Jump to content
Rose of Red Lake

Dany and child murder

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Son of Man said:

I find it so silly that people over value children.  The life of a child is no more valuable nor any less than that of an elderly person.  War should be an equal opportunity killer.  The young people who died were casualties and are paying for the millenia of abuse their culture have heaped on the weak.  It's not murder.  It's war.  It's being a hypocrite to feel offended over the deaths of the young Ghiscari slavers while simultaneously turning a blind eye to what Robert's Rebellion did to the people overseas.  And Robert's reason was less valid.  

We should be thinking of the millions of slave children who suffered at the hands of the Ghiscari (and will continue to suffer unless the Ghiscari are stopped) instead of feeling sorry for the Little Masters.  The Little Masters and the countless generations before them have benefited from slavery.  They are now reaping the fruits of their way of life.  Its payment for the luxury they have enjoyed for years at the expense of their slaves.  The amount of lives ended and destroyed by slavery far overshadow the deaths of these Little Masters.  

Stannis was contemplating the burning of his nephew for personal gain.  Theon murdered two innocent farm boys.  It would not have been so bad if it had been Bran and Rickon who are enemies of his family.  But no, he picked two boys who had nothing to do with this fight.  The watch put young boys in harm's way in service to the kingdom.  Knights put their squires in danger all the time.  The expressed concern for the deaths of the Little Masters is just propaganda and hot air to me.

 

Children are the future of society, old men are the past. Therefore a child's life is inherently more valuable. And war is not, in fact, an equal opportunity killer - depending on the form of war, primary victims will be either combatants (soldiers), if the war is fought in a structured manner (rules of war), or else those too weak to defend themselves (children and elderly), if the war is not fought in a structured manner (no rules of war).

I do agree that slavery system is bad, but that does not mean that killing slavers' children is automatically justified - children are inherently adaptable, and if a child can be successfully raised by the wolves, or apes, then a child can be taught to not be a slaver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2019 at 6:38 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

Quote 1: “Slay the Good Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under twelve, and strike the chains off every slave you see.” - Daenerys, ASOS

Quote 2: “In death he looked even younger than he had with blade in hand. “A boy,” said Dany. “He was only a boy.”
“Six-and-ten,” Hizdahr insisted. “A man grown, who freely chose to risk his life for gold and glory. No children die today in Daznak’s, as my gentle queen in her wisdom has decreed.” - Daenerys, ADWD

Quote 3: "A boy came, younger than Dany, slight and scarred, dressed up in a frayed grey tokar trailing silver fringe. His voice broke when he told of how two of his father's household slaves had risen up the night the gate broke. One had slain his father, the other his elder brother. Both had raped his mother before killing her as well. The boy had escaped with no more than the scar upon his face, but one of the murderers was still living in his father's house, and the other had joined the queen's soldiers as one of the Mother's Men. He wanted them both hanged. I am queen over a city built on dust and death. Dany had no choice but to deny him. She had declared a blanket pardon for all crimes committed during the sack. Nor would she punish slaves for rising up against their masters."- Daenerys, ADWD

Several questions here - 

First, is everyone who wears a tokar a slave master? Or, is the tokar the garment worn by free people, some of which are slave owners, some are not?

Second, at what age is a person in Slavers Bay responsible for slavery?

Third, would a person wearing a tokar, who is 12 years old, have been killed in the sack? If so, did Dany sanction child murder? (quotes 1, 2, 3)

Fourth, if she thinks 16 is a child, where did she come up with the number 12 before this? (referring to quote 1 and 2)

Finally, would you consider Mirri Maz Duur a slave who rose up against her master? (referring to Quote 3)

 

Rob Starks actions would have resulted in the deaths of far many more children than the sacks of Astapor and Meereen combined. The difference is that the Rob never had his Mirri moment and had one of the little people confront him about it. So we never really hear about it. 

Whereas Dany is, repeatedly, confronted with this and so you’re led to believe that Danys actions are more monstrous than they are.

It’s never seriously stated that Rob should have turned the other cheek and done nothing; but with Dany this is a recurring theme that the world would be better if she walked away from it. To me that’s a huge double standard in the text. One that is going to become more apparent once the Stark POV assume positions of power. The reader should be invited to criticise the Starks on the same grounds as Dany, instead of them being too good for this world.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2019 at 6:38 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

Quote 1: “Slay the Good Masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who wears a tokar or holds a whip, but harm no child under twelve, and strike the chains off every slave you see.” - Daenerys, ASOS

Quote 2: “In death he looked even younger than he had with blade in hand. “A boy,” said Dany. “He was only a boy.”
“Six-and-ten,” Hizdahr insisted. “A man grown, who freely chose to risk his life for gold and glory. No children die today in Daznak’s, as my gentle queen in her wisdom has decreed.” - Daenerys, ADWD

Quote 3: "A boy came, younger than Dany, slight and scarred, dressed up in a frayed grey tokar trailing silver fringe. His voice broke when he told of how two of his father's household slaves had risen up the night the gate broke. One had slain his father, the other his elder brother. Both had raped his mother before killing her as well. The boy had escaped with no more than the scar upon his face, but one of the murderers was still living in his father's house, and the other had joined the queen's soldiers as one of the Mother's Men. He wanted them both hanged. I am queen over a city built on dust and death. Dany had no choice but to deny him. She had declared a blanket pardon for all crimes committed during the sack. Nor would she punish slaves for rising up against their masters."- Daenerys, ADWD

Several questions here - 

First, is everyone who wears a tokar a slave master? Or, is the tokar the garment worn by free people, some of which are slave owners, some are not?

Second, at what age is a person in Slavers Bay responsible for slavery?

Third, would a person wearing a tokar, who is 12 years old, have been killed in the sack? If so, did Dany sanction child murder? (quotes 1, 2, 3)

Fourth, if she thinks 16 is a child, where did she come up with the number 12 before this? (referring to quote 1 and 2)

Finally, would you consider Mirri Maz Duur a slave who rose up against her master? (referring to Quote 3)

1. Yes

2.  Hard to say.  Some people would likely be involved in slave management by the age of 12.

3. and 4 .  Up to a point.  But, in this world, 12 will be well past the age of criminal responsibility.  There will be 12 years olds serving in armies, sitting on juries etc. 

5.  Yes, although she performed a forcible abortion on Daenerys.

Share this post


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

 

Rob Starks actions would have resulted in the deaths of far many more children than the sacks of Astapor and Meereen combined. The difference is that the Rob never had his Mirri moment and had one of the little people confront him about it. So we never really hear about it. 

Whereas Dany is, repeatedly, confronted with this and so you’re led to believe that Danys actions are more monstrous than they are.

It’s never seriously stated that Rob should have turned the other cheek and done nothing; but with Dany this is a recurring theme that the world would be better if she walked away from it. To me that’s a huge double standard in the text. One that is going to become more apparent once the Stark POV assume positions of power. The reader should be invited to criticise the Starks on the same grounds as Dany, instead of them being too good for this world.

 

Robb isn’t a vehicle to explore social reformers who gain too much power, that seems like what Dany is a vehicle for. Its just poking holes in power fantasies. Sometimes critical thinking stops when it comes to Dany, and I think it’s amusing. 

I don’t think this is a relativist novel. At its core I think it’s still a fantasy novel with a problematic House like Tolkien’s Dark Numenoreans and a light house like the elves, only the dark/light imagery is switched to bait the reader. And the author will never fully allow for too much hero worship or hype, which Dany has in excess. There will be checks on the “power fantasy” that these leaders present, either through contradictions or major losses.  Robb lost pretty badly and all that hype went down the drain. No one can be too fantastical or larger than life. 

Share this post


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

Robb isn’t a vehicle to explore social reformers who gain too much power, that seems like what Dany is a vehicle for. Its just poking holes in power fantasies. Sometimes critical thinking stops when it comes to Dany, and I think it’s amusing. 

I don’t think this is a relativist novel. At its core I think it’s still a fantasy novel with a problematic House like Tolkien’s Dark Numenoreans and a light house like the elves, only the dark/light imagery is switched to bait the reader. And the author will never fully allow for too much hero worship or hype, which Dany has in excess. There will be checks on the “power fantasy” that these leaders present, either through contradictions or major losses.  Robb lost pretty badly and all that hype went down the drain. No one can be too fantastical or larger than life. 

 

What? Danys more powerful than Rob Stark so there’s less need to criticise the consequences of wielding power and violence in his story?

For one, she isn’t, Rob has more men, a kingdom and a longer and more intense war. The consequences of his war are much greater. We do not really see this in the text and blame is not applied to him personally as it is with Dany. 

Second, you can’t chalk everything up to “wars is hell” with Rob and the Stark cause yet think we need Danys actions thrown into sharp and constant criticism. 

Who cares that Rob lost. That’s irrelevant to a discussion about why he doesn’t take the moral blame for pursuing a war of vengeance and conquest. 

There is plenty of criticism of Dany in the text. Never said there wasn’t. If anything it’s outrageously loaded with it. There’s a reason Jorah and Xaro kept suggesting she should just forget the throne and run off to explore the east. It’s very on the nose that she’s better off turning her back on the world. But the OP could come up with all these examples whilst the white as a white wolf on unbroken snow Starks and their lost cause get a free pass. That is a double standard. Where was Rob’s Mirri? If a Stark wields power or uses violence they should be criticised for this and put through these tests. We never see this. It’s obvious that the author is all but saying that if the Starks were in charge and could shape Westeros to their whims all would be good with the world. 

But yeah, you absolutely should have had more pointed criticism of the consequences of the Starks actions. 

 

 

Edited by Tyrion1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2019 at 3:47 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

Ok, so my understanding is, you agree it was child murder. Was she aware though? It seems like she tried to prevent it and thinks she solved it. She must be naive. Situations arise in which she could have realized that she did do that, but doesn't reflect on her actions. When she's confronted with the boy who is younger than her with the scar, and the 16 year old who dies in the fighting pits, there is no awareness. She's bothered by Drogon killing children but not bothered by her own actions doing a similar thing. It seems like she hasn't come to terms with this stuff. But maybe by that point, the next problem would arise with children "having to be sacrificed" for something that doesn't have the same justification. To me, there is always something slightly "off" and contradictory in Dany's POV chapters.

I was hoping for a reply that wasn't just "Dany decided it" because the author appears to be poking holes in her POV in several places.

Agreed, there are flaws in Dany's logic. But I think they might bother me more than they bother you?

Of course, age and upbringing has to be considered in the characters lives, but I feel uncomfortable making allowances for that when someone's decisions are going to define the lives of thousands of people. There's a reason for regency in Kings' Landing and in monarchies in the past. You don't want someone with that amount of authority who isn't ready for it. If Joffrey needed a regent, Dany does too. She wasn't thrust into power unexpectedly, she had a goal and decided to sit her ass on that bench. 

Murder, no.  They were casualties of war.  They came on the losing end of a slave rebellion and paid for their participation in the capturing, breaking, and keeping of slaves. It was judgment day for the slave-owning class and their supporters.

Share this post


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

What? Danys more powerful than Rob Stark so there’s less need to criticise the consequences of wielding power and violence in his story?

For one, she isn’t, Rob has more men, a kingdom and a longer and more intense war. The consequences of his war are much greater. We do not really see this in the text and blame is not applied to him personally as it is with Dany. 

Second, you can’t chalk everything up to “wars is hell” with Rob and the Stark cause yet think we need Danys actions thrown into sharp and constant criticism. 

Who cares that Rob lost. That’s irrelevant to a discussion about why he doesn’t take the moral blame for pursuing a war of vengeance and conquest. 

There is plenty of criticism of Dany in the text. Never said there wasn’t. If anything it’s outrageously loaded with it. There’s a reason Jorah and Xaro kept suggesting she should just forget the throne and run off to explore the east. It’s very on the nose that she’s better off turning her back on the world. But the OP could come up with all these examples whilst the white as a white wolf on unbroken snow Starks and their lost cause get a free pass. That is a double standard. Where was Rob’s Mirri? If a Stark wields power or uses violence they should be criticised for this and put through these tests. We never see this. It’s obvious that the author is all but saying that if the Starks were in charge and could shape Westeros to their whims all would be good with the world. 

His war started because he wanted to rescue his very-much-alive father. Then when he couldn't do that, he was elected as a king and did what his people wanted, declared independence from the crown. A Stark war for independence is as sympathetic as they come, but if you're not a Stark fan, there's no point in explaining why that's significant. You just don't get that attachment as a reader. 

Robb doesn't have a "Mirri" moment because he never claimed to sit high on his horse (so to speak) and act like Savior/Protector at the same time he was conquering their village. He was just like, "I'm going to kick some ass" and later "I'll retreat." Theon is the one who claimed to protect the Stark household at the same time he was beating them into submission, so Dany/Theon have more similarities. 

3 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

But yeah, you absolutely should have had more pointed criticism of the consequences of the Starks actions. 

I dont really have to point to criticisms of the Starks, that's not what the post was about. If you'd like to compare Dany to the Starks and illustrate how both are equally contradictory, I guess we can discuss that here or maybe you can start your own thread? 

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Murder, no.  They were casualties of war.  They came on the losing end of a slave rebellion and paid for their participation in the capturing, breaking, and keeping of slaves. It was judgment day for the slave-owning class and their supporters.

Follow-up question - if the slaves in Astapor had been treated relatively well, would Dany have cared? She arrived there to buy slaves. Would she have bought them if she could have paid for them, or if they were treated like the slaves she encountered with the Dothraki? Dany took her own slaves and even slapped one of them. Judgement day seems to only come on the whims of whatever Dany can afford or is offended by at that particular moment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

What? Danys more powerful than Rob Stark so there’s less need to criticise the consequences of wielding power and violence in his story?

For one, she isn’t, Rob has more men, a kingdom and a longer and more intense war. The consequences of his war are much greater. We do not really see this in the text and blame is not applied to him personally as it is with Dany. 

Second, you can’t chalk everything up to “wars is hell” with Rob and the Stark cause yet think we need Danys actions thrown into sharp and constant criticism. 

Who cares that Rob lost. That’s irrelevant to a discussion about why he doesn’t take the moral blame for pursuing a war of vengeance and conquest. 

There is plenty of criticism of Dany in the text. Never said there wasn’t. If anything it’s outrageously loaded with it. There’s a reason Jorah and Xaro kept suggesting she should just forget the throne and run off to explore the east. It’s very on the nose that she’s better off turning her back on the world. But the OP could come up with all these examples whilst the white as a white wolf on unbroken snow Starks and their lost cause get a free pass. That is a double standard. Where was Rob’s Mirri? If a Stark wields power or uses violence they should be criticised for this and put through these tests. We never see this. It’s obvious that the author is all but saying that if the Starks were in charge and could shape Westeros to their whims all would be good with the world. 

But yeah, you absolutely should have had more pointed criticism of the consequences of the Starks actions. 

Huh? oh don't mind me, I just sip wine and read excellent posts.

*sip*

I've been away from the forums for about a year and am disappointed to find that Northern superiority has gotten worse not better around here. I'm glad to see people using some objectivity in their perusal.

Share this post


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

His war started because he wanted to rescue his very-much-alive father. Then when he couldn't do that, he was elected as a king and did what his people wanted, declared independence from the crown. A Stark war for independence is as sympathetic as they come, but if you're not a Stark fan, there's no point in explaining why that's significant. You just don't get that attachment as a reader. 

Robb doesn't have a "Mirri" moment because he never claimed to sit high on his horse (so to speak) and act like Savior/Protector at the same time he was conquering their village. He was just like, "I'm going to kick some ass" and later "I'll retreat." Theon is the one who claimed to protect the Stark household at the same time he was beating them into submission, so Dany/Theon have more similarities. 

I dont really have to point to criticisms of the Starks, that's not what the post was about. If you'd like to compare Dany to the Starks and illustrate how both are equally contradictory, I guess we can discuss that here or maybe you can start your own thread? 

Jesus that's terrible, Stark independence war is more significant/important/justified than a war to free slaves.

How is Dany on any sort of high horse at this point?

And this is the point you seem to be missing. The "I'm going to kick some ass" portion of Robb's story cost thousands of lives. As did the "I'll retreat." part. While George painstakingly hits us over the head with the ramifications of Dany's actions, The same can not be said for the Starks and Robb in particular.

Share this post


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

His war started because he wanted to rescue his very-much-alive father. Then when he couldn't do that, he was elected as a king and did what his people wanted, declared independence from the crown. A Stark war for independence is as sympathetic as they come, but if you're not a Stark fan, there's no point in explaining why that's significant. You just don't get that attachment as a reader. 

Robb doesn't have a "Mirri" moment because he never claimed to sit high on his horse (so to speak) and act like Savior/Protector at the same time he was conquering their village. He was just like, "I'm going to kick some ass" and later "I'll retreat." Theon is the one who claimed to protect the Stark household at the same time he was beating them into submission, so Dany/Theon have more similarities. 

I dont really have to point to criticisms of the Starks, that's not what the post was about. If you'd like to compare Dany to the Starks and illustrate how both are equally contradictory, I guess we can discuss that here or maybe you can start your own thread? 

 

His father died. At that point the war became about his ego and vengeance. The right thing was to make peace on favourable terms because fighting would and did achieve nothing but furrow the fields with dead. Why should one family get to drag thousands of people into a pointless war which seems to involve a lot him amassing power for himself? He had every opportunity to refuse the crown and  seek terms. These actions are not criticised anywhere near as heavily as they should. You’re depicting him as some innocent pawn in the hand of fate, rather than a Warlord no better than any tinpot King. He is not better than Balon Greyjoy; it is a stupid rebellion. A house divided cannot stand. He and his people are hypocrites.

Just kicking ass and not putting on airs and graces? Thats one way of looking at it. The other is that Dany actually cares about the consequences of her actions and Rob Stark doesn’t give a dam. He sent thousands of people to their deaths if the vain hope that he could save one man. He brought 20,000 killers and rapists into the Riverlands who rampaged around the countryside. This should be a case of wrapping yourself in a rebel flag as an excuse to kill and steal. Instead the author cloaks this in romanticism akin to Braveheart. People died while he was “kicking ass”.

Oh really? He’s humble and therefore that makes him a good person? It doesn’t. That either makes him insipid or a liar. Oh he has an iron crown and doesn’t like shiny things. You’re telling me he just bathed in being acclaimed King and called the Greywolf? “I reluctantly accept, this highly paid, glamorous job...” to quote Homer Simpson? Also Dany did save the Lhazareen. Dany would not be a better person had she looked the other way, like Rob Stark and it’s not selfish to help people. She complains about Mirri backstabbing her, not that she didn’t worship the ground she walked on after she tried to do what she could.

I don’t need to compare Dany to the Starks. Any comparison is skewed because the text doesn’t criticise the Starks. The writer is constantly pointing out the issues of Dany using power and violence. But he does not cast that shadow over the Starks. So it’s pointless making a comparison. Nobody ever accuses Rob of having brought death and ruin to the riverlands. He isn’t left speechless when somebody questions the North’s justification for independence by “oh so smart man”. He’s never accused of abandoning them to die and has an envoy spit in his face for this. All that happens to Dany. If the Starks use violence and power to get what they want then they should be criticised for this.

 

 

Share this post


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

 

His father died. At that point the war became about his ego and vengeance. The right thing was to make peace on favourable terms because fighting would and did achieve nothing but furrow the fields with dead. Why should one family get to drag thousands of people into a pointless war which seems to involve a lot him amassing power for himself? He had every opportunity to refuse the crown and  seek terms. These actions are not criticised anywhere near as heavily as they should. You’re depicting him as some innocent pawn in the hand of fate, rather than a Warlord no better than any tinpot King. He is not better than Balon Greyjoy; it is a stupid rebellion. A house divided cannot stand. He and his people are hypocrites.

Just kicking ass and not putting on airs and graces? Thats one way of looking at it. The other is that Dany actually cares about the consequences of her actions and Rob Stark doesn’t give a dam. He sent thousands of people to their deaths if the vain hope that he could save one man. He brought 20,000 killers and rapists into the Riverlands who rampaged around the countryside. This should be a case of wrapping yourself in a rebel flag as an excuse to kill and steal. Instead the author cloaks this in romanticism akin to Braveheart. People died while he was “kicking ass”.

Oh really? He’s humble and therefore that makes him a good person? It doesn’t. That either makes him insipid or a liar. Oh he has an iron crown and doesn’t like shiny things. You’re telling me he just bathed in being acclaimed King and called the Greywolf? “I reluctantly accept, this highly paid, glamorous job...” to quote Homer Simpson? Also Dany did save the Lhazareen. Dany would not be a better person had she looked the other way, like Rob Stark and it’s not selfish to help people. She complains about Mirri backstabbing her, not that she didn’t worship the ground she walked on after she tried to do what she could.

I don’t need to compare Dany to the Starks. Any comparison is skewed because the text doesn’t criticise the Starks. The writer is constantly pointing out the issues of Dany using power and violence. But he does not cast that shadow over the Starks. So it’s pointless making a comparison. Nobody ever accuses Rob of having brought death and ruin to the riverlands. He isn’t left speechless when somebody questions the North’s justification for independence by “oh so smart man”. He’s never accused of abandoning them to die and has an envoy spit in his face for this. All that happens to Dany. If the Starks use violence and power to get what they want then they should be criticised for this.

 

 

And the Starks accomplished nothing.  They betrayed House Frey.  They lost men who could have been used against the WWs.  I suppose it is good the Starks lost their home and got humbled.  It served them right for helping to depose their rightful overlords, the Targaryens.  

Ofcourse George levels criticism at the Starks.  You just have to read carefully and open your eyes.  That stunt at the wall that Jon Snow pulled, that was not heroic and it was never meant to be such.  George is playing games with his fans.  He wants the reader to think things through and think about what happened.  It's not flattering to Jon and only proved how incapable he is at ruling.  It's not George who tries to make excuses for the Starks.  It's the readers who like that family who invent one excuse after another.  There are many Stark haters and Dany fans on this website.  

Daenerys is a complex character and thus, her arc is not going to be black and white.  She wants to avoid breaking many eggs to make her omelet but she won't hesitate when push come to shove.  Fighting the Ghiscari masters, which number in the hundred thousands in order to win the freedom of millions is worth it.  I wish the Ghiscari masters would agree to free their slaves and not attempt to bring back slavery.  But that is not going to happen.  The Ghiscari are an evil people who profit from slavery.  Something drastic will have to come down on their heads to force them to change.  They need to have their wills and their spirits broken.  Not all unlike what the North did to the South in real life.  The story of the Exodus told us how much ass kicking Moses and God had to dump on Egypt to break their will and let the people go.  That is just the way of things.  Positive reforms require fighting to make happen.  

Share this post


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

Follow-up question - if the slaves in Astapor had been treated relatively well, would Dany have cared? She arrived there to buy slaves. Would she have bought them if she could have paid for them, or if they were treated like the slaves she encountered with the Dothraki? Dany took her own slaves and even slapped one of them. Judgement day seems to only come on the whims of whatever Dany can afford or is offended by at that particular moment. 

This is a very interesting question. I'm not sure. I think she may have bought the slaves (assuming she could pay the price without giving up a dragon) and been on her merry way. It's the treatment of the unsullied that gets her goat & the arrogance & cruelty of their master. 

I don't say this to down play her liberation of the slaves or to paint it in a more negative light but had she arrived & the slaves were treated decent she probably would not have roasted the place. Whether that's good or bad I don't know. I'm inclined to think freeing slaves, regardless of how they are treated, is a good thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

I don’t need to compare Dany to the Starks. Any comparison is skewed because the text doesn’t criticise the Starks. The writer is constantly pointing out the issues of Dany using power and violence. But he does not cast that shadow over the Starks. So it’s pointless making a comparison. Nobody ever accuses Rob of having brought death and ruin to the riverlands. He isn’t left speechless when somebody questions the North’s justification for independence by “oh so smart man”. He’s never accused of abandoning them to die and has an envoy spit in his face for this. All that happens to Dany. If the Starks use violence and power to get what they want then they should be criticised for this.

I dont know why he gave Dany more contradictions in logic and lack of reflection--it could be just how he wants to write a conqueror.

We don't have a POV for Robb but it seems like he gets less righteous as he goes along and shows more doubts about what he's doing. He's willing to try to correct for mistakes toward the end with his Westerling faux pas (maybe one could say this is a flaw in the other direction, not being cunning/ruthless enough?)

Meanwhile, Dany gets more righteous and reflects less. Dany couldn't understand why Mirri would even want to backstab her. She told her point blank multiple times what not to do (don't go into the tent) and why she was pissed. If you're going to conqueror people, don't pretend like you're saving them at the same time! They're not going to say "oh thank you so much!" Everybody would be cool with imperialism and benevolent colonialism if that was the case. 

I dont even think she's an abolitionist, I think Slaver's Bay is just a situation in which she learns how to take what (she thinks) is hers and learns how to win with violence. It's not like Robb's or Dany's is a winning strategy in the long term anyway, which is why I brought up Robb losing. 

Robb definitely made mistakes, but the bigger mistake was Joffrey killing Ned, and Robb represents the North. It had huge consequences and caused the entire North to rebel. It's instantly sympathetic, to me at least, because the crown wouldn't let them do it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

His father died. At that point the war became about his ego and vengeance. The right thing was to make peace on favourable terms because fighting would and did achieve nothing but furrow the fields with dead. Why should one family get to drag thousands of people into a pointless war which seems to involve a lot him amassing power for himself? He had every opportunity to refuse the crown and  seek terms. These actions are not criticised anywhere near as heavily as they should. You’re depicting him as some innocent pawn in the hand of fate, rather than a Warlord no better than any tinpot King. He is not better than Balon Greyjoy; it is a stupid rebellion. A house divided cannot stand. He and his people are hypocrites.

Just kicking ass and not putting on airs and graces? Thats one way of looking at it. The other is that Dany actually cares about the consequences of her actions and Rob Stark doesn’t give a dam. He sent thousands of people to their deaths if the vain hope that he could save one man. He brought 20,000 killers and rapists into the Riverlands who rampaged around the countryside. This should be a case of wrapping yourself in a rebel flag as an excuse to kill and steal. Instead the author cloaks this in romanticism akin to Braveheart. People died while he was “kicking ass”.

Oh really? He’s humble and therefore that makes him a good person? It doesn’t. That either makes him insipid or a liar. Oh he has an iron crown and doesn’t like shiny things. You’re telling me he just bathed in being acclaimed King and called the Greywolf? “I reluctantly accept, this highly paid, glamorous job...” to quote Homer Simpson? Also Dany did save the Lhazareen. Dany would not be a better person had she looked the other way, like Rob Stark and it’s not selfish to help people. She complains about Mirri backstabbing her, not that she didn’t worship the ground she walked on after she tried to do what she could.

I don’t need to compare Dany to the Starks. Any comparison is skewed because the text doesn’t criticise the Starks. The writer is constantly pointing out the issues of Dany using power and violence. But he does not cast that shadow over the Starks. So it’s pointless making a comparison. Nobody ever accuses Rob of having brought death and ruin to the riverlands. He isn’t left speechless when somebody questions the North’s justification for independence by “oh so smart man”. He’s never accused of abandoning them to die and has an envoy spit in his face for this. All that happens to Dany. If the Starks use violence and power to get what they want then they should be criticised for this.

 

 

His father's fate was not the only reason Robb was in the fight, or even necessarily the most important one.   He was also helping his uncle, the ruler of the Riverlands, fight off the depredations of Tywin Lannister.  Remember him?  He's the guy who sent the likes of Gregor Clegane, Amory Lorch, and the Brave Companions to murdrer, rape, torture, and pillage their way through the Rvierlands as a deliberate policy of terror.   Sounds like Robb had ample reason for fighting in that case.  I'm pretty sure Tywin's troops killed far more children (and other non-combatants) than Robb's did.  We get no indication that the troops under the control of Robb did more than property theft and destruction.  (Roose Bolton's troops were not under the effective control of Robb).

As for proclaiming himself King, that was done by his vassals, on the suggestion of Greatjon Umber.  Declining it could have angered his vassals, upon whom he was dependent, and at the very least would have weakened his standing with them.

So, the reason nobody blames Robb for bringing "death and destruction" to the Rvierlands is because he didn't.  That was Tywin.  Although Robb does get some blame from the population, mostly thanks to the actions of Roose Bolton. whose loyalties at this time are, to say the least, questionable.

 

Share this post


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

His father's fate was not the only reason Robb was in the fight, or even necessarily the most important one.   He was also helping his uncle, the ruler of the Riverlands, fight off the depredations of Tywin Lannister.  Remember him?  He's the guy who sent the likes of Gregor Clegane, Amory Lorch, and the Brave Companions to murdrer, rape, torture, and pillage their way through the Rvierlands as a deliberate policy of terror.   Sounds like Robb had ample reason for fighting in that case.  I'm pretty sure Tywin's troops killed far more children (and other non-combatants) than Robb's did.  We get no indication that the troops under the control of Robb did more than property theft and destruction.  (Roose Bolton's troops were not under the effective control of Robb).

As for proclaiming himself King, that was done by his vassals, on the suggestion of Greatjon Umber.  Declining it could have angered his vassals, upon whom he was dependent, and at the very least would have weakened his standing with them.

So, the reason nobody blames Robb for bringing "death and destruction" to the Rvierlands is because he didn't.  That was Tywin.  Although Robb does get some blame from the population, mostly thanks to the actions of Roose Bolton. whose loyalties at this time are, to say the least, questionable.

 

 

Because Cat Stark made the Riverlands a target by abducting Tyrion? So, yeah, that’s another Starks failure. Plus the threat to the Riverlands ends once Rob concludes a peace with the Crown. It’s only when he continues to fight on after Stannis/Renly are defeated that he has no cards to play.

Rob is the primary instigator of the war by taking 20k Northmen into a war zone his mother created. How are we asked to hold Dany responsible for everything her subordinates and enemies do. But with Rob he’s only replying to his enemies actions and all the bad things are by his shifty subordinates? 

He had already won the Northern Lords to his cause by then. To crown himself was an act of political suicide and self aggrandisement. It doesn’t improve the Northern military situation and they lack the means to impose recognition upon the South. It also alienated potential allies. Rob could and should have raised these objections. But he was drunk on glory and got caught in the moment; which shows weakness of character. He was thoughtless and vain.

”Property theft and destruction” could be used to describe Dany in slavers bay if you were inclined. But Dany doesn’t have this handwaved by the author as it is with the Starks. Why are these real people whose suffering I should dwell on in one story but in another it’s simply glossed over as a list of cattle taken? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Dany is a child murderer who butchered children for being raised in a society in which they had no say in, despite her own hatred for Mirri for supposedly killing her own child for being the son of a slaver, which he had no say in, and a prophesied Dark Lord. Yes, that makes Dany a massive hypocrite because of her anger at Robert for what happened to Elia and her children, and Mirri for what happened to Rhaego. Not to mention the fact that she at almost 15 went to Astapor to buy a slave army to begin with even though she, unlike those Astapori children, grew up in Braavos where slavery was forbidden and where she had enjoyed a different way of life, and so knew better. Because spending almost a year with the Dothraki and witnessing the enslavement, rape and murder of the Lamb People wasn't enough to inform her that slavery was bad; clearly those Astapori children should have known better themselves and rebelled against all the adults, like Dany rebelled against Illyrio, Drogo and the Qartheen... oh wait.

As always where Dany is concerned, the discussion is derailed because people feel the need to bring up what other characters have done to absolve her of her crimes. Robb fighting a war and children dying in that war is a very far cry from Dany having complete control over the most disciplined army in the world, and the only army in Astapor, and choosing to command them to kill unarmed, unsuspecting children down to the age of twelve (and younger unless the Unsullied went around asking for their IDs) for the sins of their fathers. Were the children casualties of a battle? No. They were victims of Dany's very specific command to have the Unsullied kill as many of the male children as possible as a punishment for growing up in a society where they at that point had no agency despite Dany herself only being there in the first place because she intended to buy a slave army.

This was Dany's very own Rains of Castamere moment and a very good indicator of how proficient she is at justifying her own atrocities with the way she then continues to lament how horrible child murderers are and how the intends to punish the Dothraki for killing poor Eroeh, a child(!!), but never seems to dwell on what she did to those little boys.

Share this post


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

Because Cat Stark made the Riverlands a target by abducting Tyrion? So, yeah, that’s another Starks failure. Plus the threat to the Riverlands ends once Rob concludes a peace with the Crown. It’s only when he continues to fight on after Stannis/Renly are defeated that he has no cards to play.

Tywin's reaction to Tyrion's abduction was a wild overreaction on his part, the consequences of which are fairly laid at his feet.  

Robb was essentially on his way back North by the time Stannis was defeated, in order to take back Winterfell, something I assume even you would agree is his right to do.

Proclaiming himself King was a bad idea, yes, but it's not as if it was his own idea.  He was following the lead of his vassals, who clearly wanted independence.   And I expect Robb thought the idea a cool one.  Remember, he is only 16 at this time.

16 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

”Property theft and destruction” could be used to describe Dany in slavers bay if you were inclined. But Dany doesn’t have this handwaved by the author as it is with the Starks. Why are these real people whose suffering I should dwell on in one story but in another it’s simply glossed over as a list of cattle taken? 

Not really.  Robb's action were, for the most part, limited to property.  He didn't send his men out to sow terror on the population by killing them like Tywin did.

And any's actions are not limited to destruction of property.  She kills quite a few people, including through torturous means (163 masters)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

This is a very interesting question. I'm not sure. I think she may have bought the slaves (assuming she could pay the price without giving up a dragon) and been on her merry way. It's the treatment of the unsullied that gets her goat & the arrogance & cruelty of their master. 

I don't say this to down play her liberation of the slaves or to paint it in a more negative light but had she arrived & the slaves were treated decent she probably would not have roasted the place. Whether that's good or bad I don't know. I'm inclined to think freeing slaves, regardless of how they are treated, is a good thing. 

Yeah it certainly gives me pause...to not fist pump my way through these chapters. I forgot! Dany had encountered Unsullied before Astapor. She had seen them in the Free Cities and knew that they were guards for magisters. No moral objections to the treatment of the Unsullied at that point when Jorah proposes she buy them, just an objection that the ones she had seen weren't manly enough. She thinks they're useless because they're fat and can't ride horses. If you look at the "servants" in Dany's first chapter, we are told: “They were slaves, a gift from one of the magister’s many Dothraki friends. There was no slavery in the free city of Pentos. Nonetheless, they were slaves." The Unsullied she saw were likely "nicely" treated slaves, which didn't bother her. Does that mean Dany turned the Unsullied into her nicely treated slaves? It's like the theme with sweetness being so sweet it turns sour/rotten. Some of these things sound too good to be true.

Share this post


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

Tywin's reaction to Tyrion's abduction was a wild overreaction on his part, the consequences of which are fairly laid at his feet.  

Robb was essentially on his way back North by the time Stannis was defeated, in order to take back Winterfell, something I assume even you would agree is his right to do.

Proclaiming himself King was a bad idea, yes, but it's not as if it was his own idea.  He was following the lead of his vassals, who clearly wanted independence.   And I expect Robb thought the idea a cool one.  Remember, he is only 16 at this time.

Not really.  Robb's action were, for the most part, limited to property.  He didn't send his men out to sow terror on the population by killing them like Tywin did.

And any's actions are not limited to destruction of property.  She kills quite a few people, including through torturous means (163 masters)

Killing a quarter million people at Astapor and raising half the nations of Essos to war was an overreaction by the slavers. Beyond obscene. What Tywin did was in line with the character of a man Cat should have known. There’s a reason Ned is shocked to learn she’s taken Tyrion.

Abandoning all of his Riverland subjects to  Lannister mercy? So after all that he considers the North more important because they have Uber blood? I doubt the text will be so kind to Dany when she jumps the Meereen ship in Winds.

Rob and his army killed quite a few people as well. I am sure some of that includes medieval torture and punishment. If you ask four violent 18 year old boys to rob somebody, “get the grain” ,what exactly prevents that situation getting out of hand? You’re heavily sanitising what 20k soldiers would look like in the Middle Ages. They should be indistinguishable from bandits; because that’s what they are. So yes, the Northern soldiers should be raping and pillaging the Riverlands; conscious terror campaign or  no. Unless Rob has the logistics of a modern industrial army he can’t magically feed and cloth his army; much less stop his armed soldiers having their way with the locals. The text pulls its punches with Robs campaign.

Dany regretted doing it after the fact and she was not in sound mind at the time after learning about Jorah and Barri. So again the text tells you to raise an eyebrow at Dany doing this. My point is that the text doesn’t criticise the Starks for what they’re doing and whitewashes their actions.

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

×