Will Dany burn Essos on the way to Westeros?

[Tyrion1991]

On 11/25/2019 at 2:30 AM, Jonthedragon said:

Will she burn the cities in the area of the Old Valyrian Freehold on the way to Westeros? I do wonder if she will travel along the Devil Road which she saw as the road home on her flight on Drogon. She would be massively feared upon arrival with god knows how many people she frees / follow her.

 

Yes. She is going to go full Genghis Khan. I think it’s very obvious that George wrote Dany being so utterly driven for peace in ADWD to try to offset how violent things are going to get in  Because that kill count is going far past a million before she even sets foot in Westeros.

There has to be a reason people don’t see her as this beautiful Fay Queen whose delivered us from Cersei and the Lannister yoke. I think Barristan is probably correct and had Dany not got involved with the Essos wars you could have had a 1660 Restoration of the Monarchy. Instead her path of destruction will create a moral panic. Never mind if she brings Fire Worshippers and sorcerers into her ranks. She’s going to look more like Sauron than Elsa.

I am fully anticipating a lot of moralising where the situation dramatically changes after Barristan & Co win at Mereen but Dany refuses generous peace terms. Probably A LOT of collateral damage, famine, disease, etc etc. 

A major theme in Danys arc is that you can’t use power for good. I dont think George is actually being nuanced here. This is the criticism of LBJ bombing North Vietnam seeping in. That Dany would be best off staying in Drogos tent and being happy with what she has. Partly that’s also a meta criticism of the “all powerful chosen one” in some High Fantasy stories. Which means that, thematically, Dany can’t be the solution to saving Westeros from the Others and is likely being set up as part of the problem.

[#1dolFAN]

7 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

That Dany would be best off staying in Drogos tent and being happy with what she has.

With what she has, or what she deserves?

[#1dolFAN]

10 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Which means that, thematically, Dany can’t be the solution to saving Westeros from the Others and is likely being set up as part of the problem.

Disagree. Aside from Jon Snow, Danny has one of the best moral compasses in the story. She can and likely will save Westeros.

[Tyrion1991]

35 minutes ago, #1dolFAN said:

Disagree. Aside from Jon Snow, Danny has one of the best moral compasses in the story. She can and likely will save Westeros.

 

I think George has a very deep cynical streak when it comes Daenerys. George is not really too concerned about intentions but the consequences. This mentality always favours supporting the status quo and not rocking the boat. Whereas an idealistic character who causes a slave uprising for example is always going to be depicted negatively. This is why Slavers Bay becomes so horrendous and the horror of war belaboured. You don’t see this anti war criticism of House Stark in the Riverlands. 

Yes you can read ADWD as a criticism of Dany pursuing a policy of appeasement. But, without Winds we haven’t got the flip side of that and I contend that George is going to depict that in an extremely negative light. One that will probably cause massive harm and suffering to those in Essos.

It would be nice if that happened. But with so many Stark POV and this really being their story I can’t see why an outsider POV would just show up in the final novel and save Westeros. 

Also, there’s a ton of satire throughout the story on the idea of a prophesies Chosen One throughout the series. George clearly has an axe to grind here. That suggests that Dany can’t be the real deal.

Jon does nothing with that moral compass. He literally gets shot in the knee whilst better men win the day and happens to get all this attention from everyone because of his holy Stark blood. They only care to improve his character because they’ve decided he’s a special sir to be groomed for command. He gets his rangers killed. He spends an entire novel doing a retelling of Full Metal Jacket and then licks out with a lantern. People do and have talked about him like he’s the Sword of the Morning but he’s done nothing to warrant this praise. Stannis army is freezing g to death because he didn’t march on Winterfell and his plan to rescue the Wildlings has gone so well. If he wasn’t a POV character he would be passing through this story without notice. I also don’t like how the Starks are these stoic and introspective characters yet they’re able to win people over to them. Why do Tormund and Jon actually like each other beyond plot convenience?  Aside from a few mentions of “cold eyed Eddard Stark” you don’t ever have a Stark shunned for this like Stannis is for example. 

[#1dolFAN]

19 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

I also don’t like how the Starks are these stoic and introspective characters yet they’re able to win people over to them...Aside from a few mentions of “cold eyed Eddard Stark” you don’t ever have a Stark shunned for this like Stannis is for example. 

Well stoicism and sternness are to be expected from a people who regularly must deal with a climate and environment that literally sucks the joy and glee right out of you. The Reach this is not, where a lord can prance around in his garden and indulge in juicy fruits. The North is a harsh place that breeds harsh folk. As far as Tormund and Jon’s bromance, well it has been said that opposites attract..

[#1dolFAN]

30 minutes ago, Tyrion1991 said:

It would be nice if that happened. But with so many Stark POV and this really being their story I can’t see why an outsider POV would just show up in the final novel and save Westeros.

As much as I consider myself in Dany’s camp, you make a relevant statement. She can obviously still be a (if not THE) factor in Westeros’s salvation, but it makes sense that she would have to play second fiddle to Jon or Bran as far as taking the credit and the glory.

[Ygrain]

3 hours ago, #1dolFAN said:

Disagree. Aside from Jon Snow, Danny has one of the best moral compasses in the story. She can and likely will save Westeros.

Her moral compass must have taken a holiday when Drogo pillaged that Lhazarene city so that she could get her ugly iron chair. Yes, she was uncomfortable about it, and saved some women, but she let it happen as a necessary evil for her own personal gain. Astapor must have had a lot of innocent victims, as well. She is generally a good person with good intentions but there is a ruthless and vengeful streak in her that might cause something horrible.

[Wall Flower]

8 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Her moral compass must have taken a holiday when Drogo pillaged that Lhazarene city so that she could get her ugly iron chair. Yes, she was uncomfortable about it, and saved some women, but she let it happen as a necessary evil for her own personal gain. Astapor must have had a lot of innocent victims, as well. She is generally a good person with good intentions but there is a ruthless and vengeful streak in her that might cause something horrible.

 Realistically, as a pregnant 13 year old, Dany used the very limited influence she had as Drogo's wife to prevent some rapes but she could not have stopped Drogo or his men from their actions in Lhazarene. She was uncomfortable and tried to tell herself that the pillaging was necessary but I think what happened there played into her attitudes to slavery and the slavers at Astapor and Meereen.

I agree that Dany does have a ruthless and vengeful streak but it's worth remembering that plenty of innocent slaves were already dying in Astapor and Meereen - it was built into the slavers' business model.

[#1dolFAN]

Ok everyone is claiming Daenerys as ruthless but I’m trying to think when she committed an evil act out of pure cruelty? Every badass thing she did was warranted in one way or another. Hell if both she and Jon Snow sat the Iron Throne in union and co-partnership (as Aegon ruled jointly with his sisters) the Realm would have just leadership indeed, who would stand for the common folk and more. Of course one being an orphan and the other a bastard, they know the feeling of pain and injustice and so would govern accordingly. 

[SeanF]

6 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

 

I think George has a very deep cynical streak when it comes Daenerys. George is not really too concerned about intentions but the consequences. This mentality always favours supporting the status quo and not rocking the boat. Whereas an idealistic character who causes a slave uprising for example is always going to be depicted negatively. This is why Slavers Bay becomes so horrendous and the horror of war belaboured. You don’t see this anti war criticism of House Stark in the Riverlands. 

Yes you can read ADWD as a criticism of Dany pursuing a policy of appeasement. But, without Winds we haven’t got the flip side of that and I contend that George is going to depict that in an extremely negative light. One that will probably cause massive harm and suffering to those in Essos.

It would be nice if that happened. But with so many Stark POV and this really being their story I can’t see why an outsider POV would just show up in the final novel and save Westeros. 

Also, there’s a ton of satire throughout the story on the idea of a prophesies Chosen One throughout the series. George clearly has an axe to grind here. That suggests that Dany can’t be the real deal.

Jon does nothing with that moral compass. He literally gets shot in the knee whilst better men win the day and happens to get all this attention from everyone because of his holy Stark blood. They only care to improve his character because they’ve decided he’s a special sir to be groomed for command. He gets his rangers killed. He spends an entire novel doing a retelling of Full Metal Jacket and then licks out with a lantern. People do and have talked about him like he’s the Sword of the Morning but he’s done nothing to warrant this praise. Stannis army is freezing g to death because he didn’t march on Winterfell and his plan to rescue the Wildlings has gone so well. If he wasn’t a POV character he would be passing through this story without notice. I also don’t like how the Starks are these stoic and introspective characters yet they’re able to win people over to them. Why do Tormund and Jon actually like each other beyond plot convenience?  Aside from a few mentions of “cold eyed Eddard Stark” you don’t ever have a Stark shunned for this like Stannis is for example. 

You may well be correct, but it would be a surprisingly reactionary message from someone with left of centre views.

The show did deliver that reactionary message.  Dany's moral downfall came about due to her desire to free slaves.  The best form of government is an oligarchy, comprising people who view the Smallfolk as livestock.  Reformers are tyrants.  Xenophobia was vindicated.  Women who seek power are dangerous.  Power is best exercised by people with the right genetics.  Sensible people accept that injustice is just the way things are.

I thought that was just Ding and Dong preaching to us.  I'd be very disappointed if that was Martin's outlook, as well.

[Jon The Dragon]

In my opinion, the Starks are able to win people over to them because of love and respect for their family. Even after Ned's death people are still loyal to him fiercely, so fierce they made his son king and might crown his 'other' son. The Starks have a history of honour, helping and caring for people, be it Torrhen saving his people, the Manderleys, stopping invasions by the Wildlings, Howland Reed and the Knight of the Laughing Tree. Obviously we don't know the exact ancient history of the family so I won't say they have been always good. The Stark kids probably inspire a lot of sympathy in people too. Jon's moral compass gets him stabbed, he is one of the few to realise and accept that Westeros and the Wildlings have the same problem. I'd say Tormund and Jon have a mutual respect for eachother that will grow, they both tell it straight, also they and their peoples need eachother.

I don't think the show writers fully understood the characters, or maybe thought their changes would be better. If Dany does go on the warpath through Essos then Westeros, I would expect it's because of all the influences around her changing her outlook, all of those people Quaithe warned about want Dany to augment their own power/agenda. Hardly anyone is there just for her. A good person can be destroyed with bad counsel and betrayals, if that person has weapons of mass destruction then the common people might suffer in the collateral damage. 

 

'They were dancing. In my dream. And everywhere the dragons danced the people died' 

Fire and Blood is coming to the BBQ

[SeanF]

13 minutes ago, Jonthedragon said:

In my opinion, the Starks are able to win people over to them because of love and respect for their family. Even after Ned's death people are still loyal to him fiercely, so fierce they made his son king and might crown his 'other' son. The Starks have a history of honour, helping and caring for people, be it Torrhen saving his people, the Manderleys, stopping invasions by the Wildlings, Howland Reed and the Knight of the Laughing Tree. Obviously we don't know the exact ancient history of the family so I won't say they have been always good. The Stark kids probably inspire a lot of sympathy in people too. Jon's moral compass gets him stabbed, he is one of the few to realise and accept that Westeros and the Wildlings have the same problem. I'd say Tormund and Jon have a mutual respect for eachother that will grow, they both tell it straight, also they and their peoples need eachother.

I don't think the show writers fully understood the characters, or maybe thought their changes would be better. If Dany does go on the warpath through Essos then Westeros, I would expect it's because of all the influences around her changing her outlook, all of those people Quaithe warned about want Dany to augment their own power/agenda. Hardly anyone is there just for her. A good person can be destroyed with bad counsel and betrayals, if that person has weapons of mass destruction then the common people might suffer in the collateral damage. 

 

'They were dancing. In my dream. And everywhere the dragons danced the people died' 

Fire and Blood is coming to the BBQ

What I think about the Starks is that Ned and Catelyn were good and honourable people by the standards of this world.  I feel huge sympathy for their children, because of the injustices they suffered.  

Historically, though, there have been some terrible Starks - who murdered and raped their way to power.  Which we should expect.  All noble families comprise the good, bad, and indifferent.

I thought the show did the surviving Starks as much an injustice as any character, portraying them as sly, selfish, and treacherous, in keeping with the showrunners' belief that "honour is stupid."

[Jon The Dragon]

No family are completely without fault, I did think there would be some negative points about the Stark history somewhere, I just didn't know what. In recent history, they have been a fairly noble and honourable family though. The show did everyone dirty. I don't think they did anyone justice in their portrayal in later seasons. Once the source material ran out it showed pretty hard. Missing out or combining storylines didn't do the show any favours either. I'm just happy the story isn't finished yet, there are still books left to come out and discussions on theories are still possible.

[SeanF]

9 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Her moral compass must have taken a holiday when Drogo pillaged that Lhazarene city so that she could get her ugly iron chair. Yes, she was uncomfortable about it, and saved some women, but she let it happen as a necessary evil for her own personal gain. Astapor must have had a lot of innocent victims, as well. She is generally a good person with good intentions but there is a ruthless and vengeful streak in her that might cause something horrible.

A Khaleesi is, in essence, a privileged sex slave.  She had no part in the command of the Khalasar. She did what she could at the village, but it was a drop in the bucket.

I think it is overwhelmingly likely that innocent people died at Astapor, but many more innocent lives were saved, that day.  She deserves to be criticised for not remaining at Astapor to govern it, so that it fell into the hands of a tyrant.

[Jon The Dragon]

Many things could change her moral compass pretty quickly. She doesn't yet know Mereen is at war, if she returns and finds a war going on, and maybe a dragon missing, or the gates of the city closed behind Barristan and the Unsullied, the retribution could be channelled anywhere. Finding out about Illyrio and Aegon from Tyrion, what potentially the maesters did to the dragons and her ancestors from Marwyn, that Quentyn tried to steal a dragon or if somehow Daario dies in the battle, could all see her go off on a different path. Then you have the influences of the red priests and the Greyjoys all wanting their piece of her. Will be interesting to read from all the different perspectives around her.

[Rose of Red Lake]

9 hours ago, #1dolFAN said:

Ok everyone is claiming Daenerys as ruthless but I’m trying to think when she committed an evil act out of pure cruelty? Every badass thing she did was warranted in one way or another.

Randomly rounding people up based on the clothing they wear to crucify them, torturing the wineseller and then the wineseller's daughter, and burning conquered rape victims alive is cruel. "They deserved it" isnt the point for two reasons, 1) if their actions are cruel, so is Dany's, because she thinks in "eye for an eye", 2) what these actions are doing to her mentally, like how she cares less about human life, is more important, mainly because her Essos story only exists for the purposes of becoming a threat to Westeros. Killing people should always be treated seriously--yet she never weighs the decision. Its always like a *snap* thing. Also she's the only person who has the ability to kill millions ...I dont care if you're mother theresa or gandalf, it's scary. Plus, "burning all the bad people to solve problems" is very U.S. foreign policy, i.e. something a 5 year old would come up with.

[Rose of Red Lake]

14 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

A major theme in Danys arc is that you can’t use nuclear power for good.

Fixed

15 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

That Dany would be best off staying in Drogos tent and being happy with what she has.

I don't think that staying in Drogo's tent was best. But convincing Drogo to conquer the 7k for her was questionable. Why does her agency come at the expense of thousands of lives? It doesnt have to be that way. 

[#1dolFAN]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

A Khaleesi is, in essence, a privileged sex slave.

Blasphemy. The day I see a sex slave giving orders to a Dothraki screamer is the day all the gold in Casterly Rock runs out.

[#1dolFAN]

2 hours ago, Jonthedragon said:

Then you have the influences of the red priests and the Greyjoys all wanting their piece of her.

Huge. Can’t wait to see how that turns out, once the Ironborn show up to claim their “prize”.

That Hellhorn Euron wields surely will be significant.

[#1dolFAN]

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Plus, "burning all the bad people to solve problems" is very U.S. foreign policy, i.e. something a 5 year old would come up with.

I’m sorry but completely destroying ones enemy has nothing to do with “U.S. policy”. Doesn’t matter if you’re American, Babylonian, Persian or Ghengis Khan, it’s just sound policy.

Check the 48 Laws of Power.