Jump to content

Aegon as a king


Lord Varys

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Can be. Doesn't mean that they usually are. And besides, how often have we seen them in war? Reach hasn't sent forces to campaign proper, North doesn't have concept of chivalry, Westerlands have... Tywin, Dragonstone doesn't have many knights, and everybody else is either on defensive, out of focus, or both.

Everyone takes it for granted that Stannis' army will go on the rampage if it takes Kings Landing, despite him being one of the more humane commanders (and realistically, no medieval commander could restrain an army that stormed a city).  The Lannisters' strategy in the Riverlands is the chevauchee (basically, murder, rape, and arson). The Northern and River Lords are almost as brutal in return. The Dornish lords seem to treat torture as a form of recreation etc. 

What's worse about the Dothraki is that their wars are never ending. There aren't any periods of peace on the Dothraki Sea.   But, I don't see their behaviour in war as being that out of the ordinary for this world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, SeanF said:

Everyone takes it for granted that Stannis' army will go on the rampage if it takes Kings Landing, despite him being one of the more humane commanders (and realistically, no medieval commander could restrain an army that stormed a city).  The Lannisters' strategy in the Riverlands is the chevauchee (basically, murder, rape, and arson). The Northern and River Lords are almost as brutal in return. The Dornish lords seem to treat torture as a form of recreation etc. 

What's worse about the Dothraki is that their wars are never ending. There aren't any periods of peace on the Dothraki Sea.   But, I don't see their behaviour in war as being that out of the ordinary for this world.

But do we know anything about rules and customs of war? In Middle Ages and Antiquity alike, it was expected that army will go on rampage if it takes city by storm - which is what Stannis was going to do. It was usual and indeed allowed under rules of warfare - if you resisted, you had to bear the consequences. But both medieval societies and Romans had laws of war which protected the enemies who surrendered (Romans defined time to surrender as the time until first siege engine - battering ram or a tower - made contact with city wall). As a consequence, expected brutality of army which took city by storm likely served to reduce overall brutality of the war, by making it certain that enemies only resisted if they really had something worth dying for, and/or reasonable chance of success (and do note that medieval armies were - again, on average - notably less brutal than Romans were. When Crusaders took Jerusalem, observers were shocked by their brutality - yet for a Roman commander, their conduct would have been considered comparatively mild). Chevauchee is also nothing unusual, though it is possible that it is also governed by some rules - are there, in Westeros, any safe places where populace can hide? European medieval armies IIRC often left people alone if they took a refuge in the church, as they were then under God's protection - though I am not certain how widespread and usual that particular custom was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

But do we know anything about rules and customs of war? In Middle Ages and Antiquity alike, it was expected that army will go on rampage if it takes city by storm - which is what Stannis was going to do. It was usual and indeed allowed under rules of warfare - if you resisted, you had to bear the consequences. But both medieval societies and Romans had laws of war which protected the enemies who surrendered (Romans defined time to surrender as the time until first siege engine - battering ram or a tower - made contact with city wall). As a consequence, expected brutality of army which took city by storm likely served to reduce overall brutality of the war, by making it certain that enemies only resisted if they really had something worth dying for, and/or reasonable chance of success (and do note that medieval armies were - again, on average - notably less brutal than Romans were. When Crusaders took Jerusalem, observers were shocked by their brutality - yet for a Roman commander, their conduct would have been considered comparatively mild). Chevauchee is also nothing unusual, though it is possible that it is also governed by some rules - are there, in Westeros, any safe places where populace can hide? European medieval armies IIRC often left people alone if they took a refuge in the church, as they were then under God's protection - though I am not certain how widespread and usual that particular custom was.

Fortunately, the medievals gave up mass enslavement of defeated enemies in the eleventh century. They even had a term for war without mercy, Bellum Romanum .

My guess is that in Westeros, the usual rule is that if a stronghold agrees to surrender on terms, then those terms should be respected (which makes Tywin's sack of Kings Landing so egregious).  And, while it's entirely at the discretion of a victor to take prisoners, once he's agreed to do so, it's a matter of honour to keep those prisoners safe, until they're ransomed or exchanged. Hence Robb executed Karstark for the murder of prisoners. 

Other than that, I think that most lords would take the view that the Smallfolk who are sworn to their enemies are entirely legitimate targets, regardless of age or sex.      Murder, rape, arson and pillage of civilians all damage your opponent - by reducing his resources and tax base, terrorising his people, and proving to them that he can't defend them.  Ser Davos and Stannis were unusual in thinking it unjust to punish Lord Celtigar's people for his defection.  Hoster Tully had no qualms about putting a village to the sword because its lord defied him - something which really upsets Arya when she discovers it (up till then, she thought that only Lannisters committed atrocities).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/28/2020 at 5:58 AM, Prince Rhaego's Soul said:

He will be putty in the hands of a seductress like Arianne Martell

Won't it be great if the Martells and Dorne support fAegon(say Arianne really falls in love with him) who joins Dany as her third dragon rider, the second being Jon. fAegon may even get the title of the Prince of Dragonstone while the other two are king and queen.  

Just wishful thinking I guess. It'll never be a happily-ever after 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Aegon would act differently because he doesn't have experience with slavers to colour his judgement. And how can you be sure that Daenerys will not go "anybody questioning my right to my throne" = "no better than slaver?". She has those experiences for a reason, just as Aegon's episode with Stone Man is there for a reason too.

Are you asking if Dany would exert military force on lords who don't support her claim? I mean, that would be expected of any claimant/conquerer. Aegon has started his campaign by overpowering the men at Griffin's Roost, not by ruminating on the goodness of Red Ronnet. Dany's experience with slavers affects her relationship to Westerosi lords as much her experience with Dothraki informs her actions towards the Lhazareen.

22 hours ago, Aldarion said:

It is also a question of quantity. I do agree that being suspicious of Hizdahr e.g. is not stupid, but she hardly gives him a chance - IIRC, she basically started screwing Daario behind his back almost straight away.

I thought we agreed the amount of distrust she has in Meereen was appropriate? Hizdahr already proved himself to be an opportunistic slaver, purchasing the fighting pits cheap and repeatedly petitioning Dany for their re-opening. She'd have to be pretty foolish to put an ounce of trust in him or believe he'd have aligning values. Still, she marries him. She also has other Meereenese nobles as her advisors.

I hope you are not suggesting her having a sexual relationship before a marriage of convenience, believing herself barren, is a betrayal or immoral in any way.

22 hours ago, Aldarion said:

She is ruling a (formerly) slaver city, whose ruling class she didn't slaughter. And she is surrounded by slaver cities. Therefore, if she wants to ensure peace, compromise with slavers is a must.

Peace for the slavers, sure. Peace for the enslaved requires toppling the Masters.

But that's a conversation for another thread, and it isn't what I was asking. I meant, what concessions are you envisioning she'd refuse to make in Westeros, that Aegon would?

22 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Brave Companions aren't exactly a recommendation in Westeros. And they are being used by an established lord.

The BC certainly have a bloody reputation but they're still employed by Tywin, probably because of their reputation. He also uses the Mountain Clans, and appears to have suffered no repercussions for either. The only ways being an established lord factors in are: he can offer benefits to his allies and he has legitimacy. Both of these things Dany can also provide to potential allies.

23 hours ago, Aldarion said:

It is also pretty well known that Dothraki do not cross the sea easily. Yet now they are coming to Westeros.

That makes no sense. If this one unexpected move by the Dothraki makes people question other things they knew about them, they would also be questioning their assumption of the Dothraki being savages. Following this logic, people might welcome the Dothraki as peaceful marine-loving bunny lords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2020 at 10:10 AM, SeanF said:

Fortunately, the medievals gave up mass enslavement of defeated enemies in the eleventh century. They even had a term for war without mercy, Bellum Romanum .

My guess is that in Westeros, the usual rule is that if a stronghold agrees to surrender on terms, then those terms should be respected (which makes Tywin's sack of Kings Landing so egregious).  And, while it's entirely at the discretion of a victor to take prisoners, once he's agreed to do so, it's a matter of honour to keep those prisoners safe, until they're ransomed or exchanged. Hence Robb executed Karstark for the murder of prisoners. 

Other than that, I think that most lords would take the view that the Smallfolk who are sworn to their enemies are entirely legitimate targets, regardless of age or sex.      Murder, rape, arson and pillage of civilians all damage your opponent - by reducing his resources and tax base, terrorising his people, and proving to them that he can't defend them.  Ser Davos and Stannis were unusual in thinking it unjust to punish Lord Celtigar's people for his defection.  Hoster Tully had no qualms about putting a village to the sword because its lord defied him - something which really upsets Arya when she discovers it (up till then, she thought that only Lannisters committed atrocities).

Yeah, makes sense. Thanks. Basically, warfare in Westeros is less of a medieval civil war and more like 15th century interstate warfare - which makes sense, as Robb did declare independence.

19 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Fortunately, the medievals gave up mass enslavement of defeated enemies in the eleventh century. They even had a term for war without mercy, Bellum Romanum .

My guess is that in Westeros, the usual rule is that if a stronghold agrees to surrender on terms, then those terms should be respected (which makes Tywin's sack of Kings Landing so egregious).  And, while it's entirely at the discretion of a victor to take prisoners, once he's agreed to do so, it's a matter of honour to keep those prisoners safe, until they're ransomed or exchanged. Hence Robb executed Karstark for the murder of prisoners. 

Other than that, I think that most lords would take the view that the Smallfolk who are sworn to their enemies are entirely legitimate targets, regardless of age or sex.      Murder, rape, arson and pillage of civilians all damage your opponent - by reducing his resources and tax base, terrorising his people, and proving to them that he can't defend them.  Ser Davos and Stannis were unusual in thinking it unjust to punish Lord Celtigar's people for his defection.  Hoster Tully had no qualms about putting a village to the sword because its lord defied him - something which really upsets Arya when she discovers it (up till then, she thought that only Lannisters committed atrocities).

I am not. I am asking about degree to which she will go. Basically, will she - to borrow from @SeanF - wage bellum Romanum or bellum hostille. What is appropriate in interstate warfare is not appropriate if your target is the throne within a state.

19 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I thought we agreed the amount of distrust she has in Meereen was appropriate? Hizdahr already proved himself to be an opportunistic slaver, purchasing the fighting pits cheap and repeatedly petitioning Dany for their re-opening. She'd have to be pretty foolish to put an ounce of trust in him or believe he'd have aligning values. Still, she marries him. She also has other Meereenese nobles as her advisors.

I hope you are not suggesting her having a sexual relationship before a marriage of convenience, believing herself barren, is a betrayal or immoral in any way.

It is not about sexual relationship itself; rather, it suggests to me that - perhaps subconsciously - Daenerys had believed from the very start that things will not work out with Hizdahr.

19 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

But that's a conversation for another thread, and it isn't what I was asking. I meant, what concessions are you envisioning she'd refuse to make in Westeros, that Aegon would?

 

Basically, diplomacy in general. As I have mentioned before, Daenerys' experiences in Mereen are likely there to colour her views and opinions on ruling. She tries peaceful way, but she ends up dissatisfied and it fails. Will she take a good look and then fix what she did wrong? I don't think so. Rather, her experiences with "good masters" will likely cause a pendulum swing, with her overcompensating in the opposite direction.

As I have written before, she will end up having utilized Westeros-appropriate approach in Slaver's Bay, and Slaver's Bay-appropriate approach in Westeros. Aegon will have advantage there in that he will not have Slaver's Bay colouring his views.

19 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

I thought we agreed the amount of distrust she has in Meereen was appropriate? Hizdahr already proved himself to be an opportunistic slaver, purchasing the fighting pits cheap and repeatedly petitioning Dany for their re-opening. She'd have to be pretty foolish to put an ounce of trust in him or believe he'd have aligning values. Still, she marries him. She also has other Meereenese nobles as her advisors.

I hope you are not suggesting her having a sexual relationship before a marriage of convenience, believing herself barren, is a betrayal or immoral in any way.

True. Thing is, which I have failed to consider before, that Tywin's reputation in general is based on fear. So Brave Companions are not actually a disadvantage for him. Dothraki will be disadvantage to Daenerys, unless she as well decides to rule through fear.

19 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

That makes no sense. If this one unexpected move by the Dothraki makes people question other things they knew about them, they would also be questioning their assumption of the Dothraki being savages. Following this logic, people might welcome the Dothraki as peaceful marine-loving bunny lords.

Point is that she will likely be bringing whole khalassar with her - which means women and children as well, which basically means full-blown colonization. That is rather different from a few mercenaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

 

I am not. I am asking about degree to which she will go. Basically, will she - to borrow from @SeanF - wage bellum Romanum or bellum hostille. What is appropriate in interstate warfare is not appropriate if your target is the throne within a state.

 

FWIW, I think it would be out of character for Dany to deliberately target women and children, on arriving at Westeros.  I think she would punish rape and casual murder by her soldiers (aside from sacking a stronghold that resists).   I don't think she would issue orders as brutal as those of Tywin or Ser Kevan.  

But, I don't think she'd have any qualms about sacking strongholds that offer resistance, nor do I expect her to be taking many prisoners.  Pledge fealty or die, will likely be the only offer she makes to the people she encounters. Not exactly Bellum Romanum, but still more harsh than Bellum hostile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aldarion said:

I am not. I am asking about degree to which she will go. Basically, will she - to borrow from @SeanF - wage bellum Romanum or bellum hostille. What is appropriate in interstate warfare is not appropriate if your target is the throne within a state.

I'm sure Dany will take whatever action is necessary to win, same as Aegon I, same as fAegon.

2 hours ago, Aldarion said:

It is not about sexual relationship itself; rather, it suggests to me that - perhaps subconsciously - Daenerys had believed from the very start that things will not work out with Hizdahr.

I don't know what to say here, man. It's a political marriage. Perfectly normal to be really unhappy in it, and to do whatever and whoever before the marriage.

2 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Basically, diplomacy in general. As I have mentioned before, Daenerys' experiences in Mereen are likely there to colour her views and opinions on ruling. She tries peaceful way, but she ends up dissatisfied and it fails. Will she take a good look and then fix what she did wrong? I don't think so. Rather, her experiences with "good masters" will likely cause a pendulum swing, with her overcompensating in the opposite direction.

As I have written before, she will end up having utilized Westeros-appropriate approach in Slaver's Bay, and Slaver's Bay-appropriate approach in Westeros. Aegon will have advantage there in that he will not have Slaver's Bay colouring his views.

This is the exact problem I had with Rose. You guys throw out words like "soft power" and "diplomacy", which can mean a myriad of things. Just give me one example of a situation in which Dany and Aegon will have to make concessions or practice diplomacy, and explain why it is in character for Aegon to do it but not Dany.

3 hours ago, Aldarion said:

True. Thing is, which I have failed to consider before, that Tywin's reputation in general is based on fear. So Brave Companions are not actually a disadvantage for him. Dothraki will be disadvantage to Daenerys, unless she as well decides to rule through fear.

Doesn't really matter, since all we are concerned with here is how well Aegon will fare against Dany.

3 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Point is that she will likely be bringing whole khalassar with her - which means women and children as well, which basically means full-blown colonization. That is rather different from a few mercenaries.

Will she? We don't even know if that logistically possible at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2020 at 8:18 AM, TheLastWolf said:

Won't it be great if the Martells and Dorne support fAegon(say Arianne really falls in love with him) who joins Dany as her third dragon rider, the second being Jon. fAegon may even get the title of the Prince of Dragonstone while the other two are king and queen.  

Just wishful thinking I guess. It'll never be a happily-ever after 

Well, I am a big Dany supporter.  So I would prefer the other two dragon riders to be people like Missandei, Greyworm, Barristan, Jorah, or even her Bloodriders.  My preference for the riders are: Daenerys on Drogon, Missandei on Viserion, and Rakharo on Rhaegal.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

This is the exact problem I had with Rose. You guys throw out words like "soft power" and "diplomacy", which can mean a myriad of things. Just give me one example of a situation in which Dany and Aegon will have to make concessions or practice diplomacy, and explain why it is in character for Aegon to do it but not Dany.

 

I have already explained it - Aegon will not have experiences of Slaver's Bay to go off. A lot of people act as if Daenerys having ruled Meereen is advantage for her, but is that really so? As I noted before, Meereen is a slaver society, whereas Westeros is a feudal one. Thus approach which is appropriate in Meereen - which is relatively centralized, structured society built on mass exploitation of slave workforce - will not work in Westeros, a feudal, decentralized society where peasants - on paper at least - do have some rights.

17 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Doesn't really matter, since all we are concerned with here is how well Aegon will fare against Dany.

 

Which will depend in part on how both of them will be seen by the Westerosi. Or are we to consider only forces which Daenerys will bring with her?

17 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Will she? We don't even know if that logistically possible at this point.

It is either that, bringing only a portion fo potential fighting power, or leaving rest of khalassar without protection.

20 hours ago, SeanF said:

FWIW, I think it would be out of character for Dany to deliberately target women and children, on arriving at Westeros.  I think she would punish rape and casual murder by her soldiers (aside from sacking a stronghold that resists).   I don't think she would issue orders as brutal as those of Tywin or Ser Kevan.  

I am not that certain. We see her fighting against her bloodthirsty instincts for the whole duration of her rule in Meereen, and going by her hallucinations, she will likely succumb to them by the time she goes to Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aldarion said:
 

I am not that certain. We see her fighting against her bloodthirsty instincts for the whole duration of her rule in Meereen, and going by her hallucinations, she will likely succumb to them by the time she goes to Westeros.

Sure, but if you go by her behaviour in a Storm of Swords, where she is more "bloodthirsty", she's not practising anything approaching Bellum Romanum.

Meereen was sacked, but only after being taken by storm - standard for this world.

Yunkai came to terms, and was not sacked.

At Astapor, she targeted male members of the elite, soldiers, and overseers, aged 12 and upwards, ignoring women, girls, the Smallfolk, and elite males aged under 12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Aldarion said:

I have already explained it - Aegon will not have experiences of Slaver's Bay to go off. A lot of people act as if Daenerys having ruled Meereen is advantage for her, but is that really so? As I noted before, Meereen is a slaver society, whereas Westeros is a feudal one. Thus approach which is appropriate in Meereen - which is relatively centralized, structured society built on mass exploitation of slave workforce - will not work in Westeros, a feudal, decentralized society where peasants - on paper at least - do have some rights.

I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and assume you misread what I asked of you. So here it is again:

Give me one example of a situation in which Dany and Aegon will have to make concessions or practice diplomacy. It shouldn't be that hard. Just tell me what you're imagining Dany's interaction with a Westerosi lord is like. And then tell me what Aegon's interaction with that same lord is.

3 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Which will depend in part on how both of them will be seen by the Westerosi. Or are we to consider only forces which Daenerys will bring with her?

You said "Dothraki will be disadvantage to Daenerys, unless she as well decides to rule through fear". I don't necessarily agree with this statement, but under your own logic, it is possible for Dany win allies (and thus defeat Aegon) with a Dothraki horde.

3 hours ago, Aldarion said:

It is either that, bringing only a portion fo potential fighting power, or leaving rest of khalassar without protection.

The dosh khaleen seem to be fine in Vaes Dothrak, with whatever security force exists there.

  

3 hours ago, Aldarion said:

I am not that certain. We see her fighting against her bloodthirsty instincts for the whole duration of her rule in Meereen, and going by her hallucinations, she will likely succumb to them by the time she goes to Westeros.

She refuses to harm her cupbearers and very reluctantly allowed women into the fighting pits. No fighting an instinct here. Dany has always had a soft spot for women and children.

You're going to tell me the hallucinations changed everything, but what you're proposing is Dany's personality doing a complete 180. That isn't character development. The only time GRRM changes a character that much, instantaneously, is when he kills and re-animates them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, the Dothraki are not more brutal than the Westerosi in warfare. Tumbleton was one of the worst sacks in Westerosi history, we also have KL by Tywin, a threatened sack by Stannis, and Bitterbridge by the Greens during the Dance, too.

@Aldarion's idea that Dany is even going to bother to interact/deal with many Westerosi people once she takes the throne is not very convincing. This will be a war for the throne, not a war for the people's love/support. They will fall in line once she sits the throne and the pretender(s) are dead/disgraced/imprisoned.

Especially while the Others are still threatening the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Guys, the Dothraki are not more brutal than the Westerosi in warfare. Tumbleton was one of the worst sacks in Westerosi history, we also have KL by Tywin, a threatened sack by Stannis, and Bitterbridge by the Greens during the Dance, too.

@Aldarion's idea that Dany is even going to bother to interact/deal with many Westerosi people once she takes the throne is not very convincing. This will be a war for the throne, not a war for the people's love/support. They will fall in line once she sits the throne and the pretender(s) are dead/disgraced/imprisoned.

Especially while the Others are still threatening the world.

It confirms my view that the problem with the Dothraki is that they wage war incessantly.  They are not more brutal in war than the average knight. 

The Dothraki after all, are willing to take bribes, rather than sack cities.  They are not averse to ransom.  They may not formally engage in trade, but they like money and luxury goods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

It confirms my view that the problem with the Dothraki is that they wage war incessantly.  They are not more brutal in war than the average knight.

Yes, and they might actually be more gentle and less brutal than our good Westerosi folks - who now have entered into a war for annihilation, not just victory. The Freys and Boltons won't get quarter, nor will the Lannisters if their enemies gain the upper hand and can destroy them.

And Euron is a monster anyway.

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The Dothraki after all, are willing to take bribes, rather than sack cities.  They are not averse to ransom.  They may not formally engage in trade, but they like money and luxury goods.

An interesting question is what it is going to mean for Dothraki culture that Dany becomes the Stallion Who Mounts the World. Is this going to result in some sort Dune-like holy war? Are the Dothraki going to be Dany's Fremen?

If so, they would be unstoppable, one imagines, if George really were to take a page from Frank Herbert's book there. They would then keep on fighting and killing no matter what.

I think there is a good chance that he will take some inspiration from there, especially in regards to how she has to deal with the Free Cities. But such fanaticism could also have a positive spin later on since those Dothraki would then also work as the main/only truly committed force to defeat the wight army. Facing zombie hordes in battle isn't something the average guy is likely to do. They will want to run and hide, to get away from those monsters, etc. Only very determined people, people believing in 'a higher power' or some sort of afterlife reward are likely to overcome their fears and die for such a seemlingly hopeless cause.

We see some groundwork for this already in Benerro's sermons (dying in the service of Daenerys Targaryen as Azor Ahai Reborn is going to give you rewards in the afterlife/next life) as well as Thoros' conversions in the Riverlands.

In the North Bran might also help develop such a religious determination if he would truly set himself up as a living god showing truly divine powers which can keep the living dead in check/protect you from them.

But I really think the entire point of the R'hllor religion is to set up a framework in which a War for the Dawn can work. Just as the savior story/prophecy stuff is going to create a scenario where such resistance is going to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Give me one example of a situation in which Dany and Aegon will have to make concessions or practice diplomacy. It shouldn't be that hard. Just tell me what you're imagining Dany's interaction with a Westerosi lord is like. And then tell me what Aegon's interaction with that same lord is.

 

They will have to make concessions or practice diplomacy if they want to rule at all. It is either that, or kill all the lords and replace them with new people - and that would cause rebellions.

I cannot give examples of interactions because we have not seen either Aegon or post-wastes Daenerys do it, so details are impossible to know. EDIT: We did see Aegon interact with Golden Company, so he clearly knows how to convince people to do stuff. Which suggests that he will not need to rely on force or fear to compel obedience once he arrives to Westeros. Daenerys can be the same - if she tries. But she is becoming darker, and I do not think she will be in mood for diplomacy once she goes West.

23 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

You said "Dothraki will be disadvantage to Daenerys, unless she as well decides to rule through fear". I don't necessarily agree with this statement, but under your own logic, it is possible for Dany win allies (and thus defeat Aegon) with a Dothraki horde.

 

It is possible - and in fact, it is necessary, seeing how army she brings with her is kinda militarily worthless. I just think that Daenerys will be at disadvantage compared to Aegon (many people appear to think she will just come in and steamroll all opposition without difficulty). But, yes - any change in management means that some people will be dissatisfied, so Daenerys will have a pool of ready-made local recruits.

23 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

The dosh khaleen seem to be fine in Vaes Dothrak, with whatever security force exists there.

 

Dosh khaleen are a relatively small group and are protected by religious beliefs. That is not exactly comparable to all the women and children of khalassar.

23 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

She refuses to harm her cupbearers and very reluctantly allowed women into the fighting pits. No fighting an instinct here. Dany has always had a soft spot for women and children.

You're going to tell me the hallucinations changed everything, but what you're proposing is Dany's personality doing a complete 180. That isn't character development. The only time GRRM changes a character that much, instantaneously, is when he kills and re-animates them.

Yes, she refuses to act violently - and I am not just talking cupbearers here - but temptation is always there. And as she goes westward, we may see her gradually give in to said temptation; it doesn't need to be anywhere close to instantaneous 180, just a very gradual one.

On 7/2/2020 at 11:08 AM, SeanF said:

She refuses to harm her cupbearers and very reluctantly allowed women into the fighting pits. No fighting an instinct here. Dany has always had a soft spot for women and children.

You're going to tell me the hallucinations changed everything, but what you're proposing is Dany's personality doing a complete 180. That isn't character development. The only time GRRM changes a character that much, instantaneously, is when he kills and re-animates them.

I am not sure I would class that as her "bloodthirsty" phase. She seemed to have good control of her emotions so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, SeanF said:

It confirms my view that the problem with the Dothraki is that they wage war incessantly.  They are not more brutal in war than the average knight. 

The Dothraki after all, are willing to take bribes, rather than sack cities.  They are not averse to ransom.  They may not formally engage in trade, but they like money and luxury goods.

This is true.  My only objection to their culture is their part in the slave trade.  They need to start planting and fishing.  But so do the Ironborn.  The horselords are certainly not any worse than the Greyjoys.  Who, I might add, are another people who do not sow.  Know who else refuses to do an honest day's work?  The lords of Westeros and the Ghiscari masters.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Aldarion said:

They will have to make concessions or practice diplomacy if they want to rule at all. It is either that, or kill all the lords and replace them with new people - and that would cause rebellions.

I cannot give examples of interactions because we have not seen either Aegon or post-wastes Daenerys do it, so details are impossible to know. EDIT: We did see Aegon interact with Golden Company, so he clearly knows how to convince people to do stuff. Which suggests that he will not need to rely on force or fear to compel obedience once he arrives to Westeros. Daenerys can be the same - if she tries. But she is becoming darker, and I do not think she will be in mood for diplomacy once she goes West.

Using force and fear is literally all he's been doing in Westeros so far. By the end of ADWD, he's taken Griffin's Roost, Tarth, Crow's Nest, Estermont, Mistwood, and Rainhouse. He didn't talk his way into the castles. He took them by sword and is now holding the noble inhabitants of those lands hostage, including JonCon's nephews and nieces.

If you can't name a single situation in which concessions or diplomacy or whatever you want to call it are necessary, then there's a gaping flaw in the premise of your argument. It shouldn't be that hard to think up a hypothetical. Here, I'll start... say there's a House that's loyal to King Tommen (let's say they're a blood relation) and they NEED to be gotten past like Robb needed to go through the Twins. They can't be swayed with gold or lands or betrothals. How does Aegon resolve this issue? How does Dany?

Now imagine the House is NOT a strong Baratheon/Lannister loyalist. They are willing to ally and let Aegon/Dany cross unharmed but demand betrothals with A/D. They aren't a great match. What do you imagine each party doing, and what's your rational for it?

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

It is possible - and in fact, it is necessary, seeing how army she brings with her is kinda militarily worthless. I just think that Daenerys will be at disadvantage compared to Aegon (many people appear to think she will just come in and steamroll all opposition without difficulty). But, yes - any change in management means that some people will be dissatisfied, so Daenerys will have a pool of ready-made local recruits.

Good. So now we can put "Westeros will unite against Dany because she has Dothraki" to rest at least.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Dosh khaleen are a relatively small group and are protected by religious beliefs. That is not exactly comparable to all the women and children of khalassar.

I don't understand the logic here. Does the larger size of a group make them more vulnerable to attack? What are they even needing protecting from?

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Yes, she refuses to act violently - and I am not just talking cupbearers here - but temptation is always there. And as she goes westward, we may see her gradually give in to said temptation; it doesn't need to be anywhere close to instantaneous 180, just a very gradual one.

Where is she tempted to harm women and children but has to restrain herself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Using force and fear is literally all he's been doing in Westeros so far. By the end of ADWD, he's taken Griffin's Roost, Tarth, Crow's Nest, Estermont, Mistwood, and Rainhouse. He didn't talk his way into the castles. He took them by sword and is now holding the noble inhabitants of those lands hostage, including JonCon's nephews and nieces.

And?

3 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Now imagine the House is NOT a strong Baratheon/Lannister loyalist. They are willing to ally and let Aegon/Dany cross unharmed but demand betrothals with A/D. They aren't a great match. What do you imagine each party doing, and what's your rational for it?

 

I have already explained you my rationale. Specific "what ifs" are hardly necessary.

3 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Using force and fear is literally all he's been doing in Westeros so far. By the end of ADWD, he's taken Griffin's Roost, Tarth, Crow's Nest, Estermont, Mistwood, and Rainhouse. He didn't talk his way into the castles. He took them by sword and is now holding the noble inhabitants of those lands hostage, including JonCon's nephews and nieces.

Point is that normal khalassar still requires armed forces for protection.

3 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Where is she tempted to harm women and children but has to restrain herself?

You are asking me to support an argument I never made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Aldarion said:

I have already explained you my rationale. Specific "what ifs" are hardly necessary.

7 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And?

And it blows up your claim that Aegon is going win over Westerosi lords with bold speeches instead of using "force and fear". So far, he's done none of the former and all of the latter.

Similarly, your argument that Dany will raze Westeros because she can't handle rejection/gives into her mass murderer instincts/equates Westerosi to slavers (whatever that means) is unsupported by the text. Dany has always considered it foolish to assume the realm would rise for her, has only ever wanted to fire and blood her enemies (which is perfectly normal and matches the thoughts/action of just about every other character), and has never had trouble differentiating her own behavior towards allies and enemies. Your reasoning for this discrepancy is "but the hallucinations!", which would require the character to do a complete 180 and disregard all the development in the last 5 books.

Your rationale is based on flawed premises; the Aegon and Dany that exists in your mind does not match the characters that are in the books. And I think it's because you work backwards from a prediction/theory - Aegon will be the great and beloved King of Westeros, so Aegon has to have the superior force and the Dothraki and Unsullied have to be useless, and Dany has to rejected by Westeros, which means she has to turn into a loony idiot without social skills. I suspect this is why you can't give examples of diplomacy or engage in my hypotheticals. It should be pretty easy if you took into account the characters' personalities at all in your predictions.

7 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Point is that normal khalassar still requires armed forces for protection.

Protection from what? Why is whatever protection available in Vaes Dothrak or any other city sufficient for their inhabitants but not for khalassars?

7 hours ago, Aldarion said:

You are asking me to support an argument I never made.

Yeah you did. You replied to @SeanF who said "I think it would be out of character for Dany to deliberately target women and children". You even highlighted that part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...