Jump to content
Tyrion1991

Dany the Mad Queen was a terrible idea

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Minsc said:

What makes beheading someone more merciful? We have seen through Theon and Book:Robb that beheading isn't always some quick easy death. 

So burning them is better? :o

Theon is incompetent and mentally unbalanced when he tried to behead Rodrik.

I don't remember Robb failing to kill Rickard in a single blow, to seperate his head he had to hit 2 times more iirc, not for killing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RYShh said:

But Daenerys didn't have the Iron Throne, Lannisters had. So of course she needed allies and hostages like Robb needed. Otherwise there was no point in waiting, she should've attacked the KL directly. 

As Randyll said, she wasn't his Queen, and they didn't swear any fealty to Daenerys, so their execution reason can't be betrayal,

while Robb executed Rickard Karstark for betrayal and he would do the same to Greatjon.

Cersei Lannister had zero claim to the Iron Throne. Daenerys Targaryen had a strong one (indeed the only real one as far as anyone knew). 

But even if you want to argue there was some dispute there the point is Robb could no more just let northern lords sworn to Winterfell who sided with a usurper against him off with a jail sentence than Daenerys could let the Tarlys off. The Robb/Daenerys comparison was conflating two completely things (treatment of foreign lords vs treatment of your own lords).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Lord Stackspear said:

On the brutality of fire execution point, I can see some room for disagreement as to whether that was more harsh than was necessary, but personally, I always saw it as much more consistent with the Stark ethic that the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword.  Drogon is effectively Dany’s sword - she passed the sentence, and she figuratively swung her sword.    

She's basically using a flying drone with napalm, she just has to say a word and doesnt even have to watch. She doesn't even have to worry about blowback because she's fireproof. Its the equivalent of clincial warfare where the masters of war can kill millions with the push of a button.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Lord Stackspear said:

I guess you can debate whether she still needed allies - the show didn’t really get into that - certainly is no evidence that she needed additional allies at this point in the game or that the Tarly’s as hostage would have brought any additional allies.  

Was every lord in Westeros not at one time pledged to House Targaryen?  Isn’t Dany just returning to Westeros to enforce the pledge every lord gave her father?  By bending the knee to Robert Baratheon and then Cersei, they had all committed treason against the rightful heir to the IT (at least from the perspective of the last known living Targaryen).

I’m pretty sure Robb Stark would have said he was executing Richard Karstark for treason - the treason of disobeying the King’s orders.  I also believe Richard Karstark’s last words were, “you’re no king of mine.”  Not sure how you can differentiate that from Dany executing lords who refuse to bend the knee and abide by the pledge they had given her family for 300 years.    

Eh, because Rickard fought beside Robb in battles, declared him KitN, and followed his orders, then murdered his prisoners without Robb's approval, and even killed the guards who were protecting them.

As far as I know, for coronation every house swears fealty to the new king, Daenerys's coronation never happened, and Randyll never followed any orders of Daenerys.

As Jon said Daenerys's claim to the throne rests entirely on her father's name, and Baratheons fought to overthrow the Mad King, so technically she wasn't the Queen.

Edited by RYShh

Share this post


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

How'd that work out for Tyrion?

Oh, yeah, it didn't.

Wait...

He did work out how to convince Jon to kill her by highlighting the credible threat to his sisters when the mere notion of her conquest was failing.

And it did work in knowing Daenerys would allow Jon close even when fully armed, showing she trusted him

Well, hello Cynical Tyrion, where'd you go? 

Unfortunately, he was gone again by the trial scene.

We're shown he's a shit politician when he believes.

 

 

Yep. The St. Tyrion character has been a monumental moron for several seasons now, and while he has that in common with several other characters on the show, I find him to be the most annoying of them all because he keeps insisting that he only makes mistakes because he is underestimating "less intelligent" people (no, show!Jorah, St. Tyrion has never owned his mistakes). Well, that and because The Dragon Demands has made a good case for why he might actually be Benioff's self insert character at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The One Who Kneels said:

Cersei Lannister had zero claim to the Iron Throne. Daenerys Targaryen had a strong one (indeed the only real one as far as anyone knew). 

But even if you want to argue there was some dispute there the point is Robb could no more just let northern lords sworn to Winterfell who sided with a usurper against him off with a jail sentence than Daenerys could let the Tarlys off. The Robb/Daenerys comparison was conflating two completely things (treatment of foreign lords vs treatment of your own lords).

It's not about claim, it's about swearing fealty. Randyll swear fealty to Cersei, not to Daenerys or to IT.

That's the point, Daenerys couldn't execute prisoners for betrayal, Robb could do that to Rickard and Greatjon, they swear fealty to Robb, while Randyll never swear any fealty to Daenerys.

What she could do is beheading Randyll and keeping his son as a hostage, or keeping both as hostage. As Robb was doing it with the Lannisters prisoners.

Share this post


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

Yara went to Daenerys because they wanted to escape from Euron Greyjoy. So they went to Daenerys before Euron could, so they could save their lives.

Basically, Daenerys did nothing to gain any allies, Dorne and Highgarden sided with her because they hate Lannisters, and Yara sided with Daenerys because of Euron.

No matter for what reason, you're admitting she had allies.

They came to her for their own reasons.

My issue is that afterwards, there were no political overtures.

In an established new reality where vassal houses no longer hold to oaths just like the Tarlys did to Highgarden?

There should be plenty of oportunities.

But we're not wasting time with that, for here comes Jon Snow!

Why did Tyrion council her of new allies she could treat with?

Especially upon seeing the North claim independence, you're telling me it's not logical to find other allies?

Tyrion and Varys are her 'experts' in Westerosi politics. Some experts.

 

Share this post


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

Yep. The St. Tyrion character has been a monumental moron for several seasons now, and while he has that in common with several other characters on the show, I find him to be the most annoying of them all because he keeps insisting that he only makes mistakes because he is underestimating "less intelligent" people (no, show!Jorah, St. Tyrion has never owned his mistakes). Well, that and because The Dragon Demands has made a good case for why he might actually be Benioff's self insert character at this point.

Ew.

Share this post


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

She's basically using a flying drone with napalm, she just has to say a word and doesnt even have to watch. She doesn't even have to worry about blowback because she's fireproof. Its the equivalent of clincial warfare where the masters of war can kill millions with the push of a button.

Sure, but we're talking about execution of individual lords, not the use of the dragons in battle.  Obviously, using dragon fire is very effective to execute someone, but so was Ice when Ned wielded it to behead people.  Especially the way the show depicted dragon fire, it appeared about as instantaneous a death as beheading, so I just don't see why it should be viewed any differently.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being burnt by Drogon seems pretty quick. Not like our bro stannis who liked to burn people at the stake. And it's perfectly consistent with Danys background. Why shouldn't she execute people in a way which best represents her?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lord Stackspear said:

Sure, but we're talking about execution of individual lords, not the use of the dragons in battle.  Obviously, using dragon fire is very effective to execute someone, but so was Ice when Ned wielded it to behead people.  Especially the way the show depicted dragon fire, it appeared about as instantaneous a death as beheading, so I just don't see why it should be viewed any differently.  

It is viewed differently in this universe. Stannis' methods are seen as troubling an inhumane as well. Read Asha's reaction to watching the cannibals. Oh yeah, and then there is Jon's reaction to Mance getting burned. 

I think execution by fire is supposed to be this universe's standard for "worst way to go." There aren't any William Wallace style disembowelings here that we know of (Martin went easy on us I guess). Just death by fire and crucifixions and Dany covers two of the worst. 

Share this post


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

Eh, because Rickard fought beside Robb in battles, declared him KitN, and followed his orders, then murdered his prisoners without Robb's approval, and even killed the guards who were protecting them.

As far as I know, for coronation every house swears fealty to the new king, Daenerys's coronation never happened, and Randyll never followed any orders of Daenerys.

As Jon said Daenerys's claim to the throne rests entirely on her father's name, and Baratheons fought to overthrow the Mad King, so technically she wasn't the Queen.

Ok, well here's another hypothetical to illustrate my point.  Let's say Ned was never beheaded, escaped King's Landing and got himself to Stannis Baratheon.  Ned rally's the North behind Stannis' cause because, well, for Ned, Stannis was the true heir to the IT - no, he had never been crowned king, but, to Ned, any man of honor who had pledged themselves to King Robert would get behind Stannis as their King.  Let's say they face off in a battle with some lords in the Reach or the Westerlands who have remained loyal to King Joffrey.  Ned and Stannis win, and ask the remaining lords to bend the knee and fight for Stannis or face the executioner's block (let's stipulate the lords in question have little hostage value and the allied Northern and Stormland forces appear to be close to securing victory).  Do you think Ned Stark would have any issue whatsoever with Stannis beheading lords in that situation? Let's even say it was Ned Stark and his forces alone and that Stannis' orders were to execute lords who refused to bend the knee to Stannis.  Do you think Ned Stark would have any issue beheading those lords with Ice just the way he did the Night's Watch deserter?  In Ned's eyes, Stannis is king because he is the heir - it wouldn't matter that Joffrey was sitting the throne - the lords had sworn loyalty to Robert Baratheon and Stannis was his heir, not Joffrey.

Dany is in essentially the same situation, just with a couple of extra kings in between.  I don't personally see a difference, and I think it is entirely consistent with the faux-medieval world of Westeros that the heir to a now-deposed and dead monarch would expect loyalty from the lords that previously pledged fealty to their predecessor and that anything less would be considered treason.    

Edited by Lord Stackspear
Typo

Share this post


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

Being burnt by Drogon seems pretty quick. Not like our bro stannis who liked to burn people at the stake. And it's perfectly consistent with Danys background. Why shouldn't she execute people in a way which best represents her?

She can do that but she should expect to lose support. 

She should follow the norms and standards of the country she wishes to rule and not do things just because she's a super special Targaryen.

No one likes Targaryens when they're fire obsessed, and that's just what she looks like. 

The smallfolk also fear dragons.

Share this post


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

It is viewed differently in this universe. Stannis' methods are seen as troubling an inhumane as well. Read Asha's reaction to watching the cannibals. Oh yeah, and then there is Jon's reaction to Mance getting burned. 

I think execution by fire is supposed to be this universe's standard for "worst way to go." There aren't any William Wallace style disembowelings here that we know of (Martin went easy on us I guess). Just death by fire and crucifixions and Dany covers two of the worst. 

I agree that being burned at the stake is viewed differently.  I don't see the evidence of that for being burned by dragon fire.  To the contrary, those killed by dragon fire seem to be killed instantaneously in the show, almost immediately turned to ash.  Moreover, it's been 150 years since dragons flew the sky so I don't think the world of Westeros at current has firmly established norms about being executed by dragon fire - to most people in this world, dragons are the stuff of legend and myth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lord Stackspear said:

I agree that being burned at the stake is viewed differently.  I don't see the evidence of that for being burned by dragon fire.  To the contrary, those killed by dragon fire seem to be killed instantaneously in the show, almost immediately turned to ash.  Moreover, it's been 150 years since dragons flew the sky so I don't think the world of Westeros at current has firmly established norms about being executed by dragon fire - to most people in this world, dragons are the stuff of legend and myth.

I know this is a fictional universe and I know we're just talking about fake people and fake scenarios and dragons dont really exist and all of this is imaginary, but when people start arguing about the finer points of temperatures of fire, dragon fire vs. regular fire, I start to wonder...

Rationalizing that dragonfire is hotter and burns quicker than regular fire, and so Dany burning people isn't on the same level or as bad as Stannis and Melisandre doing it, is dumbfounding.

That's not a distinction GRRM or the show is making. Cruelty is cruelty, no matter how you dish it out. At least in Westerosi culture, there was some sense of honor and maintaining one's dignity with a swift chop to the head. And it is still undignified and cruel when it went wrong, but burning people alive is a means to make them suffer. It's not about dealing out swift judgment.

I worry about people who try to make the argument that dragonfire is more humane. 

Please don't let it come to this.

Share this post


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

I know this is a fictional universe and I know we're just talking about fake people and fake scenarios and dragons dont really exist and all of this is imaginary, but when people start arguing about the finer points of temperatures of fire, dragon fire vs. regular fire, I start to wonder...

Rationalizing that dragonfire is hotter and burns quicker than regular fire, and so Dany burning people isn't on the same level or as bad as Stannis and Melisandre doing it, is dumbfounding.

That's not a distinction GRRM or the show is making. Cruelty is cruelty, no matter how you dish it out. At least in Westerosi culture, there was some sense of honor and maintaining one's dignity with a swift chop to the head. And it is still undignified and cruel when it went wrong, but burning people alive is a means to make them suffer. It's not about dealing out swift judgment.

I worry about people who try to make the argument that dragonfire is more humane. 

Please don't let it come to this.

I’m just describing what the show depicted.  You’re free to imagine that the show depicted something else, but I don’t see evidence in the show for the argument you’re making. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I know this is a fictional universe and I know we're just talking about fake people and fake scenarios and dragons dont really exist and all of this is imaginary, but when people start arguing about the finer points of temperatures of fire, dragon fire vs. regular fire, I start to wonder...

Rationalizing that dragonfire is hotter and burns quicker than regular fire, and so Dany burning people isn't on the same level or as bad as Stannis and Melisandre doing it, is dumbfounding.

That's not a distinction GRRM or the show is making. Cruelty is cruelty, no matter how you dish it out. At least in Westerosi culture, there was some sense of honor and maintaining one's dignity with a swift chop to the head. And it is still undignified and cruel when it went wrong, but burning people alive is a means to make them suffer. It's not about dealing out swift judgment.

I worry about people who try to make the argument that dragonfire is more humane. 

Please don't let it come to this.

 

Because the show isn’t consistent. It never asked us to question Arya’s sanity when she baked people into a pie and fed them to a father. Taken out of context, those are the actions of a maniac. Arya has to have sat down and thought to herself, “how can I make Walders last moment as messed up as possible”.

It applies a double standard. Jon hangs a child and the men of the Nights Watch for defying him. He cuts off Janus head simply for not following a command. Dany does the same to two prisoners of war and suddenly she’s demonised for this? Because Sam happens to be related to them? Jon never had to deal with the families of the people he murdered, Arya just straight up killed all the relatives to make sure that didn’t happen. 

So I would ask why none of the Starks also paid the price of having a heel turn and becoming monsters for embracing vengeance? It’s inconsistent. The show entirely glorified every act of violence committed by the Starks as a heroic act.

 

 

Edited by Tyrion1991

Share this post


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

I’m just describing what the show depicted.  You’re free to imagine that the show depicted something else, but I don’t see evidence in the show for the argument you’re making. 

I dont see any evidence for the show suggesting that dragonfire is more merciful because its hotter while regular fire is more inhumane. Where do they even discuss this, and why are you invested in arguing from that point of view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Because the show isn’t consistent. It never asked us to question Arya’s sanity when she baked people into a pie and fed them to a father. Taken out of context, those are the actions of a maniac. Arya has to have sat down and thought to herself, “how can I make Walders last moment as messed up as possible”.

It applies a double standard. Jon hangs a child and the men of the Nights Watch for defying him. He cuts off Janus head simply for not following a command. Dany does the same to two prisoners of war and suddenly she’s demonised for this? Because Sam happens to be related to them? Jon never had to deal with the families of the people he murdered, Arya just straight up killed all the relatives to make sure that didn’t happen. 

So I would ask why none of the Starks also paid the price of having a heel turn and becoming monsters for embracing vengeance? It’s inconsistent. 

It is consistent enough for me. Dany kills people she doesn't know and who haven't done anything to her personally. The Starks kill people who did things to them personally; the Freys for wiping out Robb, Ramsay for Sansa's rape and torture, and Olly for Jon's murder. It's still killing. But it's quite boring to collapse everyone into the same bucket of morality. Otherwise we'd have nothing interesting to discuss and we'd have dichotomous white/black characterization.

Arya could have been Dany if Arya wanted to rule over people, but she didn't. Arya gave up on Nymeria and let her run free; Dany still wanted to keep her magical pets and use them as beasts of war. Arya turned away from that path of vengeance, and gave up on her life's goal in the end. Dany couldn't give up on her life's goal and killed other people to get it. Arya would have had to kill a pregnant woman anyway. Yikes.

I think its just in the cards that Dany was always going to be the Starks' antagonist so. . . she'd do something beyond the pale.

Share this post


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

I dont see any evidence for the show suggesting that dragonfire is more merciful because its hotter while regular fire is more inhumane. Where do they even discuss this, and why are you invested in arguing from that point of view?

The show depicted dragon fire killing people instantly.   No words were ever uttered about execution by dragon fire being more or less humane than any other form of execution.  There were words uttered about being burned at the stake and actions taken by Jon Snow to prevent such an execution.  That’s all the show depicted.   I think arguments can be made both ways about how execution by dragon fire might have been viewed, but we don’t have any evidence from the show  

You seem to be arguing that because being executed by dragon fire involves fire and because being burned at the stake also involves fire and was viewed negatively in the show, it therefore must follow that execution by dragon fire would be viewed the same.  There is no evidence for this in the show, although you can certainly make the argument.  The evidence against this argument and the one I find more believable is the instantaneous nature of death by dragon fire - it does not depict a death with any more suffering than death by beheading.  You can try to apply 21st century logic if you want, but this is a faux-medieval fantasy world.   Dragons are fantasy.   Their fire melts stone and steel and blasts through walls like bombs.  Some of the dragons during the Targaryen dynasty breathed different colors.  Their fire wasn’t any ordinary fire.   

Edited by Lord Stackspear

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

×