bidding  - this was a pipe dream. Jorah never considered, what if their leader commands them to do horrible things? He, and others, were caught up in the idea of a "benevolent dictator." That concept is an oxymoron and philosophically problematic. 

Well that's another example of Tyrion's abyssmal advice to Dany - it would have been far better for the citizens of KL, if she had taken the city with her unsullied immediately upon arrival, instead of using her Westerosi allies to do it. Unlike the Reach and Dornish troops, the Unsullied would not have sacked the city without an order. I mean, imagine the Dornish, with all that pent-up hate, being let loose on the KL! And the Reachmen wouldn't have been far behind.

Also a "benevolent dictator" is somehow  very workable as long as it is a Stark, right? Queen Sansa? King Bran? Or Tyrion, even, if show Bran doesn't intend to truly rule.

20 hours ago, KingMudd said:

The fact that quite a lot of readers have theorised that Daenerys will become the villain and go "mad" means that the signs have been there all along.

A lot of people expected it or wanted it to happen because:

Dany was introduced as a member of the antagonist family, who were initially presented as complete villains. Yes, so was Tyrion, but from the very beginning he was shown to sympathise with various Starks and like them more than he did his own folks. Also, he is a man and we are used to men being anti-heroes and getting redemption arcs.

Once people guessed Jon's identity, it became clear that Dany was his competitor as a claimant to the throne and as a prophecised hero. We are conditioned by hoary tropes to expect that in such as situation the man is the hero and the woman is the villain - Arthur vs Morgan, etc.

Dany is a grey character - she is ambitious, she is ruthless. Given her circumstances, she couldn't have been anything else if she were to become significant. She believes in and takes solace in her birthright - so does everybody else among the noble PoVs, of course, but the Targaryens were introduced as justly deposed, so it is seen negatively. She has to deal with the fallout of her mistakes and negative consequences of her decisions - something that Jon, for instance, has nearly always been protected from by the narrative. She is a foreigner. She occasionally has visions - which is not a sign of insanity in that universe, but is in ours. Etc.

Making her a villain was a really low-hanging fruit with some unpleasant implications - which is why some of us didn't think that  GRRM would go there.

 

Quote

I like that she becomes a villian in the end and Jon is left wondering if he has done the right thing by killing her.

But that doesn't even make any sense in the show - his wondering. It seems to come from some parallel universe, where the characters are still the shades of grey, rather than St. Tyrion, St. Varys, St. Jon, weebo-martyr Cersei and Lucifer-Hitler Dany.

Yes, it would have made vastly more sense for the situation to be such that Jon could legitimately wonder about his decision. In fact, the show ending relies so heavily on gaslighting, character inconsistency, reliance on the poor memory of the audience, etc., that one can almost hope that something more nuanced was envisioned at some point. 

For instance, if Cersei remained the same character who was prepared to poison Tommen and herself while sitting on the Iron Throne in season 2, who blew up the sept in season 6 and easily got over Tommen's death, she would have planned for the ways to kill Dany even if the city surrendered.  The failed attempt on Dany after she accepted or was in the act of accepting the surrender would then have led to the sack, aggravated by the wildfire caches under the city. It also would have made Dany very angry, distrustful and hard-line, and a legitimate danger to Sansa and anybody who didn't fall in line immediately. She would have  blamed Tyrion - with some justification, because of his constant Cersei-stanning during the last 2 seasons, and he would have been looking at execution. The things could have proceeded as they did from there, without violating any of the previously established characterizations.

Oh, and Varys should have been treated as what he was in the show - as somebody who became so addicted to kingmaking, that he just couldn't stop until he found the perfect puppet. It was super-weird how early in the season 7 they expressly reminded the audience that he wanted to replace Robert with Viserys  with the help of Drogo's Dothraki (!), yet the show then proceeded to treat him as a saint who was genuinely all for the good of the realm. I don't remember - did the show also show that he was present when LF lied to Cat about the assassin's dagger and sparked the Stark-Lannister war? In any case, he also helped Tyrion kill Tywin, who was a force for stability and came to Dany _because_ she was a successful conqueror, so that, too, was on him. As is the fact that he let the twincest continue, when he could have ensured that it was discovered early on. It is ludicrous how after all of this the show tried to ham-fistedly depict him as a good man who was killed unjustly.

Edited by Maia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Maia said:

The mountain clans _are_ northeners. Northeners who didn't want to join the Stark kingdom and had to be conquered, subdued, and held docile via child hostages, who were sometimes executed, for a long time before they accepted the Kings of Winter as their overlords.

Of course they did it to increase their power - to "steal" it from competitors. Nobody elected the Starks to rule the North - they conquered and massacred and murdered until their rule became uncontested. As did all the formerly royal Houses of Westeros.

In the books, simple soldiers aren't taken prisoner after a battle - they either manage to run away after a defeat, or they are killed. Sometimes, they may be lucky enough to be able to change allegiance - but that's usually only something that mercenaries can get away with. If their lord bends the knee, they get spared with him. Robb was chivalric towards nobles and knights in the books - he didn't care about the commoners at all, except for the personnel of Winterfell.

Did he take simple soldiers captive in the show? Even if he did, it was far from normal. He also did nothing to stop his own soldiers depredations on the allied Riverfolk, as, IIRC, was demonstrated via Brienne in the show.

As to Tywin  he only stopped execution of civilians in the show, because he knew that he would be staying at Harrenhal for some time and needed servants. In the books, some folks, including Arya, were just rounded up and driven to Harrenhal for this purpose.  After the Battle of the Blackwater, all Stannis's nobles, who had been taken prisoner, were given the choice of swearing to Joffrey or dying. Only the R'llor fanatics among them chose the latter.

 

This should have been the case for any winner, if the narrative remained somewhat realistic. There was no need to stoop to "kill them all!" insanity to show this. No effective leader can be a good person with clean hands - certainly not back in the Middle Ages and not even now.

One of the things that distinguish the great Danish show "The Killing" (Forbrydelsen) from it's US copycat, is the brilliant depiction of the moral fall of a genuinely idealistic and promising politician, who has to compromise his principles again and again, in the attempt to win an election.

And yet, what is the solution? Not to try at all?

 

Well that's another example of Tyrion's abyssmal advice to Dany - it would have been far better for the citizens of KL, if she had taken the city with her unsullied immediately upon arrival, instead of using her Westerosi allies to do it. Unlike the Reach and Dornish troops, the Unsullied would not have sacked the city without an order. I mean, imagine the Dornish, with all that pent-up hate, being let loose on the KL! And the Reachmen wouldn't have been far behind.

Also a "benevolent dictator" is somehow  very workable as long as it is a Stark, right? Queen Sansa? King Bran? Or Tyrion, even, if show Bran doesn't intend to truly rule.

A lot of people expected it or wanted it to happen because:

Dany was introduced as a member of the antagonist family, who were initially presented as complete villains. Yes, so was Tyrion, but from the very beginning he was shown to sympathise with various Starks and like them more than he did his own folks. Also, he is a man and we are used to men being anti-heroes and getting redemption arcs.

Once people guessed Jon's identity, it became clear that Dany was his competitor as a claimant to the throne and as a prophecised hero. We are conditioned by hoary tropes to expect that in such as situation the man is the hero and the woman is the villain - Arthur vs Morgan, etc.

Dany is a grey character - she is ambitious, she is ruthless. Given her circumstances, she couldn't have been anything else if she were to become significant. She believes in and takes solace in her birthright - so does everybody else among the noble PoVs, of course, but the Targaryens were introduced as justly deposed, so it is seen negatively. She has to deal with the fallout of her mistakes and negative consequences of her decisions - something that Jon, for instance, has nearly always been protected from by the narrative. She is a foreigner. She occasionally has visions - which is not a sign of insanity in that universe, but is in ours. Etc.

Making her a villain was a really low-hanging fruit with some unpleasant implications - which is why some of us didn't think that  GRRM would go there.

 

But that doesn't even make any sense in the show - his wondering. It seems to come from some parallel universe, where the characters are still the shades of grey, rather than St. Tyrion, St. Varys, St. Jon, weebo-martyr Cersei and Lucifer-Hitler Dany.

Yes, it would have made vastly more sense for the situation to be such that Jon could legitimately wonder about his decision. In fact, the show ending relies so heavily on gaslighting, character inconsistency, reliance on the poor memory of the audience, etc., that one can almost hope that something more nuanced was envisioned at some point. 

For instance, if Cersei remained the same character who was prepared to poison Tommen and herself while sitting on the Iron Throne in season 2, who blew up the sept in season 6 and easily got over Tommen's death, she would have planned for the ways to kill Dany even if the city surrendered.  The failed attempt on Dany after she accepted or was in the act of accepting the surrender would then have led to the sack, aggravated by the wildfire caches under the city. It also would have made Dany very angry, distrustful and hard-line, and a legitimate danger to Sansa and anybody who didn't fall in line immediately. She would have  blamed Tyrion - with some justification, because of his constant Cersei-stanning during the last 2 seasons, and would have been looking at execution. The things could have proceeded as they did from there, without violating any of the previously established characterizations.

Oh, and Varys should have been treated as what he was in the show - as somebody who became so addicted to kingmaking, that he just couldn't stop until he found the perfect puppet. It was super-weird how early in the season 7 they expressly reminded the audience how he wanted to replace Robert with Viserys  with the help of Drogo's Dothraki (!), yet the show then proceeded to treat him as a saint who was genuinely all for the good of the realm. I don't remember - did the show also show that he was present when LF lied to Cat about the assassin's dagger?

Just my opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

This is also something most of the other characters are doing; Dany doesn't own this. I think you might dislike every character except Dany? This would be a struggle, then.

I also think that's too straightforward because this character is chock full of contradictions.

This isn't how I read ADWD at all? GRRM is concerned with methods because he's showing how this character makes decisions with her brain instead of tEH dRaGoNS, and she succeeds. She throws it all away when she jumps on Drogon.

Also, the moral of the story is that if you want to change the world you should understand the history of that world so you don't make the same mistakes as your predecessors. And Dany is making the same mistakes. He said she should read Fire and Blood to learn a few things. 

This is an odd metaphor. First, if Daenerys was being bullied at work and underpaid, she would just melt her bosses' face off and smile while his eyeballs dribbled down his cheeks. Is that the moral of the story? Most violent action is best? Second, I think you're expecting this character to do way more than she was ever written to do. She's not a superhero. Her primary objective is to fulfill her family's awful legacy. She got caught up in a side quest, that she only discovered when she needed to buy some slaves. Her "standing up for injustice" schtick was really just about her reveling in the fact that she could gain supremacy over people. And she liked winning. And she liked followers. Part of what keeps her going in Essos is the idea that she's "practicing" for rule in Westeos so she's trying to be a good queen. To her credit she probably could be without dragons but again...we know where that's going.

I think you're sugarcoating Daenerys a lot. 

 

Because the show was not consistent with its moral message. Let’s get an elective monarchy but keep Sansa as Queen in the  North. 

Dany is depicted as an absolute failure in ADWD. The entire city of Astapor, half a million people, die because of her actions. Disease spreads throughout Mereen. She is held responsible for the economy collapsing, for the violence in the city, blasted for not understanding the moral nuance and mutual benefit that is chattel slavery. Her compromises are depicted as foolish and destined to fail. As foolish and ill informed when, 90 percent of it is due to the impossible situation Dany faces. There’s unintended consequences and then there’s parody. George then tries to pull the greatest cop out imaginable when Tyrion reveals in his final chapter that “oh, but the slavers would have honoured the peace this whole time if that pesky Dany had just held her temper for five more seconds”. Despite every single bit of ADWD going totally against that sentiment. Even then, to me this amounts to a shrug of the shoulders. Better had Dany not tried to free the slaves at all. Less death, less fuss and less problems. A kinder and gentler world.

So I do not believe that he is interested in the methods or learning from the past because Dany tries that in ADWD and it does not work. She tries to play the Ghiscari game and they screw her for a fool the whole way. Use violence, Dany loses, use peace, Dany loses. It’s the cause, not the method that he’s sniping.

I am sorry is Spider-Man about how punching people solves life’s problems? The violence Dany uses is a metaphor/satire for the inevitable consequences of upsetting the natural order. 

That “lesson” George is referring to is in the vein as English Conservatives condemning the excesses of the French Revolution. Society will just organically develop of its own accord for the better and all these trouble makers will just cause suffering and lead to the terror and Napoleon. So the Targaryens (you the reader) should not presume to change the world as you do not understand it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, The One Who Kneels said:

he is undeniably a traitor to the other side.

That's simply not how it works.

Not all soldiers of the enemy are traitors. The concept of traitor and enemy is clearly different.

16 hours ago, The One Who Kneels said:

When a lord rebels in Westeros and loses

He did not rebel. He fought for Queen Cersei, who sat in the Iron Throne at that instance. Daenerys was not queen in/of Westeros at that moment.

He was just a prisoner of war and should have kept as such. Confer Jaime being kept prisoner by RobbStark. No bending the knee or killing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Maia said:

And the Reachmen wouldn't have been far behind

At the beckon of Olenna Tyrell?! After what Cersei did to her family? Yep, they would be docile and peaceful. Hah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Maia said:

This should have been the case for any winner, if the narrative remained somewhat realistic. There was no need to stoop to "kill them all!" insanity to show this. No effective leader can be a good person with clean hands - certainly not back in the Middle Ages and not even now.

One of the things that distinguish the great Danish show "The Killing" (Forbrydelsen) from it's US copycat, is the brilliant depiction of the moral fall of a genuinely idealistic and promising politician, who has to compromise his principles again and again, in the attempt to win an election.

And yet, what is the solution? Not to try at all?

It's not realistic but that's because the author enjoys speculative fiction with a parable attached. Nuclear weapons, environmental destruction, and endless wars are all going to be harshly criticized. The characters who aren't power hungry will rise once the the losers do themselves in. That was always the theory behind a time for wolves anyway.

I dont think being king/queen is always necessary to do good - politics is a narrow channel. Dany could have tried harder but she didn't even try. She was rushing to the throne because she was trying to beat Sansa from putting Jon on it. She squandered a lot of her good will after the battle and instantly turned jealous and abusive. The Northerners were singing Jon's praises because he'd been working for them for years without expecting anything in return. She became Viserys who was jealous of the way the Dothraki cheered Dany in S1. She didn't want to co-rule and wanted him to just be Ned's bastard again. All of these were her choices during those episodes, and she didn't even face that many constraints. 

37 minutes ago, Maia said:

Well that's another example of Tyrion's abyssmal advice to Dany - it would have been far better for the citizens of KL, if she had taken the city with her unsullied immediately upon arrival, instead of using her Westerosi allies to do it. Unlike the Reach and Dornish troops, the Unsullied would not have sacked the city without an order. I mean, imagine the Dornish, with all that pent-up hate, being let loose on the KL! And the Reachmen wouldn't have been far behind.

The plan wasn't to sack it but to put up a blockade. Tyrion was trying to help Dany look less like a foreign invader and this makes sense! He's always giving her good PR advice. Slave soldiers in King's Landing is even worse than sellswords. Jorah, slave owner himself, didnt really get that. It also ruins her "Breaker of Chains" image. Look! Here are my "freed slaves!" Do I pay them a wage? Nope. I pay them in the glory of being able to serve me. 

In the end, it was ironic that Greyworm was the first to break rank and commit the first war crime! lol

37 minutes ago, Maia said:

Also a "benevolent dictator" is somehow  very workable as long as it is a Stark, right? Queen Sansa? King Bran? Or Tyrion, even, if show Bran doesn't intend to truly rule.

Well it's used as a special case for Dany because she's trying to reform an entire culture, of which she's an outsider, and one she has contempt for. Calling the people her "children" just smacks of benevolent dictatorship to me.

Every Stark in the story was elected king/queen. I think that's intentional. And if you see how the Northerners hold court, they're allowed to voice dissent and tell their king to fuck off if they want to. Just look at Glover, he marched his ass home. Or how Lyanna spoke to Jon. We don't know how Bran will rule but I would think in the books GRRM will have some kind of assembly because a small council is too weak.

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kajjo said:

 

He was just a prisoner of war and should have kept as such. Confer Jaime being kept prisoner by RobbStark. No bending the knee or killing.

Not exactly. Robb Stark had some pretty efty upsides to keeping Jaime alive as a prisoner and hostage. In fact, putting the wellfare of his family ahead of the will of his Lords led to some bad consequences.

Would the Tarlys have been as valuable? Their actions against Highgarden were despicable and, once you look at the 'Queen Cersei is the best' convo, a pretty good moneygrabb. Shanking your direct superior and getting their place? Priceless. If Tyrion was so worried about the strategic loss? Get the Redwynes or Hightowers to be 'their' prospective head of the Reach. After all, if House Tyrell could be uprooted by Cersei, why in seven hells couldn't Daenerys swap out Hornhill for another of the Reach Lords?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just have to say @Maia, post #201 - one of the best break downs of the inconsistencies in the show.  I felt like a mere like wasn't enough.  I really could not agree more with your points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

 George then tries to pull the greatest cop out imaginable when Tyrion reveals in his final chapter that “oh, but the slavers would have honoured the peace this whole time if that pesky Dany had just held her temper for five more seconds”.

This is not what happens at all? Tyrion is fully aware in ADwD that the Volantenes are coming, that the Dothraki have been invited and that it was not up to Ghiscari any more, if it ever was. Also, lots of money has been spent by all the anti-Meeren parties, which could only be recouped by a sack. This is what gets me - in the books any long-term peace is clearly impossible without some resounding military victories. Meeren just doesn't have the resources to survive on it's own and the other slaver cities of Essos are highly motivated to quash it with prejudice. The Dothraki, too, are a major problem, as they are the reason why the Ghiscari are cut off from the fertile soil and, as a result, have little to offer in trade.

It is so odd to me that Dany's failure in this impossible situation is supposed to be the sign that she would never make a good ruler. I have seen the sentiment that Dany was written to be the deconstruction of Alexander the Great, or, possibly, Ghengis-Khan, whose background was rather similar to hers. Except - GRRM would not let her be them, not really. Both of them were capable and innovative administrators, after all, as well as conquerors and destroyers, but Martin spends more time on Dany's sexuality than on her empire-building.

 

Quote

Despite every single bit of ADWD going totally against that sentiment. Even then, to me this amounts to a shrug of the shoulders. Better had Dany not tried to free the slaves at all. Less death, less fuss and less problems. A kinder and gentler world.

I am not sure, honestly. It wouldn't be plausible for one person to achieve such a huge paradigm shift among the culture set in it's ways  in such a short amount of time. The best that could be hoped for is that anti-slavery ideals would get adopted into a popular  religion, like already happened with the Faith. Which may well happen in the books.

Quote

So I do not believe that he is interested in the methods or learning from the past because Dany tries that in ADWD and it does not work. She tries to play the Ghiscari game and they screw her for a fool the whole way. Use violence, Dany loses, use peace, Dany loses. It’s the cause, not the method that he’s sniping.

I suspect that Dany's sin in the books is supposed to be that she is unwilling to commit to anti-slavery crusade in Essos and give up her intention to return to Westeros. Clearly, eradicating slavery is a work of a lifetime and more. She may have fallen into it more or less by chance, but it is now her moral duty to go the distance. But she won't.

It wouldn't have mattered if GRRM intended to give us the second Long Night deserving of the name, but if Dany is supposed to be the Fire to the Others Ice, he probably doesn't. I mean, Valyria with it's hundreds of dragons and fire sorcery was the proper anti-thesis of the "night that lasted a generation". Dany, with her 3 young dragons - less impressive than what the Targaryens had during their century on Dragonstone or the Conquest or 150 years after the Conquest, can only be seen as an equivalent to a minor incursion, surely.

Edited by Maia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In ADWD, Skahaz is a loathsome man, who is plainly manipulating Ser Barristan.  It also happens that he is right.  There *are* slavers who are prepared to honour the peace with Daenerys, but there are others who have invited in the Volantenes, who, correctly, see Dany as an existential threat to slavery, who needs to be destroyed.  I expect that will backfire not just on the Volantenes, in ADWD, but also on those slavers who wanted peace.

Tyrion at the end of ADWD, and in the sample chapters, is not trying to broker peace with the slavers at all.  He's trying to turn Brown Ben Plumm.

The lesson that Daenerys will learn in TWOW is that she needs to eliminate her enemies root and stem, rather than conciliate them, but it may not be applicable to Westeros.

Share this post


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

In ADWD, Skahaz is a loathsome man, who is plainly manipulating Ser Barristan.  It also happens that he is right.  There *are* slavers who are prepared to honour the peace with Daenerys, but there are others who have invited in the Volantenes, who, correctly, see Dany as an existential threat to slavery, who needs to be destroyed.  I expect that will backfire not just on the Volantenes, in ADWD, but also on those slavers who wanted peace.

Tyrion at the end of ADWD, and in the sample chapters, is not trying to broker peace with the slavers at all.  He's trying to turn Brown Ben Plumm.

The lesson that Daenerys will learn in TWOW is that she needs to eliminate her enemies root and stem, rather than conciliate them, but it may not be applicable to Westeros.

 

Ah so it was in Barristans POV. My mistake. I could recall a conversation about the slavers actually wanting peace.

Share this post


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

That's simply not how it works.

Not all soldiers of the enemy are traitors. The concept of traitor and enemy is clearly different.

He did not rebel. He fought for Queen Cersei, who sat in the Iron Throne at that instance. Daenerys was not queen in/of Westeros at that moment.

He was just a prisoner of war and should have kept as such. Confer Jaime being kept prisoner by RobbStark. No bending the knee or killing.

Lords of Westeros who fight against a person claiming the Iron Throne are traitors to that person. They have to bend the knee or stop being a lord. There is no way around this. Robb Stark was not claiming the Iron Throne and had no claim on the allegiance of any lord or knight sworn to it who was from outside of his own kingdom. He would've had to treat a Northern lord or Riverlander who fought for the Iron Throne against him just like Daenerys treated the Tarlys if he wanted to be considered King in the North and of the Trident. They would've had to bend the knee, go to the Wall, or die.

Physical possession of a seat is not how feudal inheritance works and again it doesn't matter even if there was a legitimate dispute (except that it might make Tarly's obstinacy and loyalty more understandable). Daenerys Targaryen does not recognize that Cersei is queen anymore than Cersei recognizes Daenerys as queen. Any lord of Westeros who fought for Cersei is a traitor to Daenerys and vice versa. 

Share this post


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

The lesson that Daenerys will learn in TWOW is that she needs to eliminate her enemies root and stem, rather than conciliate them, but it may not be applicable to Westeros.

The lesson will never be, "use your dragons to genocide them all." Martin gave her tangible victories. Slavery was ended in Meereen! She had won noble houses to her side. But the lesson is to kill everyone in a tokar AGAIN? 

The goal post moving for her is really something. She is supposed to end slavery worldwide in like a few months or however long this story line took? Completely unrealistic. The peace was working. It's explained in the Meerenese Blot: "Dany is often criticized by readers for her refusal to make good on her threat and kill the child hostages, which supposedly showed weakness. But, in actuality, Dany’s mercy towards the hostages — combined with the “bad cop” threat of the lurking Shavepate — seems to be precisely what made a peace deal possible. It changed the nobles’ view of Dany and made them realize she was someone they could work with." Dany was unsatisfied with it but that doesn't mean readers should agree with her.

The peace was fragile but it was there; what broke it to smithereens was her burning 200 people while riding on Drogon. She did that. The Shacepate proves she's winning by compromising, which he doesn't like.

Also from a narrative perspective the author isnt going to give her a storyline where she gets to kill them all because they're all conveniently evil and nothing she does matters.

Share this post


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

He did not rebel. He fought for Queen Cersei, who sat in the Iron Throne at that instance.

What are you even talking about?! Tarlys did rebel against and betray Olenna, who was depicted in the show as their rightful overlord. And who supported Dany. They killed people who remained loyal to House Tyrell with the goal of  becoming the lords of Highgarden themselves.

I mean, if you think that the Freys and the Boltons didn't rebel against Robb and Edmure and betray them, they just chose to support  king Joffrey when they committed the Red Wedding, then well enough, I guess, from your PoV the Tarlys wouldn't be traitors either.  The Tarlys are pretty much what Boltons would have been if Domeric Bolton had lived and been Roose's heir.

@Rose of Red Lake:

Except we know from Quentyn's and Tyrion's PoVs in ADwD that Dany's peace wasn't going to work long-term, because it was no longer up to Meerenese or even their fellow Ghiscari. Powerful interests invested a lot of money in quashing Meeren and only a series of military victories could prevent it.

I also don't remember Drogon burning people who weren't attacking him in the books - IIRC the victims were trampled by other people due to panic.

Edited by Maia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2019 at 6:51 PM, Nowy Tends said:

Since when? Seriously? You think war in the Middle Ages was all Chevalerie and Amour Courtois?

Robb didn't want Lannister prisoners killed because his 2 sisters were at KL. Tywin is responsable of thousands death… The Frey killed thousands of North/Riverlands soldiers who were their guests…

Robb denied to torture Lannister prisoners when Roose proposed that they could learn Tywin's plans from the ranking officers, then Robb said he doesn't want to give Lannisters any excuse to abuse his sisters, you mixed the things up. He never said they are not going to execute Lannister prisoners because they had his sisters. 

Which is why I said ''even'' Tywin didn't kill prisoners at Harrenhal. And according to Tyrion, Tywin is an evil man, and he is, and even he spared the lives of prisoners at Harrenhal unlike Daenerys did at KL.

The Freys were the lowest filths in the series, which is why other Riverland houses (mallisters and blackwoods) raised against them even after the crown give them the Riverrun, as well as the norhtern houses against the Boltons after the Red Wedding, if you are comparing Daenerys to the Freys and the Boltons then that only proves my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Maia said:

Except we know from Quentyn's and Tyrion's PoVs in ADwD that Dany's peace wasn't going to work long-term, because it was no longer up to Meerenese or even their fellow Ghiscari. Powerful interests invested a lot of money in quashing Meeren and only a series of military victories could prevent it.

I also don't remember Drogon burning people who weren't attacking him in the books - IIRC the victims were trampled by other people due to panic.

It was not inevitable; she could have had former masters working for her in this fight. She manages to turn everyone against her with that act when she could have had a civil war between nobility and slavers. Now she "has" to kill everyone, even the people who were willing to compromise until she proved the bad guys correct. What happened in the fighting pits is a disaster of public perception. From their POV, it looks like she got them all together on some pretext to kill them with her dragon - exactly what Daario was arguing for. It was fine when she was fighting Drogon with the whip, but she should have tried to kill her dragon. That was her choice the author gave her and it had consequences. She could have looked like the hero who saved them from a dragon; instead she's the one riding a dragon to burn them. The reason readers might not remember all the people being burned is because she closes her eyes. We have a POV trap where he's burning even more people and she is unaware. Later she remembers seeing a woman try to shield her son from the flames. But we don't get the full memory because "If I look back I'm lost." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

It was not inevitable; she could have had former masters working for her in this fight. She manages to turn everyone against her with that act when she could have had a civil war between nobility and slavers. Now she "has" to kill everyone, even the people who were willing to compromise until she proved the bad guys correct. What happened in the fighting pits is a disaster of public perception. From their POV, it looks like she got them all together on some pretext to kill them with her dragon - exactly what Daario was arguing for. It was fine when she was fighting Drogon with the whip, but she should have tried to kill her dragon. That was her choice the author gave her and it had consequences. She could have looked like the hero who saved them from a dragon; instead she's the one riding a dragon to burn them. The reason readers might not remember all the people being burned is because she closes her eyes. We have a POV trap where he's burning even more people and she is unaware. Later she remembers seeing a woman try to shield her son from the flames. But we don't get the full memory because "If I look back I'm lost." 

Why would she try to kill one of her dragons?????  The dragons are the source of her power.  Of course, if she'd used all of her power and wealth to send for some dragon specialists and buy some dragon books from Asshai or elsewhere she might have had a better chance at training them, but killing them or locking them up would be insane.  No one would fear her w/out the dragons. 

Share this post


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

Why would she try to kill one of her dragons?????  The dragons are the source of her power.  Of course, if she'd used all of her power and wealth to send for some dragon specialists and buy some dragon books from Asshai or elsewhere she might have had a better chance at training them, but killing them or locking them up would be insane.  No one would fear her w/out the dragons. 

 Just read this. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/29/dragon-power-is-awesome-it-cant-tell-you-how-rule/?utm_term=.84dc5e786cb1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, The One Who Kneels said:

Lords of Westeros who fight against a person claiming the Iron Throne are traitors to that person. They have to bend the knee or stop being a lord.

Does that mean that the lords who supported Maegor I’s claim to the Iron Throne over the identical claim by Aenys I’s son Aegon the Uncrowned were traitors? Or were the lords supporting that Aegon’s claim of the Iron Throne the actual traitors?

Were the lords supporting Alicent Hightower's son Aegon II in his claim of the Iron Throne traitors to Rhaenyra’s son the eventual Aegon III? Or was it the other way around? Or both? Which side’s lords were the traitors here?

Likewise in the later contest for Iron Throne between Aegon IV’s sons Daemon I Blackfyre and Daeron II Targaryen.  Half the lords of Westeros supported one side, half the other. Both claimed the Iron Throne. Were Daemon’s lords traitors to Daeron or were Daeron’s lords traitors to Daemon? Or both or neither?

During Robert’s Rebellion, were the lords faithful to the Baratheons, Arryns, Tullies, and Starks actually the traitors there because Aerys II claimed the Iron Throne?  Or were the lords under the Martells, Tarlies, and Tyrells traitors to Robert I Baratheon because he claimed the Iron Throne?

Were the lords supporting Daenerys against Cersei I Lannister traitors because Cersei had already claimed the Iron Throne for herself? Were the lords supporting Cersei traitors because she had no blood connection to Aegon the Conqueror whose throne it was, and so could not have been the heir of any of the three Baratheon kings, who ostensibly did?

Was Daenerys herself the traitor because crown prince Rhaegar’s surviving son Aegon had the senior claim to the Iron Throne? Or was she only a traitor after she had learned her claim ranked behind his and tried to hide all this from the kingdoms, pretending she was still the heir when she was not? Because that happened before the battle in the north where winter finally fell, was Dany actually a traitor all that time that she was fighting to save the kingdom? Were the lords supporting Jon the traitors because Dany had already claimed the Iron Throne and Jon refused to assert his senior claim to it? How was Jon Snow any more of a traitor after Dany announced her plans to "liberate" Winterfell than Jon Arryn was when Aerys II called for Robert and Ned’s heads?

Weren't all of these people named above ultimately traitors to the Iron Throne?  It’s not like they could help themselves because treason was built right into the system itself. And after three centuries of treason upon treason upon treason, the deadly cycle oscillating between atrocity and retribution became a never-ending wheel of outrageous fortune.

The ultimate enemy behind three centuries of tragedy was the Iron Throne itself.  That's why the title of the very last episode in the entire series was named after it. Westeros defeated it in the end, but only at great cost.

Edited by CrypticWeirwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

The lesson will never be, "use your dragons to genocide them all." Martin gave her tangible victories. Slavery was ended in Meereen! She had won noble houses to her side. But the lesson is to kill everyone in a tokar AGAIN? 

The goal post moving for her is really something. She is supposed to end slavery worldwide in like a few months or however long this story line took? Completely unrealistic. The peace was working. It's explained in the Meerenese Blot: "Dany is often criticized by readers for her refusal to make good on her threat and kill the child hostages, which supposedly showed weakness. But, in actuality, Dany’s mercy towards the hostages — combined with the “bad cop” threat of the lurking Shavepate — seems to be precisely what made a peace deal possible. It changed the nobles’ view of Dany and made them realize she was someone they could work with." Dany was unsatisfied with it but that doesn't mean readers should agree with her.

The peace was fragile but it was there; what broke it to smithereens was her burning 200 people while riding on Drogon. She did that. The Shacepate proves she's winning by compromising, which he doesn't like.

Also from a narrative perspective the author isnt going to give her a storyline where she gets to kill them all because they're all conveniently evil and nothing she does matters.

The essays are interesting, but they overlook the Volantenes.  The Yunkish called them in.  Some of the Yunkish seem to regret this (they don't want to become a Volantene colony) but it's too late now.  And, the Volantenes are very clear sighted.  Even if Dany lives in peace with them, they know that her example of freeing slaves is going to blow their society apart.  They have to kill her, and return her people to servitude.

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

×