Aegon as a king

[Wall Flower]

5 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

What I am talking about here is not whether changes should be made, but how changes should be made. It is an old adage about cooking the frog. She is trying to achieve too much too quickly, and even despite that, she still has no patience for it. That is why I believe her efforts in Slaver's Bay will collapse the moment she leaves: she has engaged into something that takes lifetimes, yet all the breakneck progress she has made so far is still not enough for her.

RE: individual guilt, I would like to point out that Roman law - and later Byzantine law - considers guilt a personal thing. It actually appears quite early in history, so while it may be "Western", it is far from "modern". Ancient (and medieval) people were lot more advanced than many today think; if anything, we are in many ways degenerate compared to them.

Personally, I believe that rather than freeing all the slaves - as she did - she should have tried to introduce something akin to colonate. That way, Masters would not have lost their servants, but slaves would no longer be slaves and would achieve a measurable improvement in their conditions.

Because sharecropping worked so well in the American south for former slaves?  A slow pace and half-measures only entrenches power, wealth and privilege in the hands of former slavers and continues the oppression and disadvantage of those who've already been brutalised and enslaved. Change that takes generations only benefits the ruling elite of Slavers Bay. In any case, given the forces arrayed against her, I'm not sure Dany has generations to talk them round to her way of thinking. Meereen is under siege and someone in the city has already tried to poison her.

[Aldarion]

13 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The Romans, and medieval leaders, frequently imposed collective punishments on defeated tribes, and cities.

 

Because resistance is a collective affair. If entire community isn't working for it, you cannot wage war. And we have had same thing done recently: to Germans (after World War I and World War II), to Japanese (after World War II), and less said about what Communists did to their enemies the better...

13 minutes ago, SeanF said:

WRT your suggestion, that implies that the masters have an entitlement to the labour of their serfs, which I do not accept.   It also gives them complete economic dominance over them.  The serfs would be bound to their masters' estates, subject to their jurisdiction, require their permission to marry, be subject to corporal punishment or required to wear chains, and require their permission to pursue other trades.   In essence, their masters could do anything to them except kill or permanently maim them.  I don't consider that to be in any way just towards people who have been kidnapped, or else born into slavery.

 

Somebody always has entitlement to the labour of another, especially in premodern societies. And point here isn't ideology, it is practicality - you cannot just upend the entire social system and expect whatever you put into place to work. Whenever such a thing was tried, it was an abject failure. Change, if it is to last, has to be gradual.

2 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

Because sharecropping worked so well in the American south for former slaves?  A slow pace and half-measures only entrenches power, wealth and privilege in the hands of former slavers and continues the oppression and disadvantage of those who've already been brutalised and enslaved. Change that takes generations only benefits the ruling elite of Slavers Bay. In any case, given the forces arrayed against her, I'm not sure Dany has generations to talk them round to her way of thinking. Meereen is under siege and someone in the city has already tried to poison her.

In led to a lasting solution. What problems were there were caused not by the gradual pace of the change, but rather by the fact that former slaves were not given economic power.

[SeanF]

6 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Because resistance is a collective affair. If entire community isn't working for it, you cannot wage war. And we have had same thing done recently: to Germans (after World War I and World War II), to Japanese (after World War II), and less said about what Communists did to their enemies the better...

Somebody always has entitlement to the labour of another, especially in premodern societies. And point here isn't ideology, it is practicality - you cannot just upend the entire social system and expect whatever you put into place to work. Whenever such a thing was tried, it was an abject failure. Change, if it is to last, has to be gradual.

In led to a lasting solution. What problems were there were caused not by the gradual pace of the change, but rather by the fact that former slaves were not given economic power.

In general I would say that in real life, those states which abruptly abolished slavery, did the right thing.   Sometimes, social systems have to be upended.  Simply converting slaves into serfs would have entrenched the dominance of their masters.

Now your last point is key.  The Great Masters ought to have been asset-stripped, and their wealth redistributed to the freedmen.

[Aldarion]

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

In general I would say that in real life, those states which abruptly abolished slavery, did the right thing.   Sometimes, social systems have to be upended.  Simply converting slaves into serfs would have entrenched the dominance of their masters.

Now your last point is key.  The Great Masters ought to have been asset-stripped, and their wealth redistributed to the freedmen.

Indeed it is. If that had been done, there is no need to do anything else - economic power automatically leads to political power. But since that had not been done, anything that had been done is worthless. Masters hold political power still because they hold economic power.

That is why I suggested, in Westeros, introducing something akin to Byzantine thematic system - not only as a way of entrenching the king against the nobility, but as a way of giving smallfolk a voice in political affairs of the kingdoms. If you have small, independent, landowners as basis of military power - something which Byzantines achieved with their stratiotes - then it automatically means that you have large middle class with political voice.

[Rose of Red Lake]

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

Now your last point is key.  The Great Masters ought to have been asset-stripped, and their wealth redistributed to the freedmen.

I think she did strip some of their assets because the Great Masters are described as “Stripped of their jewels."

And she attacks Meereen not necessarily to free the slaves there, but to use Meereen's wealth to to support the people following her:

Quote

“I must have this city,” she told them, sitting crosslegged on a pile of cushions, her dragons all about her. Irri and Jhiqui poured wine.”

“Her granaries are full to bursting. There are figs and dates and olives growing on the terraces of her pyramids, and casks of salt fish and smoked meat buried in her cellars.”

“And fat chests of gold, silver, and gemstones as well,” Daario reminded them. “Let us not forget the gemstones.”

I'm sure some of this was hoarded or destroyed but I also think she's keeping it, because when Yunkai asks for an indemnity she's says "gold and gemstones are easy." If it's so easy for her to throw money around, why isnt she using it to let people be economically independent?

[Rose of Red Lake]

On 6/24/2020 at 12:38 PM, SeanF said:

Nope.  Just Dany's supporters and allies getting rid of the local oppressors.  Again, what is your problem with that?  Why is the well-being of the Masters so important to you?

I'm not blindly cheering for anyone in Essos. I'm side-eying the whole affair and I'd prefer not to cheer a tyrannical mass murderer in training. 

Supporters and allies getting rid of the local oppressors sounds great, in theory, but I doubt that's going to happen so easily. Dany isn't getting an easy fix or more easy justifications handed to her, that's just Mary Sue writing.

[Rose of Red Lake]

5 hours ago, Aldarion said:

What I am talking about here is not whether changes should be made, but how changes should be made. It is an old adage about cooking the frog. She is trying to achieve too much too quickly, and even despite that, she still has no patience for it. That is why I believe her efforts in Slaver's Bay will collapse the moment she leaves: she has engaged into something that takes lifetimes, yet all the breakneck progress she has made so far is still not enough for her.

That's why you want someone who has the stomach for a long-term fight, but not someone who becomes a butcher queen. I dont think Dany knows how to balance the two. 

[Hodor the Articulate]

8 hours ago, Aldarion said:

It doesn't matter where her moments of black-and-white thinking are borne out of. Fact is that they exist.

Of course it matters. You say she engages in black-and-white thinking and that this will continue in Westeros, which implies this is some sort of immutable personality flaw of hers. But I've shown several instances where she very quickly forgives - and even grows fond of - people coming to her from enemy camps and people who've betrayed her. Clearly, it very much depends on context. That's why I keep asking you to explain what it is about Westerosi lords that will make Dany think this way.

8 hours ago, Aldarion said:

She also often chooses easier path out. When she nailed Masters to crosses, she did not even try to find out which of them had been guilty of the crime she punished them for. And then she tries to cooperate with them - because she has to, but it was apparently not something she considered earlier. She wants to rule Mereen and "help the people", yet at every-other turn she thinks how she despises Mereeneese, their customs and so on.

As I have already pointed out, she actually is not doing that bad of a job in Mereen - but she doesn't see it that way. All changes that are happening come too slow for her taste.

Several things wrong with this:

1. The Great Masters are the rulers of Meereen. I'm not sure why so many readers insist on imagining a group of them ardently protesting the crucifixion of slave children given what we've seen of the Good/Wise/Great Masters. Did you not read how the Unsullied are created? These are the people who okay'd that... but some of them didn't want to nail up kids? #NotAllSlavers

2. Dany hates the Great Masters; she gets along fine with the freedmen. The majority of Meereen are the former slaves - why does "Meereenese" refer to the people of the slaver class to you, and not the freedmen? Why does "help the people" mean help the slavers?

3. After Dany outlaws slavery in Meereen, the only changes to occur are: the slavers get a king, the fighting pits get re-opened, people are allowed to sell themselves into slavery. There's progress to be sure, but it's not towards abolition.

You are far from the first person to be making these arguments. What I find problematic about them is that they're always centred the slavers, and how Dany can improve conditions for them.

10 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Now, considering who exactly she is dealing with, it is not that weird. But once you establish yourself in a pattern of thinking, it is hard to change. And she will almost certainly brought way of thinking she formed in Mereen to Westeros.

Again, why? You acknowledged her suspicions are perfectly normal given the environment. Why would this develop into something unhealthy in Westeros?

10 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Again, you are conflating Daenerys as she is - or rather was, before Meereen - with Daenerys which has started appearing in her last few chapters. Those are not the same personalities.

And yet, you've failed to prove that any of what I said about her has changed in her last chapters.

10 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And again, that is what Robert and possibly Ned believed. We do not know whether it would happen that way, since Viserys' invasion did not happen.

What Robert and Ned believe is the whole point, as they serve as our only representatives for what Westerosi lords think about Targs returning with Dothraki.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I'm not blindly cheering for anyone in Essos. I'm side-eying the whole affair and I'd prefer not to cheer a tyrannical mass murderer in training. 

Supporters and allies getting rid of the local oppressors sounds great, in theory, but I doubt that's going to happen so easily. Dany isn't getting an easy fix or more easy justifications handed to her, that's just Mary Sue writing.

I doubt if it will happen easily either.  In practice, it will be difficult and messy, just as it is in real life.  But, it's still worth doing.  There's no Mary Sue writing if one shows the overthrow of the masters coming about as a result of a gruelling and desperate war and revolution.  Very likely, people will die in that war and revolution who did not deserve to.

What I don't think Daenerys is going to do in TWOW, is fly off to Westeros, leaving the freedmen under siege by their enemies.  She'll finish the war and revolution, before she goes.

[SeanF]

19 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Of course it matters. You say she engages in black-and-white thinking and that this will continue in Westeros, which implies this is some sort of immutable personality flaw of hers. But I've shown several instances where she very quickly forgives - and even grows fond of - people coming to her from enemy camps and people who've betrayed her. Clearly, it very much depends on context. That's why I keep asking you to explain what it is about Westerosi lords that will make Dany think this way.

Several things wrong with this:

1. The Great Masters are the rulers of Meereen. I'm not sure why so many readers insist on imagining a group of them ardently protesting the crucifixion of slave children given what we've seen of the Good/Wise/Great Masters. Did you not read how the Unsullied are created? These are the people who okay'd that... but some of them didn't want to nail up kids? #NotAllSlavers

2. Dany hates the Great Masters; she gets along fine with the freedmen. The majority of Meereen are the former slaves - why does "Meereenese" refer to the people of the slaver class to you, and not the freedmen? Why does "help the people" mean help the slavers?

3. After Dany outlaws slavery in Meereen, the only changes to occur are: the slavers get a king, the fighting pits get re-opened, people are allowed to sell themselves into slavery. There's progress to be sure, but it's not towards abolition.

You are far from the first person to be making these arguments. What I find problematic about them is that they're always centred the slavers, and how Dany can improve conditions for them.

Again, why? You acknowledged her suspicions are perfectly normal given the environment. Why would this develop into something unhealthy in Westeros?

And yet, you've failed to prove that any of what I said about her has changed in her last chapters.

What Robert and Ned believe is the whole point, as they serve as our only representatives for what Westerosi lords think about Targs returning with Dothraki.

It's always easier to empathise with people who are rich and powerful, than it is to imagine oneself being a slave. Slavery is just unimaginable, to most of us.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I think she did strip some of their assets because the Great Masters are described as “Stripped of their jewels."

And she attacks Meereen not necessarily to free the slaves there, but to use Meereen's wealth to to support the people following her:

I'm sure some of this was hoarded or destroyed but I also think she's keeping it, because when Yunkai asks for an indemnity she's says "gold and gemstones are easy." If it's so easy for her to throw money around, why isnt she using it to let people be economically independent?

Daenerys imposed a blood tax on the masters, and presumably, seized the Meereenese treasury when the city fell.  I imagine the main item of expenditure would be the armed forces and Brazen Beasts.

The assets that need to be redistributed, but which have not been, are the lands owned by the Great Masters.  They still have their pyramids, and they still have their estates.  That would enable the freedmen to provide for themselves.

[Hodor the Articulate]

8 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Are you sure thats right? She doesnt think at all about them, or slavery in that dialogue she has with herself. 

And if she really felt like she needed to pump herself up to fight slavers, why is she thinking she's a queen who belongs in Westeros? If you're interpretation is true, wouldnt she be resolving herself to stay and fight by ruling in Essos for like, as long as necessaryto protect her people?

I think most of that chapter is a justification in her head for why she had to stay in Meereen vs. why she has to leave there. Its like Smeagol arguing with Gollum in the way it is written. The prestige of being a Targaryen ruling in Westeros and exacting her revenge on the dogs is like her One Ring, and she's chosen that. 

The "you must not forget who you are"  part is exactly the same line she had when she thought about staying in the khalasar as Drogo's wife, and when she thought about building a city in Vaes Tolerro. 

She thinks sticking around in Essos being a queen who rules differently through soft power (because that IS different than whatever Essos has seen) means, forgetting what Viserys wanted and what he taught her.

I suggest you read that section again. What does Dany do immediately after "Dragons plant no trees [...] Remember who you are, what you were made to be [...] Fire and Blood"? Oh, that's right. She keeps following the stream that takes her back to Meereen. It's when she encounters a Dothraki scout that she realises "To go forward I must go back".

But nooo, she's just fucked off to Vaes Dothrak for a vacation.

I see you're throwing around Underpants Gnome proposals again. Everytime you say something like "soft power" without giving a single example of what you mean, I'm going to bring this post which you have not responded to.

[Rose of Red Lake]

11 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I doubt if it will happen easily either.  In practice, it will be difficult and messy, just as it is in real life.  But, it's still worth doing.  There's no Mary Sue writing if one shows the overthrow of the masters coming about as a result of a gruelling and desperate war and revolution.  Very likely, people will die in that war and revolution who did not deserve to.

It is a Mary Sue if Dany is always going to end up on the side of "good." Like she never becomes a Magneto figure, who takes it too far and has to be put down?

You'd support Dany turning Essos into Valyria, even if that means Dany becomes a mass murderer who can't distinguish good from bad?

If that was the choice (which I think it is) I'd rather have the Dany who was attempting to keep Meereen free and peaceful through a marriage pact, than a mass murdering dictator. 

You're drawing a line here between justice and terrorism when I doubt the author is not going to let you keep that line neat, forever.

If he didn't do that with the Brotherhood, he's def not doing it with Dany. 

[Rose of Red Lake]

26 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I suggest you read that section again. What does Dany do immediately after "Dragons plant no trees [...] Remember who you are, what you were made to be [...] Fire and Blood"? Oh, that's right. She keeps following the stream that takes her back to Meereen. It's when she encounters a Dothraki scout that she realises "To go forward I must go back".

That's pretty thin to evidence to prove your point IMO. She has to go back to Meereen to you know...get her dragons and Unsullied and rally her troops to go to Westeros. 

Look at the content of the dialogue she's having in her head. She's not arguing with herself about being too weak to fight slavery. "oh, I compromised with the slavers too much and now I need to keep fighting because I care about abolitionism and the people of Meereen soooo much." That's not it. She wasn't arguing with herself over who to fight, but where she should be. Like, what she should be Queen of.

"Remember who you are, what you were made to be" <--that isn't as a queen in Meereen, it's a queen in Westeros. 

Meereen was always a pit stop. That was the take-away, for me at least. I think we'll always see it RADICALLY differently. 

[Pontius Pilate]

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

In general I would say that in real life, those states which abruptly abolished slavery, did the right thing.   Sometimes, social systems have to be upended.  Simply converting slaves into serfs would have entrenched the dominance of their masters.

Now your last point is key.  The Great Masters ought to have been asset-stripped, and their wealth redistributed to the freedmen.

They needed to compensate the people whose very lives they robbed.  You are correct about that.  Dany went too easy with them.  But I do understand where she was coming from.  She wanted to take the nice way and give them a chance to do right.  

[GoldenGail3]

Dany BETTER come to Westeros or else I’ll surely perish of boredom when reading her chapters.

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

It is a Mary Sue if Dany is always going to end up on the side of "good." Like she never becomes a Magneto figure, who takes it too far and has to be put down?

You'd support Dany turning Essos into Valyria, even if that means Dany becomes a mass murderer who can't distinguish good from bad?

If that was the choice (which I think it is) I'd rather have the Dany who was attempting to keep Meereen free and peaceful through a marriage pact, than a mass murdering dictator. 

You're drawing a line here between justice and terrorism when I doubt the author is not going to let you keep that line neat, forever.

If he didn't do that with the Brotherhood, he's def not doing it with Dany. 

Essos won't be Valyria, because Valyria was founded upon enslavement, and mass human sacrifice.

That radical social change is coming to Essos is pretty much a given.  I wouldn't say so much, Magneto, as someone like Simon Bolivar.

[Rose of Red Lake]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Essos won't be Valyria, because Valyria was founded upon enslavement, and mass human sacrifice.

 I wouldn't say so much, Magneto, as someone like Simon Bolivar.

Bolivar?? He didnt even want a crown! He didn't think it was his "destiny" to sit on a conqueror's throne. 

I see shades of Dany in Magneto and The Prophet from GRRM's story "And Death His Legacy," using unfulfilled promises to sway the masses and promote herself to power, just not as calculating. But above all Dany is consumed by her destiny of being a ruler in Westeros and that dictates her decisions at major turning points.

Quote

Essos won't be Valyria, because Valyria was founded upon enslavement, and mass human sacrifice.

How does that stop Dany from destroying the place though, or at least leaving too soon and letting it go the way of Astapor? 

I mean, she has to face consequences for leaving.

[SeanF]

13 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Bolivar?? He didnt even want a crown! He didn't think it was his "destiny" to sit on a conqueror's throne. 

I see shades of Dany in Magneto and The Prophet from GRRM's story "And Death His Legacy," using unfulfilled promises to sway the masses and promote herself to power, just not as calculating. But above all Dany is consumed by her destiny of being a ruler in Westeros and that dictates her decisions at major turning points.

How does that stop Dany from destroying the place though, or at least leaving too soon and letting it go the way of Astapor? 

I mean, she has to face consequences for leaving.

Bolivar wore no crown, but he was a Prince (using that word in its old sense, to mean Head of State/Government) who came to power by force of arms.

Her destiny is to fight the Others - and probably perish doing so.  I doubt if she'll sit the Iron Throne for very long.

[Hodor the Articulate]

11 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

That's pretty thin to evidence to prove your point IMO. She has to go back to Meereen to you know...get her dragons and Unsullied and rally her troops to go to Westeros. 

Look at the content of the dialogue she's having in her head. She's not arguing with herself about being too weak to fight slavery. "oh, I compromised with the slavers too much and now I need to keep fighting because I care about abolitionism and the people of Meereen soooo much." That's not it. She wasn't arguing with herself over who to fight, but where she should be. Like, what she should be Queen of.

"Remember who you are, what you were made to be" <--that isn't as a queen in Meereen, it's a queen in Westeros. 

Meereen was always a pit stop. That was the take-away, for me at least. I think we'll always see it RADICALLY differently. 

Thin evidence? Well, you have no evidence for the bolded.

The whole chapter, Dany is walking along the stream to reach Meereen, thinking she needed to get back to donning her "floppy ears". You claim she continues along the stream after "Fire and Blood" etc for her Unsullied but where is this in the text? Why does she fly Drogon to the Dothraki - the people who supply slaves to SB - instead of steering him back to Meereen or straight to Westeros?

It's pretty clear Dany is going finish her revolution. Slavery has been part of her story since her first chapter, where she herself was sold. Where she goes wrong in Meereen is settling before the war was over and assimilating into slaver culture instead of being the mother to dragons and freedmen.

"I am not your mother, she might have shouted, back, I am the mother of your slaves, of every boy who ever died upon
these sands whilst you gorged on honeyed locusts."

"you turned against your children."

"I was tired, Jorah. I was weary of war. I wanted to rest, to laugh, to plant trees and see them grow. I am only a young girl.”

Her hallucinations help her realise planting trees (i.e. taking a rest in the middle of war) was folly and she needed to "fire and blood" her enemies. By the end of the chapter, she's stopped being a harpy, as symbolised by the disappearance of her whip. She's not plowing ahead to Westeros without "looking back" but dealing with her past - "go forward I must go back".