Jump to content

Aegon as a king


Lord Varys

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

The fact that you have to point out this basic fact is sad. While this is a story about various shades of power, only one person is at the top of that hierarchy. Dany has a kind of absolute power that no one else has; that will have consequences to her morality, otherwise the story might as well be a fairy tale. The situation Dany is in even defies her predecessors. No one person within the house had a monopoly on dragons and they could check each other. Now Westeros can only hope for 1) a hidden dragon rider who can stop her; 2) a once-in-a-lifetime spear shot to connect or 3) a situation like the peasant revolt (which was only possible at huge cost because they were chained and a Targaryen wasn't around to take control of them to kill the peasants).

I think folks confuse Dany's power with just your average monarch's. Her fans hold her up as this goddess who was the only one to birth dragons; but don't want her to face any negative consequences for this great power (i.e. corruption). They make false equivalencies to Dany and Robb and simultaneously get power fantasy boners thinking about her destroying cities.

Joffrey had absolute power of the realistic, non-magical kind. Joffrey didn't even have to work for it; he had everything handed to him. And Aegon is trying to work for it, in the traditional way. Joffrey shows us how age should be a concern. GRRM asked "Do you know many 13-year-old kids you’d like to give absolute power to?" He was talking about Joffrey but if I recall, Dany is the same age. So it's even worse because she is young, has absolute power, and a 1000 megaton superweapon. 

There is also the classical speculative fiction canon to consider. The author can't write against that too much because we'd end up with some pretty stupid stuff like, "Anakin Skywalker is the only one who has the Force but he uses it for good and only ever kills full grown stormtroopers and dark jedis" or "Galadriel has the One Ring and only uses it to kill orcs; she acts heroically despite wielding enormous power to kill en masse then decides to give up the Ring freely." To avoid this hilariously stupid plotting he has to be realistic about what this power will do; so she's on a winding, twisty corruption arc. Aegon is her foil because he's trying to do the same things she is, with less hard power. He still has Targaryen traits (like kicking over the game board when losing), but a loose canon at the head of the Golden Co isnt much to worry about; a loose canon on the back of a dragon though! Another point - Aegon hasn't spent a good chunk of his time fighting cartoonish monsters. That's a situation that even philosophers were wary of. “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.” - Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Yeah, that is precisely what I am talking about. Daenerys' fans talk about how many awesome things she will be able to do once she gains absolute power, but they never consider:

a) how absolute power changes people

b) is anyone fit to have absolute power

c) how was Daenerys changed by her Slaver's Bay experiences

As I have pointed out before (to Lord Varys?), main reason I dislike Daenerys are her dragons and the Unsullied. Dragons + absolutely loyal slave soldiers mean that she has basically no accountability. And then you add other factors you noted...

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is just not her story to become a tyrant, it is Aegon's. Daenerys may not even arrive in Westeros at a time when it is particularly attractive to conquer a snowy shithole of a country about to be ravaged by ice demons and their undead armies.

This idea that her story is about revenge and conquest and all that crap is ludicrous since the moment Aegon Targaryen decided to do that without the dragons and without her.

We won't get exactly the same motivations for two Targaryen pretenders. That would be boring.

And to be sure - Daenerys might not plant any trees in Westeros when she gets there. Because her destiny might be to burn Westeros and herself to defeat the Others.

It might be Aegon's story to become a tyrant - we don't know - but Daenerys is definitely becoming a tyrant. She is one with experiences of Slaver's Bay, she is one with (so far uncontrollable but that is changing) weapons of mass destruction, she is one with (purpoted to be absolutely loyal) former slave army, she is one who will be hailed as a Messiah by former slaves (and thus have people who will do anything for her). She has all the makings of a future tyrant; what makes you think she will not become one, despite those factors and despite her own thoughts?

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is just not her story to become a tyrant, it is Aegon's. Daenerys may not even arrive in Westeros at a time when it is particularly attractive to conquer a snowy shithole of a country about to be ravaged by ice demons and their undead armies.

This idea that her story is about revenge and conquest and all that crap is ludicrous since the moment Aegon Targaryen decided to do that without the dragons and without her.

We won't get exactly the same motivations for two Targaryen pretenders. That would be boring.

And to be sure - Daenerys might not plant any trees in Westeros when she gets there. Because her destiny might be to burn Westeros and herself to defeat the Others.

It is, because it is a general statement. You are one who are choosing to reinterpret it in a way that supports more peaceful Daenerys, but there is no support for such an interpretation in the text itself.

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is just nonsense. Daenerys has no 'violent instincts' - if you want to claim that, do cite scenes where she actually has sadistic or violent fantasies that she wants to act out but restrains herself. Where are those scenes? Even things like that Red Wedding idea is something Daario has to suggest to her - it isn't something she comes up with. She doesn't dream about burning Yunkai'i alive, or gets aroused at the thought that her dragons devour children, nor does she herself look forward to the moment that she watch her highborn children hostages being killed.

 

I already have cited those, if memory serves me. But to properly show it, I'd need to cite half a book: it is not any single moment, but rather general performance: her struggling with peaceful solutions (when she would rather flay them all), her thinking over "three treasons" (such as when she questions whether Daario has gone over to her enemies, or met another woman), her paranoia and distrusfullness (example of her thoughts during the "human pyramid" scene, for one)... her mental state is spread all over the book. Yes, she is keeping her instincts suppressed by her conscience, for now. But just as Aegon's cyvasse scene was there for a reason, so are Daenerys' dark thoughts. I will give just a few examples where her tendencies towards violent solutions - which she does repress, for now - show:

Quote

Mother of dragons, Daenerys thought. Mother of monsters. What have I unleashed upon the
world? A queen I am, but my throne is made of burned bones, and it rests on quicksand. Without
dragons, how could she hope to hold Meereen, much less win back Westeros? I am the blood of the
dragon, she thought. If they are monsters, so am I.

Quote

“How many?” one old woman had asked, sobbing. “How many must you have to spare us?”
“One hundred and sixty-three,” she answered.
She had them nailed to wooden posts around the plaza, each man pointing at the next. The
anger was fierce and hot inside her when she gave the command; it made her feel like an
avenging dragon. But later, when she passed the men dying on the posts, when she heard their
moans and smelled their bowels and blood...

Notice the "it made her feel like an avenging dragon". She is not focusing on justice here, but on vengeance, and on her Targaryen identity. If you think that vengeance does not fall under "violent instincts", you are fooling yourself. Then there is this:

Quote

Mercy, thought Dany. They will have the dragon’s mercy. “Skahaz, I have changed my mind.
Question the man sharply.”
“I could. Or I could question the daughters sharply whilst the father looks on. That will wring
some names from him.”
Do as you think best, but bring me names.” Her fury was a fire in her belly. “I will have no more
Unsullied slaughtered. Grey Worm, pull your men back to their barracks. Henceforth let them guard my
walls and gates and person. From this day, it shall be for Meereenese to keep the peace in Meereen.
Skahaz, make me a new watch, made up in equal parts of shavepates and freedmen.”

On 7/5/2020 at 4:26 PM, Lord Varys said:

Dany needs to see massive violence and cruelty done to people she considers her friends or innocents to pay those people back in kind - this is what triggered her anger when Drogo attacked the Dothraki/Lhazareen back in AGoT, her anger over Mirri Maz Duur's betrayal (which was disgusting), her anger over the way the Good Masters treated the Unsullied and their other slaves, and her anger over the crucifixion of many children.

And none of that is particularly over the top or unusual.

Again, it is not just about what she does. It is about her emotions during those scenes. I provided examples just above.

On 7/5/2020 at 4:26 PM, Lord Varys said:

Aegon on the other hand is all style and no substance. He failed when the stone man jumped on the ship. He is led around by the nose by Tyrion. And he deludes himself into believing he can conquer and hold the Iron Throne without dragons. The more success he has - which he will not owe to his own nonexisting genius but merely the circumstances and the plotting and efforts of the people who invested so much in him - the more reckless he will become, and the more self-involved and arrogant he becomes the less will he be able to deal with setbacks and defeats.

 

And because he does not have dragons nor cult-like following, any damage his behaviour might do will be rather limited.

Thinking that he can conquer and hold the Iron Throne without dragons is no delusion. Robert had done it, Tywin had done it.

Also, Aegon was not "led by the nose" by Tyrion - don't take Tyrion's own thoughts as a gospel. Yes, Tyrion planted the idea of going westwards in Aegon's head. But you are acting as if everything Aegon does is result of Tyrion's words; it is not. His decision to go west came only after discussion among Golden Company's leadership which basically concluded that eastward road is closed to them. Neither does he take Tyrion's advice as gospel: he still trusts Jon and Duck, despite Tyrion's warning to the contrary. In fact, he trusts Duck so much that he names Duck commander of his KIngsguard.

Aegon used Tyrion's words to his own advantage in Golden Company's camp, yes. But again, he only does so after it was clear that Golden Company will not be going East. It was either West or nothing for them, and he uses Tyrion's words to spur the Company into action.

 

 

On 7/5/2020 at 4:26 PM, Lord Varys said:

The boy can only crack. Anybody would under this pressure, but especially a character who is just a plot device to show that the hidden prince created to be the perfect king can only disappoint the expectations of the people who created him.

Aegon is basically George's big 'Fuck your approach!' to Varys. Aegon's failure is going to be Varys' great tragedy.

He probably will. So will Daenerys. And between two of them, who do you think has greater potential for screwing everybody else over?

On 7/5/2020 at 4:26 PM, Lord Varys said:

Nothing of that changes the fact that the Crown is bankrupt, as Ser Kevan again makes clear at the end of ADwD.

 

Unless Illyrio decides to make an investment. It would appear that Aegon, for him, is an emotional investment as much as a practical one.

On 7/5/2020 at 4:26 PM, Lord Varys said:

The boy can only crack. Anybody would under this pressure, but especially a character who is just a plot device to show that the hidden prince created to be the perfect king can only disappoint the expectations of the people who created him.

Aegon is basically George's big 'Fuck your approach!' to Varys. Aegon's failure is going to be Varys' great tragedy.

Not at this point. But she has the potential to go there.

On 7/5/2020 at 4:26 PM, Lord Varys said:

I never said they were in control of monolithic power blocs, I said that to get rid of them Aegon will be forced to fight. Diplomacy won't work there. And he won't be able to threaten Euron much less defeat him considering he has no ships. Vice versa, Euron is a great and accomplished diplomat as we learn in AFfC. He knows how to convince people of his point of view, he can charm them, bribe them, etc.

He can convince the Ironborn. Kinda hard to convince people you have just raided, though.

On 7/5/2020 at 4:26 PM, Lord Varys said:

Aegon will never have the same kind of gravitas. He cannot offer the Reach lords threatened by the Ironborn to magic them out of their waters, he cannot threat the Vale or the West into acknowledging him as their king because he doesn't have the strength or means to attack them, and he can also not magically pacify the North or the Riverlands.

You really should look at the books - the point of the entire Ironborn plot giving them the strength to attack and raid the entire southern coast as well as the Mander up to Highgarden is to make it believable that half the Reach or more actually ends up joining Euron for the time being or at least remain occupied with defending their own lands so they cannot team up with Aegon or any of the other anti-Euron pretenders in the near future.

They are definitely not going to be teaming up with the Ironborn. Remaining put, however, is likely.

On 7/5/2020 at 4:26 PM, Lord Varys said:

Aegon will never have the same kind of gravitas. He cannot offer the Reach lords threatened by the Ironborn to magic them out of their waters, he cannot threat the Vale or the West into acknowledging him as their king because he doesn't have the strength or means to attack them, and he can also not magically pacify the North or the Riverlands.

You really should look at the books - the point of the entire Ironborn plot giving them the strength to attack and raid the entire southern coast as well as the Mander up to Highgarden is to make it believable that half the Reach or more actually ends up joining Euron for the time being or at least remain occupied with defending their own lands so they cannot team up with Aegon or any of the other anti-Euron pretenders in the near future.

Not really. Such a thing is only possible if you are a lord or something; but that also means having people under you to manage your estates in your absence. There is a reason why Byzantine Emperors preferred heavy cavalry troops when they went onto offensive campaigns. Peasants can be mobilized to defend their own homes, but they do not go campaigning.

Or to put it another way: do you really think Daenerys will be able to turn each and every Dothraki into equivalent of Westerosi landed knight?

On 7/5/2020 at 4:26 PM, Lord Varys said:

It might even be a fight to persuade the Dothraki that it means that since we do know they actually dream about crossing the Bones to conquer the fortress-cities and the Jogos Nhai and the YiTish. If Dany is their prophesied ruler then she actually should deliver at that front, too. It is not going to be easy to convince them they should limit themselves to all the Free Cities, Ghiscari cities, and Qartheen cities.

But they will demand that all - else there would be no reason why they should accept a foreign woman as their prophesied ruler. Those people are not stupid. Drogon is easily killed, and Daenerys herself even more easily.

And again, that does not mean getting all Dothraki to Westeros, nor does it change the fact that they are steppe nomads who will be going to country which is... very much not steppe. In fact, past certain point, larger number of Dothraki would be a disadvantage. Just look at Mongol campaigns in Europe.

On 7/5/2020 at 2:51 PM, Hodor the Articulate said:

Every piece of evidence you've submitted towards Dany becoming a whole other person in ADWD has been repudiated by myself and others in this thread. You can't just keep making the same claim like we're all on the same page with your interpretations and assumptions.

It has been repudiated merely by assuming a static character: that is, that Daenerys must stay as she is right now.

On 7/5/2020 at 2:51 PM, Hodor the Articulate said:

As has been noted, the crown's coffers are empty. In fact, they're massively in debt.

We've seen what positions can be promised through Cersei and Tyrion's chapters: there are the highly coveted small council seats; the gold cloaks; the Kingsguard. The latter two are maybes in terms of attracting Houses, and some of these positions will be taken up JonCon and certain members of the CG. That's not all that many, and more importantly, every other person fighting for the throne is offering the exact same positions.

I'd like to hear what diplomacy entails during a conquest, other than enticing lords with resources, which is what the above is.

Empty coffers =/= no income.

Diplomacy during conquest means giving people opportunity for something they want. And that does not necessarily need to be resources. Just idea of stability is often enough. And that is not all. Fact is, it is Lannisters who rule in Westeros right now. How many toes do you think Tywin has stepped on during his life? What about Cersei? Kevan? Aegon will present opportunity for revanche for all of those lords whom Tywin has kept under iron fist. And if banditry and piracy is widespread - as I suspect it currently is - and Lannisters proved unable to deal with it, again, Aegon will represent hope of a solution (whether he will deliver is irrelevant).

On 7/5/2020 at 2:51 PM, Hodor the Articulate said:

Aegon the Uncrowned is called that because he was never sat the IT, and Dany isn't an anti-social 30 yr old man. You're doing some heavy cherry picking. Far clearer fAegon analogues are Robb Stark and Daeron I, handsome and naive young kings with "Young..." epithets, who gained infamy with their victories on the battlefield but blazed out quick. fAegon and Daeron even have the same line - "You have a dragon. He stands before you".

I actually do agree with that, but in relation to Daenerys, Aegon/Maegor parallel is much more appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Yeah, that is precisely what I am talking about. Daenerys' fans talk about how many awesome things she will be able to do once she gains absolute power, but they never consider:

a) how absolute power changes people

b) is anyone fit to have absolute power

c) how was Daenerys changed by her Slaver's Bay experiences

As I have pointed out before (to Lord Varys?), main reason I dislike Daenerys are her dragons and the Unsullied. Dragons + absolutely loyal slave soldiers mean that she has basically no accountability. And then you add other factors you noted...

It might be Aegon's story to become a tyrant - we don't know - but Daenerys is definitely becoming a tyrant. She is one with experiences of Slaver's Bay, she is one with (so far uncontrollable but that is changing) weapons of mass destruction, she is one with (purpoted to be absolutely loyal) former slave army, she is one who will be hailed as a Messiah by former slaves (and thus have people who will do anything for her). She has all the makings of a future tyrant; what makes you think she will not become one, despite those factors and despite her own thoughts?

 

Isi landed knight?

And again, that does not mean getting all Dothraki to Westeros, nor does it change the fact that they are steppe nomads who will be going to country which is... very much not steppe. In fact, past certain point, larger number of Dothraki would be a disadvantage. Just look at Mongol campaigns in Europe.

It has been repudiated merely by assuming a static character: that is, that Daenerys must stay as she is right now.

Empty coffers =/= no income.

Diplomacy during conquest means giving people opportunity for something they want. And that does not necessarily need to be resources. Just idea of stability is often enough. And that is not all. Fact is, it is Lannisters who rule in Westeros right now. How many toes do you think Tywin has stepped on during his life? What about Cersei? Kevan? Aegon will present opportunity for revanche for all of those lords whom Tywin has kept under iron fist. And if banditry and piracy is widespread - as I suspect it currently is - and Lannisters proved unable to deal with it, again, Aegon will represent hope of a solution (whether he will deliver is irrelevant).

I actually do agree with that, but in relation to Daenerys, Aegon/Maegor parallel is much more appropriate.

The problem I have with this analysis is the way that Daenerys is being held to a different ethical standard to every other protagonist for …...reasons. When Starks, Lannisters and Tullys visit sword and fire on the luckless peasants of Westeros, that's just the way of war.  When Daenerys kills a bunch of slavedrivers, it's the act of a tyrant.  I don't actually see the deaths of the latter as being somehow worse than the deaths of the former.  Very much the reverse in fact.

As Drogon grows, Daenerys will have the power to do real harm as a dragon rider.  Arya and Jon will have the power to do real harm as wargs.  Bran will have the power to huge harm, as a greenseer.  Aegon has the power to do real harm, with an army at his command.  Arianne has the power to do real harm, now that she can lead Dorne into war.  But, I don't think one should automatically assume that all, or any of these characters, are bound to act malevolently, merely by virtue of the fact that they have great power at their disposal.  In practice, I think we'll see shades of grey, "the human heart in conflict with itself" and so forth.  We're not getting the Dark Lord/Queen in this tale, IMHO.

Edit:  perhaps Euron Greyjoy comes closest to the Dark Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And again, that does not mean getting all Dothraki to Westeros, nor does it change the fact that they are steppe nomads who will be going to country which is... very much not steppe. In fact, past certain point, larger number of Dothraki would be a disadvantage. Just look at Mongol campaigns in Europe.

I think she will lead the Dothraki to ruin which makes me feel for them. I dislike how she thinks that she braved "their" sea so they have to be forced to brave hers (Narrow Sea). It's vindictive and culturally supremacist. She's also overconfident about squalls while "her Dothraki" (ugh) are right to fear them. "No squall could frighten Dany though." Yeah. Lets see how easy that crossing will be. She's going to send thousands to their deaths just on the journey alone. I only see Daeron the Young Dragon in her future. 

The Dothraki might be good at attacking people unawares, slaughtering defenseless villagers, and turning the land into a plain for their horses. That was how the Dothraki "sea" became a sea to begin with. They took fertile green fields and turned them into dust and dying grass. With Dany as their leader, that's what she'll do to Westeros. Every Dothraki scene is ominous foreshadowing.

Barristan wanted her to turn away from buying slaves to conquer Westeros. From a conquering standpoint, he is offering sound advice here because she could be using an army that actually wants to go to Westeros - the Golden Company. Instead she'll be relying on armies that couldn't give two shits about it (Unsullied, Dothraki).

She is hostile to alliances in Westeros:

Quote

"Your Grace, you have no need of slaves. Magister Illyrio can keep you safe while your dragons grow, and send secret envoys across the narrow sea on your behalf, to sound out the high lords for your cause."

"Those same high lords who abandoned my father to the Kingslayer and bent the knee to Robert the Usurper?"

Kinda silly. After Quentyn's death and whatever she does with Aegon, she won't even have the House who stayed loyal (Dorne). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, sorry for the late reply. Had to temporary locate to a place with literal no internet to speak of for work. So neither reading nor writing on the forum was anything near bearable. But now I'm back home.

On 6/22/2020 at 2:07 AM, Lord Varys said:

I'd say the fact that the office was pretty much always 'the guy in charge who ran the army' contributed to the fact that later pretty much everybody could become Caesar - something that may have been different if it had been more conceived as an actual monarchy build on hellenstic examples.

Well, it's the Imperator in the name (Imperator Caesar Augustus) that does indicated the "the guy in charge of the armies"; it is very interesting that both Tiberius and Nero did not use the Imperator-praenomen.

On 6/27/2020 at 5:29 PM, SeanF said:

Well, of course Bolivar, in his lifetime, was accused of precisely the same faults that you accuse Daenerys of - that he was a self-serving tyrant, who made a pretence of freedom, and left a trail of destruction behind him.  He could be quite brutal. For several years, he ruled a huge empire as autocrat.  Like most great leaders he combined both self-interest, and altruism.  It's far more often a case of both/and, rather than either/or.

Exactly. Bolivar is a good example, as well as Augustus or Fridericus II of Hohenstaufen would be.

To be one of the wonders of the world, you had to also be one of it's hammers, else your enemies would crush you and your plans, as well as your allies.

On 7/2/2020 at 5:41 PM, Lord Varys said:

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.

I think the whole "he will ride to the end of the world and all people will be his herd" is exactly about this. It is quite likely imho that, when Dany becomes the Stallion and decides to fight the Others, the Dothraki would see it as a great honour to fight and die in such a battle, as they are essentially a warriors culture.

On 7/4/2020 at 5:42 PM, Hodor the Articulate said:

I can very much see this happening. The question is what is risk averse Strickland going to do about it? If he breaks the contract with Aegon, will all his men obey?

I think this might depend not only on Aegon and Strickland, but also whether and where the sword Blackfyre might reappear. I think a lot of the GC are still the descendants of Blackfyre-supporters, so if the sword would somehow end on Dany's side while Aegon does make more and more mistakes, some or even many of the GC might really start thinking about switching sides.

But even before a real split would happen, I do agree with @Lord Varys that we will have different factions in Aegon's entourage fighting each other for influence.

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

The problem I have with this analysis is the way that Daenerys is being held to a different ethical standard to every other protagonist for …...reasons. When Starks, Lannisters and Tullys visit sword and fire on the luckless peasants of Westeros, that's just the way of war.  When Daenerys kills a bunch of slavedrivers, it's the act of a tyrant.  I don't actually see the deaths of the latter as being somehow worse than the deaths of the former.  Very much the reverse in fact.

Exactly. Thank you very much for pointing that out again.

Cruel and brutal murder for nothing but vengeance seems to be okay for most people, but Gods forbid you execute a bunch of enemies for a war crime they committed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

The problem I have with this analysis is the way that Daenerys is being held to a different ethical standard to every other protagonist for …...reasons. When Starks, Lannisters and Tullys visit sword and fire on the luckless peasants of Westeros, that's just the way of war.  When Daenerys kills a bunch of slavedrivers, it's the act of a tyrant.  I don't actually see the deaths of the latter as being somehow worse than the deaths of the former.  Very much the reverse in fact.

No one is saying this. You just want there to be a double standard when there is none. The people who see her corruption arc are picking up on how her conquering experiences will turn her into someone who is just as bad as the slavers. If you want her to serve up cruel and unusual punishments unproblematically, you have to face the consequences of that.

Fist-pumping moments of violence can't last forever. If you want to cheer for people slaughtering orcs, watch LOTR.

The other Houses aren't drunk on absolute power and have to work at alliances to accomplish their conquests. Tywin only has Gregor and the Tyrell alliance wasn't even his idea. All Dany has to do is whistle and she has an army of loyal Gregors to do her bidding. To do, anything she wants. 

And if you have any concern for the Dothraki or the Unsullied at all, you should hope that they're doing something other than following, kneeling, being loyal, worshiping her, or slaughtering people in her name. Robb certainly didn't get that kind of loyalty from his armies. 

Quote

The situation that Dany is in, as of now, is that she has narrowly avoided death and rape, and is now in a  Mexican standoff with the Dothraki.  Drogon can burn them;  they can shoot her.  That's a long way from absolute power.  

She's on the road, and she controls Drogon now. She's not a long way, she's over half way.

Quote

Martin has said he has no interest in writing about a Dark Lord.  Daenerys is not Sauron or Morgoth, or even Saruman.  She's not Palpatine or Darth Vader or Voldemort.  Like all the sympathetic characters in this tale, she's a shade of grey. 

There is still good and evil though, it's just in people's actions, choices. Dark Lord's are never shown making choices. This view that she's a "shade of grey" is an useless description that means nothing, says nothing, and implies that no one can be on a corruption arc (they can).

Quote

A big part of her character arc is about judging when war or peace is the better option, and what level of brutality is appropriate in war.  No doubt, that will continue to be the case.  There are vicious and depraved people, like the Bloody Mummers, Ser Gregor Clegane, Kraznys Mo Nakloz, and one or two saints like Septon Merribald.  But, none of the six principal points of view comes into either category (Tyrion is perhaps closest to vicious and depraved).

There is no rule that says a POV character can't slide into that depraved slot. No one thinks they're a villain in their POV anyway. Which is a great way to mislead/misdirect the readers who are gullible enough to fall for that. Ahem...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

No one is saying this. You just want there to be a double standard when there is none. The people who see her corruption arc are picking up on how her conquering experiences will turn her into someone who is just as bad as the slavers. If you want her to serve up cruel and unusual punishments unproblematically, you have to face the consequences of that.

Fist-pumping moments of violence can't last forever. If you want to cheer for people slaughtering orcs, watch LOTR.

The other Houses aren't drunk on absolute power and have to work at alliances to accomplish their conquests. Tywin only has Gregor and the Tyrell alliance wasn't even his idea. All Dany has to do is whistle and she has an army of loyal Gregors to do her bidding. To do, anything she wants. 

And if you have any concern for the Dothraki or the Unsullied at all, you should hope that they're doing something other than following, kneeling, being loyal, worshiping her, or slaughtering people in her name. Robb certainly didn't get that kind of loyalty from his armies

She's on the road, and she controls Drogon now. She's not a long way, she's over half way.

There is still good and evil though, it's just in people's actions, choices. Dark Lord's are never shown making choices. This view that she's a "shade of grey" is an useless description that means nothing, says nothing, and implies that no one can be on a corruption arc (they can).

There is no rule that says a POV character can't slide into that depraved slot. No one thinks they're a villain in their POV anyway. Which is a great way to mislead/misdirect the readers who are gullible enough to fall for that. Ahem...

Of course not.  She'll have to bargain with the Dothraki, and the Unsullied are quite capable of thinking for themselves.

Certainly, there's good and evil.  So far, she's done considerably more good than evil.  You see her as some kind of monster who cackles evilly as she kills puppies.  In any given situation, you will attribute the basest of possible motives for her actions, even when she appears to be doing good.  That's just favouritism, not serious criticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Morte said:

 

Cruel and brutal murder for nothing but vengeance seems to be okay for most people, but Gods forbid you execute a bunch of enemies for a war crime they committed.

Quite.  The amount of ink that get wasted on trying to find the righteous among the slave-drivers is similar to the amount of ink that gets wasted on do Balrogs have wings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Aldarion said:

It might be Aegon's story to become a tyrant - we don't know - but Daenerys is definitely becoming a tyrant. She is one with experiences of Slaver's Bay, she is one with (so far uncontrollable but that is changing) weapons of mass destruction, she is one with (purpoted to be absolutely loyal) former slave army, she is one who will be hailed as a Messiah by former slaves (and thus have people who will do anything for her). She has all the makings of a future tyrant; what makes you think she will not become one, despite those factors and despite her own thoughts?

We know it from prophecy Aegon is going to become a failure, a lie for Daenerys to slay. Like Stannis, Aegon is a villain in this story - or at least not a good guy, a distraction, a problem to solve, not a hero to shine. Daenerys is not definitely going to become a tyrant.

Dragons aren't weapons of mass destruction, especially not Dany's little dragons. The depiction of dragon warfare George gave in FaB was a huge letdown considering that, aside from the First Dornish War (and that was, ultimately, a failure) nobody ever used dragon as an efficient weapon of terror. If Syrax and Caraxes had burned down Lannisport, if Vhagar had torched Gulltown (both places we never saw which thus could have been destroyed by dragons in the past) one could, perhaps, say dragons were weapons of mass destruction.

Dragons are symbols of power, they are not power itself - especially not when they are not the size of Balerion.

I see no parallel between Dany's story in Slaver's Bay and what might happen in Westeros. None at all. Even if she were to come as a conqueror to Westeros - which I doubt in light of the fact that Archmaester Marwyn is on his way to her to tell her she should rush to Westeros to save the people there from the ice demons because that's her prophesied destiny - she wouldn't be treated as a foreign evil conqueror there because she is the daughter of the last Targaryen king.

Some people will oppose her, but that's to be expected - this is a story with a plot, after all - but crushing your enemies doesn't make you a tyrant.

5 hours ago, Aldarion said:

I already have cited those, if memory serves me. But to properly show it, I'd need to cite half a book: it is not any single moment, but rather general performance: her struggling with peaceful solutions (when she would rather flay them all), her thinking over "three treasons" (such as when she questions whether Daario has gone over to her enemies, or met another woman), her paranoia and distrusfullness (example of her thoughts during the "human pyramid" scene, for one)... her mental state is spread all over the book. Yes, she is keeping her instincts suppressed by her conscience, for now. But just as Aegon's cyvasse scene was there for a reason, so are Daenerys' dark thoughts. I will give just a few examples where her tendencies towards violent solutions - which she does repress, for now - show:

That is all pretty much worth nothing - for one, because she never uses violence or force against people who are definitively innocents - Lysa Arryn is more of a tyrant than Daenerys for throwing the completely innocent Tyrion into a sky cell. Torturing people in this world isn't crime, and torturing people to uncover terrorist plots is something pretty much any real world secret police do.

Dany never has dreams or desires about torturing people or getting sadistic pleasure from watching people suffer or inflighting pain herself. This is what Maegor the Cruel liked to do, and this is what Joffrey may have gotten off on when he his goons beat up Sansa.

Most of your quotes there show a lack of proper understanding of the text. For instance:

Quote

Mother of dragons, Daenerys thought. Mother of monsters. What have I unleashed upon the
world? A queen I am, but my throne is made of burned bones, and it rests on quicksand. Without
dragons, how could she hope to hold Meereen, much less win back Westeros? I am the blood of the
dragon, she thought. If they are monsters, so am I.

This is about the simple fact that Dany sees herself and is seen as the Mother of Dragons. The dragons are her children and, to her knowledge so far, the only children she will ever have. If those creatures she essentially birthed are monsters then so is she herself in a sense.

This is Dany struggling with her own identity as Mother of Dragons, with what it means to bring back dragons into the world. It has nothing to do with any innate evil tendencies on her part.

Just because you are the parent of a serial killer doesn't mean you are one yourself - but if you see your child as a monster you can also see yourself as the parent of a monster and subsequently have issues with that.

And Dany has very real issues with the fact that she started to see herself not only as the Mother of Dragons but also the mother of the people she freed (and also as the queen/ruler of the Meereenese she conquered). She doesn't want her dragon children devour her other children. She wants peace between both of them ... but Drogon eating Hazzea (if he did that) only symbolizes that there can never be peace between the dragon and the harpy, Daenerys and the Ghiscari, and the freedmen and the slavers. This isn't a conflict that can be sugar-coated or explained away.

Quote

“How many?” one old woman had asked, sobbing. “How many must you have to spare us?”
“One hundred and sixty-three,” she answered.
She had them nailed to wooden posts around the plaza, each man pointing at the next. The
anger was fierce and hot inside her when she gave the command; it made her feel like an
avenging dragon. But later, when she passed the men dying on the posts, when she heard their
moans and smelled their bowels and blood...

Of course that is vengeance, and rightfully so. Dany was far too lenient there. None of her people would have died in ADwD if she had had the guts to execute all the slavers.

Casting this as some kind of special case of vengeance is ridiculous - this is the same ugly thing as Robb Stark hacking away like a madman trying and failing to give Rickard Karstark a proper death, Wyman Manderly baking Freys into pies (and perhaps commanding the murder of young boys), Jon Snow wishing to bring death and destruction down on House Lannister (including innocent King Tommen), Stannis murdering Renly, Tywin dealing with the Tarbecks and Reynes (which nowhere ever is seen as 'tyranny' or 'unbearable cruelty'), Robert being full of joy at the sight of dead dragonspawn, etc.

This is a world where the kind of forgiveness Ellaria Sand depicts in ADwD is very unusual. She is effectively a living saint by the standards of this world (even cautious Doran Martell basically lives for the moment he can destroy everything Tywin built).

The idea that it is extreme to crucify a couple of slavers after what they made Daenerys to witness on her way to Meereen is ludicrous. In fact, most of the people in Westeros who pulled something like that would provoke a much stronger reaction from the other party if they had the chance to get their revenge.

If Robb had nailed over 150 innocent children of the Westermen alongside the road leading to Casterly Rock while he ravaged the West, Lord Tywin's reaction to this would have been very extreme. Vice versa, if Tywin had done something like that in the Riverlands the deeds of the Brotherhood and other underground fighters would have been even more extreme than they are now.

5 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Notice the "it made her feel like an avenging dragon". She is not focusing on justice here, but on vengeance, and on her Targaryen identity. If you think that vengeance does not fall under "violent instincts", you are fooling yourself. Then there is this:

I'd suggest you reread Illyrio's mockery about the silly comparison the Westerosi make with their heraldic animals - they are not lions, wolves, or dragons, they are people. Dany expresses her anger as her being akin to a dragon, but that doesn't make her more or less angry than any other person who doesn't have a dragon on her banners.

5 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And because he does not have dragons nor cult-like following, any damage his behaviour might do will be rather limited.

Tyranny is not about who has the means to kill most people, but how people are ruling. And Aegon will rule badly.

5 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Thinking that he can conquer and hold the Iron Throne without dragons is no delusion. Robert had done it, Tywin had done it.

Cersei took Robert's throne from him and handed it to her bastard. Aegon will take the throne from the Lannisters, and he will it lose again to Euron or Dany or whoever else will have it after Aegon.

5 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Also, Aegon was not "led by the nose" by Tyrion - don't take Tyrion's own thoughts as a gospel. Yes, Tyrion planted the idea of going westwards in Aegon's head. But you are acting as if everything Aegon does is result of Tyrion's words; it is not. His decision to go west came only after discussion among Golden Company's leadership which basically concluded that eastward road is closed to them. Neither does he take Tyrion's advice as gospel: he still trusts Jon and Duck, despite Tyrion's warning to the contrary. In fact, he trusts Duck so much that he names Duck commander of his KIngsguard.

Of course he is led around the nose by Tyrion - the idea is Tyrion's and not Aegon's. He is nothing but Tyrion's parrot in that scene. And it is the moment when he loses everything he could have had which was also part of Tyrion's lesson - keeping your dragon close is the right thing.

5 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Aegon used Tyrion's words to his own advantage in Golden Company's camp, yes. But again, he only does so after it was clear that Golden Company will not be going East. It was either West or nothing for them, and he uses Tyrion's words to spur the Company into action.

No, this isn't the case. They were still discussing things - nobody said we are not going to go east under any circumstances nor that they would not support Aegon unless they went west. And then Aegon bursts in claiming he is the only dragon they will need ... which is madness.

5 hours ago, Aldarion said:

He can convince the Ironborn. Kinda hard to convince people you have just raided, though.

You mean like Aegon the Conqueror or Tywin or any guy who ever won a battle had trouble making peace with the losing side afterwards? Don't be ridiculous.

5 hours ago, Aldarion said:

They are definitely not going to be teaming up with the Ironborn. Remaining put, however, is likely.

Of course they will. Reread the last Samwell chapter. The Oldtowners are so angry with the Iron Throne that Sam is afraid that the Realm might disintegrate should they ever decide to split from the Crown - which they easily can. The last straw is the Redwyne fleet. If they defeat the Ironborn then things can go back to normal. If not, then they will have to accept the new reality - that Euron Greyjoy is the new ruler of their waters and shore for years and decades unless some miracle happens. And considering that those people are first and foremost wealthy traders they will prefer to reason with the pirate king rather than try to fight him when they don't have the ships to do so. If they don't, they will lose all their wealth. They cannot conduct any trade if the Ironborn raid all the ships bound for Oldtown.

This is all in the books - the Ironborn once ruled the shores of the Reach up to the Arbor, including Oldtown. And Euron will do this again. He effectively already does, people just haven't admitted it to themselves yet.

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

The problem I have with this analysis is the way that Daenerys is being held to a different ethical standard to every other protagonist for …...reasons. When Starks, Lannisters and Tullys visit sword and fire on the luckless peasants of Westeros, that's just the way of war.  When Daenerys kills a bunch of slavedrivers, it's the act of a tyrant.  I don't actually see the deaths of the latter as being somehow worse than the deaths of the former.  Very much the reverse in fact.

As Drogon grows, Daenerys will have the power to do real harm as a dragon rider.  Arya and Jon will have the power to do real harm as wargs.  Bran will have the power to huge harm, as a greenseer.  Aegon has the power to do real harm, with an army at his command.  Arianne has the power to do real harm, now that she can lead Dorne into war.  But, I don't think one should automatically assume that all, or any of these characters, are bound to act malevolently, merely by virtue of the fact that they have great power at their disposal.  In practice, I think we'll see shades of grey, "the human heart in conflict with itself" and so forth.  We're not getting the Dark Lord/Queen in this tale, IMHO.

Edit:  perhaps Euron Greyjoy comes closest to the Dark Lord.

This is pretty striking if you compare Dany to the character who effectively already is a mad tyrant of sorts - Cersei. She doesn't have to descend further into paranoia and madness to be already seen as a vain, self-involved, unempathatic tyrant. But even she - who likes to rip out the tongues of people if they speak things she knows are true and who easily rids herself permanently of close companions and acquaintances in a moment of rage - isn't a Maegor in the making like Joff may have been.

Whatever Dany may do later in the story is in no way even close to the kind of cruelty the actual cruel characters are doing so far. And this involves good guy cruelty (like Wyman Manderly or the shenanigans of the Brotherhood to bring down the Freys) as well as villain cruelty. Cersei, Euron, Catelyn, Roose/Ramsay, Stannis, Littlefinger, Jaime, Jon Snow, Bran, Sansa, and especially Arya are all likely to reach much lower points than Daenerys ever will. Both because they are far crueler by nature than she is and also because cruelty is quite often a sign of relatively weakness - if you cannot threaten people into submission you have to use the club (not to mention that Cat, Arya, and many other characters on a revenge spree don't even want to compromise or threaten, they want to murder).

But Daenerys is by virtue of plot always in a position where she has sufficient power to not be forced to kill everybody to be respected.

And I'm sure @Aldarion realizes this, too, else he wouldn't spend so much time on arguing that Dany's numerical advantage cannot play out in Westeros - because only if it doesn't play out might Dany be forced to take more extreme measures.

Vice versa, it is quite interesting how the obvious problems Aegon is going to face are downplayed or outright ignored. I mean, even his successful rise to the throne will be a miracle defying the odds (assuming it happens). The idea that these people who actually did not go to Westeros expecting they will win easily or quickly are then going to make always the right decisions so they can unite Westeros behind them and against Daenerys (when half or more of the Targaryen loyalists in Westeros might actually join Aegon because they expect he is actually just the vanguard of the dragon queen) is just pretty much beyond me.

And I've to admit it - I've trouble imagining all-out war between Dany and Aegon. Not just because of the Others thing but also because the Targaryens don't really have the luxury to kill each other if they are down to two individuals. While there are still other enemies in the field - Euron, Cersei, Stannis, Littlefinger, other pretenders - it would be more or less suicide to allow this Dance thing to escalate to First Dance territory or some other war of annihilation thing.

But the core point remains that for Daenerys to reach 'nutcase tyranny level of evilness' she would have to greatly surpass the actual villains in this story. After all, Tywin was buried as the man of the century, never mind Castamere or the Red Wedding.

Even if Dany were to burn all of KL and kill everybody in there - or any other city in Westeros - who would care much about that after the Others turned hundreds of thousands or even millions of people into wights? What is the moral standard to be in Westeros when all devolve into savagery. And that is the story - we see this with the Brotherhood without Banners, the Manderly revenge thing, the Red Wedding, the treatment of Theon, and especially the journey of Arya.

3 hours ago, Morte said:

First, sorry for the late reply. Had to temporary locate to a place with literal no internet to speak of for work. So neither reading nor writing on the forum was anything near bearable. But now I'm back home.

No problem. It is not that you missed anything important or we made some great progress here ;-).

3 hours ago, Morte said:

Well, it's the Imperator in the name (Imperator Caesar Augustus) that does indicated the "the guy in charge of the armies"; it is very interesting that both Tiberius and Nero did not use the Imperator-praenomen.

I'd guess in Tiberius' case he may have considered that weird grewing up with the original meaning of the word, whereas Nero may have never actually led a campaign in person and/or preferred to see himself in not that militaristic a manner.

3 hours ago, Morte said:

I think the whole "he will ride to the end of the world and all people will be his herd" is exactly about this. It is quite likely imho that, when Dany becomes the Stallion and decides to fight the Others, the Dothraki would see it as a great honour to fight and die in such a battle, as they are essentially a warriors culture.

Yes, they could see it that way, especially once they realize that they are a thing ... but for that to happen they first have to get to Westeros and see them, so they have to establish this kind of link with their prophesied leader before that.

Overall, though, I think it is a mistake of people to assume the whole red priest and other religious fanaticism is set up as something bad. Melisandre is a very sympathetic character when we finally get her POV, George was very clear why he thinks people would worship R'hllor and abandon their old empty religions once they witnessed Beric's and Cat's resurrections (because it is a religion/faith that works), and I always found it ridiculous to expect the kind of soft and meek people we see in Lommy Greenhands, Hot Pie, the peasants in TSS, Mycah, Pia, Pate, Gendry, etc. to ever activate/find the kind of strength and determination people will need to fight those ice demons.

People need more than 'they are going to kill us all' to find the strength to resist/fight back, especially in winter. And religious fanaticism, especially in connection with the red priests (who could also help to keep the cold and the undead at bay with their fire magics), could very well help with that.

I'd also assume that George included the entire savior prophecy stuff to have the conceptual glue to make a plot where one person or a couple of persons unite the people against a supernatural foe believable. Regardless who defeats the Others in the end, the crucial point about the savior story is that people are going to believe in that person and that serving and dying for that person is the worthiest cause of all.

3 hours ago, Morte said:

I think this might depend not only on Aegon and Strickland, but also whether and where the sword Blackfyre might reappear. I think a lot of the GC are still the descendants of Blackfyre-supporters, so if the sword would somehow end on Dany's side while Aegon does make more and more mistakes, some or even many of the GC might really start thinking about switching sides.

I think Blackfyre is pretty much already in Aegon's possession - as a prop in one of those chests Duck carried back in ADwD. It should help Aegon in the short term - it is 'the sword of kings', after all - but it isn't as powerful a sign of kingship as a dragon. There is a reason why Blackfyre only became an important prop, so to speak, when the dragons were gone. King Aenys had no issue handing Blackfyre to Maegor, Rhaenyra had no problem that Blackfyre wasn't in her possession nor did she give the sword any thought after she had taken KL (it was so relatively unimportant that we don't even know whether Aegon II took it when he fled or whether Rhaenyra took it with the castle), etc.

3 hours ago, Morte said:

But even before a real split would happen, I do agree with @Lord Varys that we will have different factions in Aegon's entourage fighting each other for influence.

This should happen much more quickly if they have truly sensational success. Then they will likely all be drunk by their success for the proverbial fortnight, sort of being in a haze, but once they sober up they will realize that there is so much to be had now, so many lordships, so many honors and offices and incomes that they will all clash with each other.

The first big challenge for Aegon's government will be how to proceed once KL and the Iron Throne are taken.

I'm sure Aegon will first make minor mistakes or rather: things that will only come to haunt him further down the road, but insofar as an escalation of violence is concerned an interesting sequence of events could be

Arianne declaring for Aegon > Euron/Cersei marrying on the Arbor > Euron/Cersei sack Sunspear/the Water Gardens in retaliation of the Myrcella thing as well as Dorne joining Aegon > Arianne/the Sand Snakes insisting they carry the war west to Lannisport and Casterly Rock.

There is also the question of the Dornish army in the Prince's Pass. Depending on when Arianne declares for Aegon, this army could also be used to attack the Reach or Highgarden itself - while Mace is still Tommen's Hand and Tarly his Master of Laws they would both be legitimate targets. If an army fighting in the name of Aegon actually invades and ravages the Reach then this will mean that fewer Reach lords in total will join with Aegon and more might be inclined to defect to Daenerys once she arrives.

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

Quite.  The amount of ink that get wasted on trying to find the righteous among the slave-drivers is similar to the amount of ink that gets wasted on do Balrogs have wings?

Well, to be sure, I wrote a very convincing article on the latter topic ;-).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, SeanF said:

The problem I have with this analysis is the way that Daenerys is being held to a different ethical standard to every other protagonist for …...reasons. When Starks, Lannisters and Tullys visit sword and fire on the luckless peasants of Westeros, that's just the way of war.  When Daenerys kills a bunch of slavedrivers, it's the act of a tyrant.  I don't actually see the deaths of the latter as being somehow worse than the deaths of the former.  Very much the reverse in fact.

 

DIfference, I think, is that nobody expects any better of Starks, Lannisters or Tullys. They are fighting a war, and that is it. Such type of behaviour is normal. Daenerys however is idolized/idealized by many, both in- and out of- -universe, which naturally makes her subject to stricter standards.

Also, again: war. Peasants killed are killed in military operations. That is no different from World War II strategic bombing, and in fact there is a term for it - chevauchee. What Daenerys did however was not a military operation but a judicial process. So standards will naturally be different. I think you will find that most people will not have had problem had those Masters been killed in combat or similar (I definitely wouldn't). But execution without a judicial process? It pulls apart very strings which hold society together, much like violations of guest right.

16 hours ago, SeanF said:

As Drogon grows, Daenerys will have the power to do real harm as a dragon rider.  Arya and Jon will have the power to do real harm as wargs.  Bran will have the power to huge harm, as a greenseer.  Aegon has the power to do real harm, with an army at his command.  Arianne has the power to do real harm, now that she can lead Dorne into war.  But, I don't think one should automatically assume that all, or any of these characters, are bound to act malevolently, merely by virtue of the fact that they have great power at their disposal.  In practice, I think we'll see shades of grey, "the human heart in conflict with itself" and so forth.  We're not getting the Dark Lord/Queen in this tale, IMHO.

 

Those are not comparable. Only one who might be comparable in amount of damage he might do is Bran - and he is another character I dislike, for that very reason.

Arya and Jon can warg into wolves... big scary wolves, but that is it. Unless it somehow works on a dragon (Jon?), it is no big issue.

Aegon's and Arianne's power is dependant on consent of the people they are leading, so definitely not comparable to Daenerys' power with dragons (and likely also religious cultists).

It is true that possession of power does not make character bound to act malevolently. It does however increase temptation towards malevolent action as it makes said action seem an easier path.

15 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I think she will lead the Dothraki to ruin which makes me feel for them. I dislike how she thinks that she braved "their" sea so they have to be forced to brave hers (Narrow Sea). It's vindictive and culturally supremacist. She's also overconfident about squalls while "her Dothraki" (ugh) are right to fear them. "No squall could frighten Dany though." Yeah. Lets see how easy that crossing will be. She's going to send thousands to their deaths just on the journey alone. I only see Daeron the Young Dragon in her future. 

The Dothraki might be good at attacking people unawares, slaughtering defenseless villagers, and turning the land into a plain for their horses. That was how the Dothraki "sea" became a sea to begin with. They took fertile green fields and turned them into dust and dying grass. With Dany as their leader, that's what she'll do to Westeros. Every Dothraki scene is ominous foreshadowing.

Barristan wanted her to turn away from buying slaves to conquer Westeros. From a conquering standpoint, he is offering sound advice here because she could be using an army that actually wants to go to Westeros - the Golden Company. Instead she'll be relying on armies that couldn't give two shits about it (Unsullied, Dothraki).

She is hostile to alliances in Westeros:

Quote

"Your Grace, you have no need of slaves. Magister Illyrio can keep you safe while your dragons grow, and send secret envoys across the narrow sea on your behalf, to sound out the high lords for your cause."

"Those same high lords who abandoned my father to the Kingslayer and bent the knee to Robert the Usurper?"

Kinda silly. After Quentyn's death and whatever she does with Aegon, she won't even have the House who stayed loyal (Dorne). 

Pretty much that. She is aiming to conquer Westeros, but she will not be conquering it as much as attempting to turn it into a wasteland. And if Martin studies military history at all, Dothraki will be getting slaughtered in Westeros.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We know it from prophecy Aegon is going to become a failure, a lie for Daenerys to slay. Like Stannis, Aegon is a villain in this story - or at least not a good guy, a distraction, a problem to solve, not a hero to shine. Daenerys is not definitely going to become a tyrant.

 

You are confusing a "villain" and "antagonist". Stannis and Aegon are definitely antagonists, but that does not mean they have to be villains. Likewise, Daenerys being a protagonist does not prevent her from becoming a villain.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Dragons aren't weapons of mass destruction, especially not Dany's little dragons. The depiction of dragon warfare George gave in FaB was a huge letdown considering that, aside from the First Dornish War (and that was, ultimately, a failure) nobody ever used dragon as an efficient weapon of terror. If Syrax and Caraxes had burned down Lannisport, if Vhagar had torched Gulltown (both places we never saw which thus could have been destroyed by dragons in the past) one could, perhaps, say dragons were weapons of mass destruction.

Dragons are symbols of power, they are not power itself - especially not when they are not the size of Balerion.

There is wildfire under King's Landing. So I'd say it is almost certain a dragon will become a weapon of mass destruction, even if by accident.

And they are WMDs when fully grown: look at Balerion, or Valyrian wars. The only question is how large Daenerys' dragons will be by the time they come to Westeros.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I see no parallel between Dany's story in Slaver's Bay and what might happen in Westeros. None at all. Even if she were to come as a conqueror to Westeros - which I doubt in light of the fact that Archmaester Marwyn is on his way to her to tell her she should rush to Westeros to save the people there from the ice demons because that's her prophesied destiny - she wouldn't be treated as a foreign evil conqueror there because she is the daughter of the last Targaryen king.

Some people will oppose her, but that's to be expected - this is a story with a plot, after all - but crushing your enemies doesn't make you a tyrant.

Manner in which you crush them can easily make you a tyrant, however.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is all pretty much worth nothing - for one, because she never uses violence or force against people who are definitively innocents - Lysa Arryn is more of a tyrant than Daenerys for throwing the completely innocent Tyrion into a sky cell. Torturing people in this world isn't crime, and torturing people to uncover terrorist plots is something pretty much any real world secret police do.

She never uses violence or force, yes; but we are talking about future developments here.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This is about the simple fact that Dany sees herself and is seen as the Mother of Dragons. The dragons are her children and, to her knowledge so far, the only children she will ever have. If those creatures she essentially birthed are monsters then so is she herself in a sense.

This is Dany struggling with her own identity as Mother of Dragons, with what it means to bring back dragons into the world. It has nothing to do with any innate evil tendencies on her part.

Just because you are the parent of a serial killer doesn't mean you are one yourself - but if you see your child as a monster you can also see yourself as the parent of a monster and subsequently have issues with that.

And Dany has very real issues with the fact that she started to see herself not only as the Mother of Dragons but also the mother of the people she freed (and also as the queen/ruler of the Meereenese she conquered). She doesn't want her dragon children devour her other children. She wants peace between both of them ... but Drogon eating Hazzea (if he did that) only symbolizes that there can never be peace between the dragon and the harpy, Daenerys and the Ghiscari, and the freedmen and the slavers. This isn't a conflict that can be sugar-coated or explained away.

I see it more of an issue of what dragons symbolize - what Daenerys status as Mother of Dragons symbolizes. Fire and blood - that is, indiscriminate slaughter. That is why she chains her dragons, why she struggles with her identity as mother of dragons - she does not want to become a tyrant, yet very possession of dragons is pushing her in that direction.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Of course that is vengeance, and rightfully so. Dany was far too lenient there. None of her people would have died in ADwD if she had had the guts to execute all the slavers.

 

All the slavers, all their families, and anyone in any way connected to them... how many people do you think that would have made?

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Casting this as some kind of special case of vengeance is ridiculous - this is the same ugly thing as Robb Stark hacking away like a madman trying and failing to give Rickard Karstark a proper death, Wyman Manderly baking Freys into pies (and perhaps commanding the murder of young boys), Jon Snow wishing to bring death and destruction down on House Lannister (including innocent King Tommen), Stannis murdering Renly, Tywin dealing with the Tarbecks and Reynes (which nowhere ever is seen as 'tyranny' or 'unbearable cruelty'), Robert being full of joy at the sight of dead dragonspawn, etc.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea that it is extreme to crucify a couple of slavers after what they made Daenerys to witness on her way to Meereen is ludicrous. In fact, most of the people in Westeros who pulled something like that would provoke a much stronger reaction from the other party if they had the chance to get their revenge.

If Robb had nailed over 150 innocent children of the Westermen alongside the road leading to Casterly Rock while he ravaged the West, Lord Tywin's reaction to this would have been very extreme. Vice versa, if Tywin had done something like that in the Riverlands the deeds of the Brotherhood and other underground fighters would have been even more extreme than they are now.

It is special, simply by virtue of its scope. Of all the things you listed, the only that comes close is Tywin dealing with Reynes and Tarbecks. But my issue, again, isn't so much with what she did but how it made her feel. So stop shifting the goalposts.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd suggest you reread Illyrio's mockery about the silly comparison the Westerosi make with their heraldic animals - they are not lions, wolves, or dragons, they are people. Dany expresses her anger as her being akin to a dragon, but that doesn't make her more or less angry than any other person who doesn't have a dragon on her banners.

 

You are either shifting the goalposts or genuinely not understanding what I'm trying to say. So to reiterate: in that scene, she is not focused on justice. She is focused on vengeance; vengeance makes her feel good. What do you think that says about how she will deal with "traitors" who ousted her House from power, or with those who support a "false dragon"?

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Tyranny is not about who has the means to kill most people, but how people are ruling. And Aegon will rule badly.

 

Means to kill people enable tyranny. You cannot have tyranny if you don't have power.

And, technically, tyrant can rule well. Muammar Al-Gaddafi was far better than the "government" which succeeded him.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Cersei took Robert's throne from him and handed it to her bastard. Aegon will take the throne from the Lannisters, and he will it lose again to Euron or Dany or whoever else will have it after Aegon.

 

You really think that dragons will make Daenerys invulnerable to assassination?

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Of course he is led around the nose by Tyrion - the idea is Tyrion's and not Aegon's. He is nothing but Tyrion's parrot in that scene. And it is the moment when he loses everything he could have had which was also part of Tyrion's lesson - keeping your dragon close is the right thing.

 

 

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea that it is extreme to crucify a couple of slavers after what they made Daenerys to witness on her way to Meereen is ludicrous. In fact, most of the people in Westeros who pulled something like that would provoke a much stronger reaction from the other party if they had the chance to get their revenge.

If Robb had nailed over 150 innocent children of the Westermen alongside the road leading to Casterly Rock while he ravaged the West, Lord Tywin's reaction to this would have been very extreme. Vice versa, if Tywin had done something like that in the Riverlands the deeds of the Brotherhood and other underground fighters would have been even more extreme than they are now.

Read it again; they basically gave up on reaching her:

Quote

Tristan Rivers drummed his fingers on his knee. “All the more reason that we must reach her
quickly, I say. If Daenerys will not come to us, we must go to Daenerys.”
“Can we walk across the waves, ser?” asked Lysono Maar. “I tell you again, we cannot reach the
silver queen by sea. I slipped into Volantis myself, posing as a trader, to learn how many ships might be
available to us. The harbor teems with galleys, cogs, and carracks of every sort and size, yet even so I
soon found myself consorting with smugglers and pirates. We have ten thousand men in the company,
as I am sure Lord Connington remembers from his years of service with us. Five hundred knights, each
with three horses. Five hundred squires, with one mount apiece. And elephants, we must not forget the
elephants. A pirate ship will not suffice. We would need a pirate fleet … and even if we found one, the
word has come back from Slaver’s Bay that Meereen has been closed off by blockade.”
“We could feign acceptance of the Yunkish offer,” urged Gorys Edoryen. “Allow the Yunkai’i to
transport us to the east, then return their gold beneath the walls of Meereen.”
“One broken contract is stain enough upon the honor of the company.” Homeless Harry
Strickland paused with his blistered foot in hand. “Let me remind you, it was Myles Toyne who put his
seal to this secret pact, not me. I would honor his agreement if I could, but how? It seems plain to me
that the Targaryen girl is never coming west. Westeros was her father’s kingdom. Meereen is hers. If she
can break the Yunkai’i, she’ll be Queen of Slaver’s Bay. If not, she’ll die long before we could hope to
reach her.”
His words came as no surprise to Griff. Harry Strickland had always been a genial man, better at
hammering out contracts than at hammering on foes. He had a nose for gold, but whether he had the
belly for battle was another question.
“There is the land route,” suggested Franklyn Flowers. “The demon road is death. We will lose
half the company to desertion if we attempt that march, and bury half of those who remain beside the
road. It grieves me to say it, but Magister Illyrio and his friends may have been unwise to put so much
hope on this child queen.”

 

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Tristan Rivers drummed his fingers on his knee. “All the more reason that we must reach her
quickly, I say. If Daenerys will not come to us, we must go to Daenerys.”
“Can we walk across the waves, ser?” asked Lysono Maar. “I tell you again, we cannot reach the
silver queen by sea. I slipped into Volantis myself, posing as a trader, to learn how many ships might be
available to us. The harbor teems with galleys, cogs, and carracks of every sort and size, yet even so I
soon found myself consorting with smugglers and pirates. We have ten thousand men in the company,
as I am sure Lord Connington remembers from his years of service with us. Five hundred knights, each
with three horses. Five hundred squires, with one mount apiece. And elephants, we must not forget the
elephants. A pirate ship will not suffice. We would need a pirate fleet … and even if we found one, the
word has come back from Slaver’s Bay that Meereen has been closed off by blockade.”
“We could feign acceptance of the Yunkish offer,” urged Gorys Edoryen. “Allow the Yunkai’i to
transport us to the east, then return their gold beneath the walls of Meereen.”
“One broken contract is stain enough upon the honor of the company.” Homeless Harry
Strickland paused with his blistered foot in hand. “Let me remind you, it was Myles Toyne who put his
seal to this secret pact, not me. I would honor his agreement if I could, but how? It seems plain to me
that the Targaryen girl is never coming west. Westeros was her father’s kingdom. Meereen is hers. If she
can break the Yunkai’i, she’ll be Queen of Slaver’s Bay. If not, she’ll die long before we could hope to
reach her.”
His words came as no surprise to Griff. Harry Strickland had always been a genial man, better at
hammering out contracts than at hammering on foes. He had a nose for gold, but whether he had the
belly for battle was another question.
“There is the land route,” suggested Franklyn Flowers. “The demon road is death. We will lose
half the company to desertion if we attempt that march, and bury half of those who remain beside the
road. It grieves me to say it, but Magister Illyrio and his friends may have been unwise to put so much
hope on this child queen.”

There is difference between defeating somebody and pillaging their lands. Ironborn are raiders. Even if Euron wins battles at sea, he cannot project any real power inland. Ironborn are hopeless when it comes to land warfare against Westerosi armies.

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Of course they will. Reread the last Samwell chapter. The Oldtowners are so angry with the Iron Throne that Sam is afraid that the Realm might disintegrate should they ever decide to split from the Crown - which they easily can. The last straw is the Redwyne fleet. If they defeat the Ironborn then things can go back to normal. If not, then they will have to accept the new reality - that Euron Greyjoy is the new ruler of their waters and shore for years and decades unless some miracle happens. And considering that those people are first and foremost wealthy traders they will prefer to reason with the pirate king rather than try to fight him when they don't have the ships to do so. If they don't, they will lose all their wealth. They cannot conduct any trade if the Ironborn raid all the ships bound for Oldtown.

This is all in the books - the Ironborn once ruled the shores of the Reach up to the Arbor, including Oldtown. And Euron will do this again. He effectively already does, people just haven't admitted it to themselves yet.

Ironborn can rule the sea, yes. But you are yet to explain how in seven hells will they ever be able to project significant power inland?

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And I'm sure @Aldarion realizes this, too, else he wouldn't spend so much time on arguing that Dany's numerical advantage cannot play out in Westeros - because only if it doesn't play out might Dany be forced to take more extreme measures.

 

I am arguing it because her numerical advantage playing out in Westeros would be completely illogical.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

DIfference, I think, is that nobody expects any better of Starks, Lannisters or Tullys. They are fighting a war, and that is it. Such type of behaviour is normal. Daenerys however is idolized/idealized by many, both in- and out of- -universe, which naturally makes her subject to stricter standards.

Also, again: war. Peasants killed are killed in military operations. That is no different from World War II strategic bombing, and in fact there is a term for it - chevauchee. What Daenerys did however was not a military operation but a judicial process. So standards will naturally be different. I think you will find that most people will not have had problem had those Masters been killed in combat or similar (I definitely wouldn't). But execution without a judicial process? It pulls apart very strings which hold society together, much like violations of guest right.

 

Justice in this world is lex talionis.  Trials, if they exist at all, are a joke.  Mostly, a king or lord decides on the spot, what punishment they're going to deal out.  Even people like Ned Stark and Jon Snow carry out executions without a trial.   Arya certainly doesn't give the people she kills a trial.  Stannis would have summarily executed Tyrion, Cersei, and Joffrey, had he taken Kings Landing.  I'm pretty sure Ramsay Bolton won't be getting a trial, if and when he's captured.  No one other than the Great Masters and their immediate families would see anything wrong with Daenerys' behaviour.  And, they'd object on the ground that crucifying a slave is no crime.  Nobody's claiming that they didn't do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd guess in Tiberius' case he may have considered that weird grewing up with the original meaning of the word, whereas Nero may have never actually led a campaign in person and/or preferred to see himself in not that militaristic a manner.

Well, they both counted their declarations, they just decided to forfeit the threatening praenomen. It might play a role for Tiberius that he grew up with the original meaning, but I think both of them simply didn't want to carry the military upfront. Tiberius didn't need to, as he has proven a capable military commander more times than all the Westerosi commanders combined, Nero really wasn't into military at all. Both of them didn't believe in brute force as first measure (Augustus didn't either, but he was, as you put it so nicely, "speaking quietly and carrying a big club").

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I think Blackfyre is pretty much already in Aegon's possession - as a prop in one of those chests Duck carried back in ADwD. It should help Aegon in the short term - it is 'the sword of kings', after all - but it isn't as powerful a sign of kingship as a dragon. There is a reason why Blackfyre only became an important prop, so to speak, when the dragons were gone. King Aenys had no issue handing Blackfyre to Maegor, Rhaenyra had no problem that Blackfyre wasn't in her possession nor did she give the sword any thought after she had taken KL (it was so relatively unimportant that we don't even know whether Aegon II took it when he fled or whether Rhaenyra took it with the castle), etc.

I think the interesting thing about Blackfyre is that it isn't that useful at all for Aegon, if he wields it while riding with the GC; as while it is the sword of kings, it is also the sword of House Blackfyre, so in Aegon's hands it would be double-edged sword, so to speak, because together with the GC it would/could be seen as another hint that he isn't a Targaryen at all.

Imho Blackfyre would only cause trouble for Aegon in the long run, whether it turns out to be in one of those chests, or somehow appears on Dany's side.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This should happen much more quickly if they have truly sensational success. Then they will likely all be drunk by their success for the proverbial fortnight, sort of being in a haze, but once they sober up they will realize that there is so much to be had now, so many lordships, so many honors and offices and incomes that they will all clash with each other.

Oh, I think Strickland is someone who gets even more cautious the more and faster easy victories they earn, because he will see that this can't last. So when they start doing all this:

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Arianne declaring for Aegon > Euron/Cersei marrying on the Arbor > Euron/Cersei sack Sunspear/the Water Gardens in retaliation of the Myrcella thing as well as Dorne joining Aegon > Arianne/the Sand Snakes insisting they carry the war west to Lannisport and Casterly Rock.

There is also the question of the Dornish army in the Prince's Pass. Depending on when Arianne declares for Aegon, this army could also be used to attack the Reach or Highgarden itself - while Mace is still Tommen's Hand and Tarly his Master of Laws they would both be legitimate targets. If an army fighting in the name of Aegon actually invades and ravages the Reach then this will mean that fewer Reach lords in total will join with Aegon and more might be inclined to defect to Daenerys once she arrives.

Strickland will complain to be cautious, to not go west, to not antagonize too many Lords, etc. He might also not be very happy about the murder of Tommen/Myrcella, as while he is a sell-sword, his company does have a very good reputation to not be unnecessary cruel and bloodthirsty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Justice in this world is lex talionis.  Trials, if they exist at all, are a joke.  Mostly, a king or lord decides on the spot, what punishment they're going to deal out.  Even people like Ned Stark and Jon Snow carry out executions without a trial. Arya certainly doesn't give the people she kills a trial.  I'm pretty sure Ramsay Bolton won't be getting a trial, if and when he's captured.  No one other than the Great Masters and their immediate families would see anything wrong with Daenerys' behaviour.  And, they'd object on the ground that crucifying a slave is no crime.  Nobody's claiming that they didn't do it.

Thanks again!

Martin created a world where the Codex Hammurabi would be seen as a major improvement and the beginning of enlightenment itself. (exaggerating here, but to be fair it isn't even a real lex talionis, as in Martin's World it is more a "lex on the whim")

Beside, this is, even by the standards of Antiquity a war crime. Crucifying slaves might be well and okay by Roman standards (not by - for example - Greek or Egyptian, btw), if they did something wrong (rebel or something) - but crucifying children just to mock and antagonize an advancing army would be seen as brutal, inhuman and a crime against gods and men, because it is senseless slaughter (and nice propaganda against the idiotic brute who did this).

I can very well imagine what Scipio Africanus, Alexander, Augustus, Dareios the Great etc.pp. would have done with the Great Masters after this... And this people would have done this in a world were International Law does already exist! Hint: Dany is way too nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Morte said:

Thanks again!

Martin created a world where the Codex Hammurabi would be seen as a major improvement and the beginning of enlightenment itself. (exaggerating here, but to be fair it isn't even a real lex talionis, as in Martin's World it is more a "lex on the whim")

Beside, this is, even by the standards of Antiquity a war crime. Crucifying slaves might be well and okay by Roman standards (not by - for example - Greek or Egyptian, btw), if they did something wrong (rebel or something) - but crucifying children just to mock and antagonize an advancing army would be seen as brutal, inhuman and a crime against gods and men, because it is senseless slaughter (and nice propaganda against the idiotic brute who did this).

I can very well imagine what Scipio Africanus, Alexander, Augustus, Dareios the Great etc.pp. would have done with the Great Masters after this... And this people would have done this in a world were International Law does already exist! Hint: Dany is way too nice.

Or if you want a more modern example, compare the summary executions of SS Guards by allied soldiers who entered concentration camps, at the end of WWII. 

In terms of realpolitik, the problem with Dany's action is that is quite sufficient to enrage her enemies, but not sufficient to cow them.  Either be more brutal, or focus instead on asset-stripping them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2020 at 5:43 PM, Rose of Red Lake said:

Trees = her rebuilding arc in Meereen. She was wielding a different kind of power (that GRRM identified in his "is that sufficient?" quote).

Haven't you reached your thread derailing quota for the week yet?

The meaning of planting trees in Meereen is given plainly in the exchange. It represents settling down in the middle of an unfinished war, an act that leads to rollbacks on most of her reforms, rendering all the death and destruction meaningless. But to make this interpretation, you'd have to use context instead of making claims based on a single chapter or out-of-context quotes.

Speaking of Dany X, it's clear by the first page she's thinking about her freedmen on the first page.

A girl might spend her life at play, but she was a woman grown, a queen, a wife, a mother to thousands. Her children had need of her. Drogon had bent before the whip, and so must she. She had to don her crown again and return to her ebon bench and the arms of her noble husband.

Best stick to decontextualized passages.

Anyway, I don't care to discuss this any further with you here. If you want to continue the debate, create a new thread for it.

22 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Yeah, that is precisely what I am talking about. Daenerys' fans talk about how many awesome things she will be able to do once she gains absolute power, but they never consider:

a) how absolute power changes people

b) is anyone fit to have absolute power

c) how was Daenerys changed by her Slaver's Bay experiences

This is your philosophy that you're imposing onto GRRM. We've seen a lot of cruel and corrupt people in Westeros, and all of them were like that with or without power. LF, Ramsay, Gregor...etc. We also have countless examples of morally good people with a lot of power, like Ned and Davos.

Dany herself has had some power since becoming khaleesi, and that power has only grown. Has that growing power made her evil? No, she's used that power to help the powerless. So does George think power changes people, or does he think power reveals?

22 hours ago, Aldarion said:

It has been repudiated merely by assuming a static character: that is, that Daenerys must stay as she is right now.

Nobody said that. In fact, some pages back, I laid out how I thought ADWD would shape her character going forward. It's your Dany having a sudden turn theory that I object to, because it's built on false assumptions and wrong interpretations of the text.

Case in point, all the quotes you pulled for LV, supposedly proving Dany's suppressing her violent instincts, actually show her being angry or violent in response to violence committed against innocents. She's questioning her own propensity for butchery in one (hardly something you'd expect from someone innately bloodthirsty) and even disgusted by crucifixions of her own doing in another.

22 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Empty coffers =/= no income.

So where's his money coming from then? All the lands he's not conquered?

22 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Diplomacy during conquest means giving people opportunity for something they want. And that does not necessarily need to be resources. Just idea of stability is often enough. And that is not all. Fact is, it is Lannisters who rule in Westeros right now. How many toes do you think Tywin has stepped on during his life? What about Cersei? Kevan? Aegon will present opportunity for revanche for all of those lords whom Tywin has kept under iron fist. And if banditry and piracy is widespread - as I suspect it currently is - and Lannisters proved unable to deal with it, again, Aegon will represent hope of a solution (whether he will deliver is irrelevant).

What you're talking is vengeance, not hope and stability. This is how Tywin forges an alliance with Walder Frey. But note, the simple promise of revenge isn't enough; the Freys are handed Riverrun as well as a few choice betrothals. Few lords are desperate or naive enough to willingly kneel to some stranger without getting something tangible in return.

22 hours ago, Aldarion said:

I actually do agree with that, but in relation to Daenerys, Aegon/Maegor parallel is much more appropriate.

Only because you really want Daenerys to be a mad tyrant. Otherwise, there's like one or two things they have in common. I see no reason for Dany to be Maegor with Teats when we already have one in Cersei.

Anyway, didn't Maegor finish construction on the Red Keep and build the dragonpits and other structures? If you insist on Dany being as cruel and unliked as Maegor, you'd also have to accept she will also rebuild Westeros (KL at least). Looks like dragons - even the most fiyah and blud! ones - do build so "dragons plant no trees" building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

 

Anyway, didn't Maegor finish construction on the Red Keep and build the dragonpits and other structures? If you insist on Dany being as cruel and unliked as Maegor, you'd also have to accept she will also rebuild Westeros (KL at least). Looks like dragons - even the most fiyah and blud! ones - do build so "dragons plant no trees" building.

Even Maegor was a competent leader, before his cruelty and paranoia got the better of him.  Destroying the Faith Militant was very much in the interests of the Seven Kingdoms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

DIfference, I think, is that nobody expects any better of Starks, Lannisters or Tullys. They are fighting a war, and that is it. Such type of behaviour is normal. Daenerys however is idolized/idealized by many, both in- and out of- -universe, which naturally makes her subject to stricter standards.

I don't see anyone idealizing Daenerys - but even if we did - it would be stupid to use different standards then.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Also, again: war. Peasants killed are killed in military operations. That is no different from World War II strategic bombing, and in fact there is a term for it - chevauchee. What Daenerys did however was not a military operation but a judicial process. So standards will naturally be different. I think you will find that most people will not have had problem had those Masters been killed in combat or similar (I definitely wouldn't). But execution without a judicial process? It pulls apart very strings which hold society together, much like violations of guest right.

LOL, I'm sorry. This is a brutal world where nobody does have any right whatsoever to expect quarter or mercy after they pulled the kind of shit the Meereenese pulled there. Dany is too nice there. She should have killed them all because the people are all guilty - either because they commanded the murder, because they did the murder, or because they looked away, or because they didn't stop it.

This is the justice of the conqueror. Daenerys sets the rules, she decides what kind of justice the conquered people committing atrocities do get. I mean, next you do complain that the Nazis weren't judged by their own standards at Nuremberg. Or that the Normans didn't do things the Ango-Saxon way after William the Conqueror took over the island. They did as he pleased, because England was theirs now.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Aegon's and Arianne's power is dependant on consent of the people they are leading, so definitely not comparable to Daenerys' power with dragons (and likely also religious cultists).

It is your problem when you have problems with how characters are depicted, not the text's.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

It is true that possession of power does not make character bound to act malevolently. It does however increase temptation towards malevolent action as it makes said action seem an easier path.

Can you give us any example for that being the case in Westeros? Is Robb getting more evil because he has the power of a king? The point to pretend or claim power corrupts Daenerys into doing evil things is when we have that on the page.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Pretty much that. She is aiming to conquer Westeros, but she will not be conquering it as much as attempting to turn it into a wasteland. And if Martin studies military history at all, Dothraki will be getting slaughtered in Westeros.

Well, what is it? Is she going to be a tyrant or a failure? Or a tyrannical failure, a failed tyrant?

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

You are confusing a "villain" and "antagonist". Stannis and Aegon are definitely antagonists, but that does not mean they have to be villains. Likewise, Daenerys being a protagonist does not prevent her from becoming a villain.

They both are villains. Stannis is a villain since ACoK (he allowed his brother and king to die, allowed Mel to get away with Cressen's death, murdered his other brother, etc.) and Aegon will become a villain as the story progresses. There is a reason why we don't know anything about his inner life and thoughts so far, unlike with Daenerys. Aegon turning evil/tyrannical/monstrous is actually going to be twist.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

There is wildfire under King's Landing. So I'd say it is almost certain a dragon will become a weapon of mass destruction, even if by accident.

LOL, first, there is no longer that much wildfire under KL, especially not under the important places (that all burned on the Blackwater). But more importantly, said wildfire is not going to explode even if it is there in winter. Winter means snow, and snow means roofs and houses are not going to burn. And if they don't burn, they won't ignite wildfire jars hidden in the cellars.

Instead, if there is wildfire going off at some point in the story it will have to be ignited deliberately or it goes off by accident because the Mad King's fruits have gone so ripe they ignite themselves - which is a danger Hallyne pointed out in ACoK.

But dragons are not weapons of mass destruction by accident. If they ignited the wildfire then the wildfire is a weapon of mass destruction, not the dragons, just as the poor fellow losing a burning match in a cellar full of wildfire isn't a weapon of mass destruction, either.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And they are WMDs when fully grown: look at Balerion, or Valyrian wars. The only question is how large Daenerys' dragons will be by the time they come to Westeros.

Even those huge dragons didn't kill that many people during the historical wars in Westeros. And even dragons the size of Balerion wouldn't be of much use in the depth of winter outside from, perhaps, Dorne.

If you read your stuff you will remember that rain alone limits the deadliness of dragons quite severely, snowstorms and snow lying around will be even a bigger problem for them.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Manner in which you crush them can easily make you a tyrant, however.

Well, did anybody in-universe ever say that Dany was a tyrant for what she did in Astapor or Meereen - even the Ghiscari themselves? Do they claim she is a war criminal or a monster for the little violence she committed?

I don't think so. Those people hate her for anti-slavery policy not because she committed heinous crimes. And the Green Grace and Hizdahr are actually smart/insidious enough to work with her, to use her conquest for their own ends to reestablish a Meereenese monarchy and end the oligarchy of the Great Masters.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

She never uses violence or force, yes; but we are talking about future developments here.

We can only talk about future developments in a meaningful way if we can properly project things. For instance, we do know that Stannis likes to consider to sacrifice close kin to accomplish magical nonsense, so we can expect that he is going to revisit this issue with his daughter if/when he is pushed far enough.

Daenerys has never targeted innocents or considered doing that for her own gain, thus we cannot expect she will do that in the future.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

I see it more of an issue of what dragons symbolize - what Daenerys status as Mother of Dragons symbolizes. Fire and blood - that is, indiscriminate slaughter. That is why she chains her dragons, why she struggles with her identity as mother of dragons - she does not want to become a tyrant, yet very possession of dragons is pushing her in that direction.

That is just nonsense unless you believe all the Targaryen kings with dragons were tyrants (and all the dragonriding princes monsters as well).

Fire and blood doesn't mean 'indiscriminate slaughter' - it is a phrase expressing the roots of Valyrian magic. Although in war indiscriminate slaughter does happen on every front and is committed by every party. This is just how war is.

Dany chains her dragons because she fears they will continue to murder innocents - she doesn't think she herself will do similar things nor does she actually intend doing them.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

All the slavers, all their families, and anyone in any way connected to them... how many people do you think that would have made?

I didn't say anyone in any way connected to them - that would involve the slaves as well, no? I expect a couple of thousand people, perhaps tens of thousands. Revolutions are bloody, deal with it.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

It is special, simply by virtue of its scope. Of all the things you listed, the only that comes close is Tywin dealing with Reynes and Tarbecks. But my issue, again, isn't so much with what she did but how it made her feel. So stop shifting the goalposts.

But I don't care how she feels. I only care about what she does and why she does it.

Is Tywin in Westeros generally condemned as a tyrant/monster for Castamere? Did this make him a pariah in Westerosi society or didn't it trigger the new king's decision to make him the Hand?

It is perfectly fine for Dany to feel good when avenging somebody, especially herself and her people.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

You are either shifting the goalposts or genuinely not understanding what I'm trying to say. So to reiterate: in that scene, she is not focused on justice. She is focused on vengeance; vengeance makes her feel good. What do you think that says about how she will deal with "traitors" who ousted her House from power, or with those who support a "false dragon"?

Why shouldn't she later also execute those people? Aegon's little sycophants might be her enemies, so she should target them if they can't reach a compromise. Those who ousted her family from power should actually be butchered by our buddy Aegon who got there first, assuming anyone is still alive of those people at that point. We are down to Jaime, I think.

The idea that Dany is going to brutally attack people for the crime of believing Aegon is who he says he is and the rightful king is ridiculous, by the way. She might punish people harshly who did her and her people harm, brutalized them, etc. but she is not going to target them for making a mistake.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Means to kill people enable tyranny. You cannot have tyranny if you don't have power.

Aegon could establish a monstrous tyranny in KL and the Crownlands for all I care. He doesn't have to be a powerful person to brutalize some people - just like Roose and Ramsay and Gregor don't have to be kings to torture and murder people.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And, technically, tyrant can rule well. Muammar Al-Gaddafi was far better than the "government" which succeeded him.

That is just nonsense since you insinuate a guy who wasn't as bad as his successors means he was actually good.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

You really think that dragons will make Daenerys invulnerable to assassination?

Where did I indicate that?

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Read it again; they basically gave up on reaching her:

They didn't reach a conclusion yet. You would have a case if Strickland and the other officers had said point blank the company would not accompany Aegon to Meereen.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:
There is difference between defeating somebody and pillaging their lands. Ironborn are raiders. Even if Euron wins battles at sea, he cannot project any real power inland. Ironborn are hopeless when it comes to land warfare against Westerosi armies.

Ironborn can rule the sea, yes. But you are yet to explain how in seven hells will they ever be able to project significant power inland?

By making people actually bend the knee to Euron to save their wealth. The Ironborn have to defeat them in battle if they can raid their coasts and lands and prevent them from continuing their trade.

This is not difficult to understand. Imagine the US and other big powers suddenly lost the means to enforce passage through crucial straits and waterways important to international trade. If Egypt and Panama then demanded a huge toll for crossing their waters the companies making money with that trade - depending on that trade - would demand that those demands are met when military intervention isn't an option anymore.

And it will be the same with the Ironborn and the Hightowers and their bannermen.

In addition, I'm arguing that Cersei and Euron are going to marry, meaning that Euron will have the West and all the gold of Casterly Rock at his disposal. That will be more than just a foothold on the mainland. It will make him one of the most powerful pretenders in the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They both are villains. Stannis is a villain since ACoK (he allowed his brother and king to die, allowed Mel to get away with Cressen's death, murdered his other brother, etc.) and Aegon will become a villain as the story progresses. There is a reason why we don't know anything about his inner life and thoughts so far, unlike with Daenerys. Aegon turning evil/tyrannical/monstrous is actually going to be twist.

Aegon has done nothing to be treated like a would be monster, he could actually balance this and becoming a very good king.

 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Even those huge dragons didn't kill that many people during the historical wars in Westeros. And even dragons the size of Balerion wouldn't be of much use in the depth of winter outside from, perhaps, Dorne.

They did tho, Aemond torched the Riverlands, the field of fire was a very big thing by Westerosi standards (looking at you bloodiest day of the Dance of the dragons), Harrenhall was an absolute bloodbath and the first Dornish war was a massacre. And there is Tumbleton.

Dragons wouldn't be of much in the North but dragons worked just fine during Winter in the South and i would hardly call winter the weather of the Stormlands. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If you read your stuff you will remember that rain alone limits the deadliness of dragons quite severely, snowstorms and snow lying around will be even a bigger problem for them.

But there simply aren't snowstorms in the Stormlands, Reach, Dorne. In the Riverlands, the Vale and the West you get some snow.

 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Fire and blood doesn't mean 'indiscriminate slaughter' - it is a phrase expressing the roots of Valyrian magic. Although in war indiscriminate slaughter does happen on every front and is committed by every party. This is just how war is.

Almost everytime the phrase has been used, especially by Targs, its meaning was without a shadow of doubt "indiscriminate slaughter".

 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Why shouldn't she later also execute those people? Aegon's little sycophants might be her enemies, so she should target them if they can't reach a compromise. Those who ousted her family from power should actually be butchered by our buddy Aegon who got there first, assuming anyone is still alive of those people at that point. We are down to Jaime, I think.

She would execute the people that don't want to submit to her rule, and depending how loved Aegon is going to be, that will go from a couple of kingdoms to almost the whole country.

The Dornish in Meeren are coming home and they are carrying not a single good word, if the Dornish believe Aegon  real, you have a perfect recipe for a war.

Then there is what she she is going to do with the Tullys, the Arryns, the Starks and Casterly Rock. Aegon has little power to threaten them, the Tullys are disposessed but they are relatively well loved and most of the support of the Riverlands would mean that the status quo returns and he simply can't touch, Casterly Rock, the Eyrie or what is left of Winterfell.  Dany can do that and since there is little reason those guys are going to salute her, you again have conflict.

 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon could establish a monstrous tyranny in KL and the Crownlands for all I care. He doesn't have to be a powerful person to brutalize some people - just like Roose and Ramsay and Gregor don't have to be kings to torture and murder people.

No but the echo of powerful monsters travel further than petty lords,  Aerys is a good example of that, he only hunted near home and thus his actions didn't get enough attention... until he decided to hunt that wrong people.

Roose and Ramsay being monsters don't have the the same implications and repercussions Ned and Robb would.

 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

By making people actually bend the knee to Euron to save their wealth. The Ironborn have to defeat them in battle if they can raid their coasts and lands and prevent them from continuing their trade.

The Reach has enough manpower to protect its lands, they were caught unawares and that's why Euron  is succesful. He is not going to be that lucky, nor even with superiority at sea can he take Oldtown, only him being Sauron can do that and i personally don't believe one word.

They are not going to bend the knee if they can fight and for now they can fight. Euron can hold places like Arbor but he can't permanently raid the coast and expect submission. Balon didn't get it, Dalton didn't get it and Dagon didn't get it. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In addition, I'm arguing that Cersei and Euron are going to marry, meaning that Euron will have the West and all the gold of Casterly Rock at his disposal. That will be more than just a foothold on the mainland. It will make him one of the most powerful pretenders in the field.

That is ofc if Cersei gets to retain the Rock and if she actually marries Euron, none of those is likely.

 

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Even Maegor was a competent leader, before his cruelty and paranoia got the better of him.  Destroying the Faith Militant was very much in the interests of the Seven Kingdoms.

Was in the interest of the King and the highlords and ofc some highlords since its influence was limited in Dorne and none existent in the North and the Iron Islands, i'm less sure about its people.

 

 

8 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Manner in which you crush them can easily make you a tyrant, however.

Not likely, Tywin gained popularity and infamy after the Rains...

 

 

4 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

So where's his money coming from then? All the lands he's not conquered?

This is a misconception, the crown has money, in fact the crown has a lot of money. But that money is indebted, yes, but that debt belongs to the Baratheons

When Aegon gets the Throne he will ind himself with a lot of money and even a bigger debts. But Aegon's great advantage is that he doesn't have to honor those debts. He is not going to pay back the Lannisters, he doesn't have to pay the Iron Bank and the Iron Bank is already doing the most harm it can (calling all the debts in and refusing new loans while backing Stannis's claim) they have little to no leverage over Aegon and Aegon can win them back by vowing to honor Robert's debt. And the money the cron owes to the Tyrells and Hightowers can be effectively used as carrot, "you want your money back, you better behave". Debts are a double edge sword, while the indebted cedes a lot, creditors are less likely to let the debtors fall if they owed them a huge amount of money and Robert's debt is going to be  one of Aegon's biggest advantages over the rest of the pretenders, just as it became an unexpected lifesaver to Stannis.

4 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Even Maegor was a competent leader, before his cruelty and paranoia got the better of him.  Destroying the Faith Militant was very much in the interests of the Seven Kingdoms.

I suspect quite a few are, Wyman Manderly for example. And one of the reasons the Freys were aiming big is because their work would be the dirtiest of the all, with a pretty backlash and they would be doing Tywin the favour of cutting the head off Tywin's biggest and last enemy before he could march North and effectively secede.  

Quite a few people would be eager to kill Lannisters for free, in fact most of Aegon's hopes and campaign is based on that certainty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, I'm sorry. This is a brutal world where nobody does have any right whatsoever to expect quarter or mercy after they pulled the kind of shit the Meereenese pulled there. Dany is too nice there. She should have killed them all because the people are all guilty - either because they commanded the murder, because they did the murder, or because they looked away, or because they didn't stop it.

This is the justice of the conqueror. Daenerys sets the rules, she decides what kind of justice the conquered people committing atrocities do get. I mean, next you do complain that the Nazis weren't judged by their own standards at Nuremberg. Or that the Normans didn't do things the Ango-Saxon way after William the Conqueror took over the island. They did as he pleased, because England was theirs now.

That is true. But again, if she wanted to try repproach later, she should have given them a trial. Her not giving them a trial indicates that she had commited to tearing down the system in its entirety - which would not be bad, except for the fact that she has clearly not thought of anything sustainable to replace it. And fact still remains that what she did was not justice per se, but vengeance - even though it might have been appropriate as justice (and it wasn't - see previous, plus as I already explained, she went neither hot nor cold there - not sufficiently thorough if she was aiming to scare them, but too cruel if she was aiming for coexistence), it was in fact an emotional decision.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is your problem when you have problems with how characters are depicted, not the text's.

 

WTF does that have to do with anything? Fact is that Daenerys has dragons and almost slavishly loyal army, which means that she is much more capable of scaring people into obedience.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Can you give us any example for that being the case in Westeros? Is Robb getting more evil because he has the power of a king? The point to pretend or claim power corrupts Daenerys into doing evil things is when we have that on the page.

 

I have already pointed out that she does have such tendencies - which she is keeping under control for now, but they exist. And yes, power does corrupt - do you really think Renly would have gone and declared himself a king, in violation of laws and custom both, if he didn't have Tyrell support? Or that Red Wedding will have happened if Walder Frey couldn't count on support against any retaliation?

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, what is it? Is she going to be a tyrant or a failure? Or a tyrannical failure, a failed tyrant?

 

You are forcing a contrast where one does not need to exist. She can be a conqueror and a tyrant, yet still a failure of a ruler - not all tyrants are successful at ruling. Though I personally believe that she will:

1) be a tyrant (to conquer Westeros)

2) fail the Dothraki and her other followers (they will mostly die in Westeros - what during war for the throne, what during the Long Night)

3) fail at rebuilding Westeros (not necessarily through being a failure at rebuilding, but simply due to lack of time)

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, I'm sorry. This is a brutal world where nobody does have any right whatsoever to expect quarter or mercy after they pulled the kind of shit the Meereenese pulled there. Dany is too nice there. She should have killed them all because the people are all guilty - either because they commanded the murder, because they did the murder, or because they looked away, or because they didn't stop it.

This is the justice of the conqueror. Daenerys sets the rules, she decides what kind of justice the conquered people committing atrocities do get. I mean, next you do complain that the Nazis weren't judged by their own standards at Nuremberg. Or that the Normans didn't do things the Ango-Saxon way after William the Conqueror took over the island. They did as he pleased, because England was theirs now.

1) Said brother and king had failed to clean the court in last couple of decades. You need to prove that Stannis had a reasonable chance of saving Robert before blaming him for running away.

2) Renly was going to murder Stannis, and was not open to - rather good - terms which Stannis offered him. Again, you can hardly blame Stannis for offing him first.

3) We don't know much about Aegon's internal thoughts because he is not PoV and has had limited "screentime". That doesn't mean he will become a tyrant.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Even those huge dragons didn't kill that many people during the historical wars in Westeros. And even dragons the size of Balerion wouldn't be of much use in the depth of winter outside from, perhaps, Dorne.

If you read your stuff you will remember that rain alone limits the deadliness of dragons quite severely, snowstorms and snow lying around will be even a bigger problem for them.

Dragons were decisive on the Field of Fire. Can't speak for the effect of winter, though - but if they are to be as ineffective as you say, what is the point of dragons and whole "song of ice and fire"? Daenerys is supposed to bring dragons over to face the Others; but if snow would truly render them so limited, that would mean that whole Daenerys plot - her whole existence in the story - is meaningless.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, did anybody in-universe ever say that Dany was a tyrant for what she did in Astapor or Meereen - even the Ghiscari themselves? Do they claim she is a war criminal or a monster for the little violence she committed?

I don't think so. Those people hate her for anti-slavery policy not because she committed heinous crimes. And the Green Grace and Hizdahr are actually smart/insidious enough to work with her, to use her conquest for their own ends to reestablish a Meereenese monarchy and end the oligarchy of the Great Masters.

Oh, they definitely hate her for what she did as well. It is just that Slaver's Bay societies are such a carricature that even her arrival was improvement for 90% of people there.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We can only talk about future developments in a meaningful way if we can properly project things. For instance, we do know that Stannis likes to consider to sacrifice close kin to accomplish magical nonsense, so we can expect that he is going to revisit this issue with his daughter if/when he is pushed far enough.

Daenerys has never targeted innocents or considered doing that for her own gain, thus we cannot expect she will do that in the future.

...unless we consider her own thoughts and fears about her own nature.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is just nonsense unless you believe all the Targaryen kings with dragons were tyrants (and all the dragonriding princes monsters as well).

Fire and blood doesn't mean 'indiscriminate slaughter' - it is a phrase expressing the roots of Valyrian magic. Although in war indiscriminate slaughter does happen on every front and is committed by every party. This is just how war is.

Dany chains her dragons because she fears they will continue to murder innocents - she doesn't think she herself will do similar things nor does she actually intend doing them.

Would it hurt you to try and understand symbolism for once?

1) "Fire and Blood" means a lot of things. Yes, original meaning is indeed a magical cookbook recipe for hatching dragon eggs. But just like "Winter is Coming", it is also used as a warning and as a threat. In this case "we will burn you and spill your blood if you cross us". Just like here: "Custom and caution had an iron grip upon us till you awakened us with fire and blood. A new time has come, and new things are possible. Marry me."; "Get the heads of all the noble houses out of their pyramids on some pretext, Daario had said. The dragon’s words are fire and blood. Dany pushed the thought aside. It was not worthy of her."; "“For you,” said Quentyn, all awkward gallantry. “No,” said Dany. “For fire and blood.”"; "No. You are the blood of the dragon. The whispering was growing fainter, as if Ser Jorah were falling farther behind. Dragons plant no trees. Remember that. Remember who you are, what you were made to be. Remember your words. “Fire and Blood,” Daenerys told the swaying grass.". A warning, a threat, a promise of violence.

2) Daenerys' dragons are symbolic of her own inner choices. She chains them when she chooses a path of peace; but when Drogon approaches her, it symbolizes her turning to violence as a way of solving things.

You know, I have shitty memory, but I am starting to think you have selective one.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is just nonsense unless you believe all the Targaryen kings with dragons were tyrants (and all the dragonriding princes monsters as well).

Fire and blood doesn't mean 'indiscriminate slaughter' - it is a phrase expressing the roots of Valyrian magic. Although in war indiscriminate slaughter does happen on every front and is committed by every party. This is just how war is.

Dany chains her dragons because she fears they will continue to murder innocents - she doesn't think she herself will do similar things nor does she actually intend doing them.

Revolutions also tend to eat their children. And parents, and everyone else. All revolutions for the case of freedom ended establishing merely another tyranny. Why do you think Daenerys' will be different?

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But I don't care how she feels. I only care about what she does and why she does it.

 

Generally speaking, reason only serves to rationalize decisions based on emotions. Actual rational decisions are relatively rare in human beings, and that is something Martin portrays well. And Daenerys is definitely not a cold-hearted pragmatist, even for your average human.

You may not care how she feels, but that means that you do not care who and what she is as a character. In which case our entire discussion is a waste of time.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Why shouldn't she later also execute those people? Aegon's little sycophants might be her enemies, so she should target them if they can't reach a compromise. Those who ousted her family from power should actually be butchered by our buddy Aegon who got there first, assuming anyone is still alive of those people at that point. We are down to Jaime, I think.

The idea that Dany is going to brutally attack people for the crime of believing Aegon is who he says he is and the rightful king is ridiculous, by the way. She might punish people harshly who did her and her people harm, brutalized them, etc. but she is not going to target them for making a mistake.

If there is a war, she is justified in killing enemies, yes. But I very much doubt that she will stop at that - and I am not sure she will not begin at that either. If she starts killing anyone who rejects her rule, that will be quite a list (which is why you are insisting that Aegon will be a tyrant, to make the list shorter and thus make Daenerys look less bad).

And yes, she might well do precisely that "ridiculous" thing. As I mentioned before, her entire outlook is shifting in her last few chapters.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Aegon could establish a monstrous tyranny in KL and the Crownlands for all I care. He doesn't have to be a powerful person to brutalize some people - just like Roose and Ramsay and Gregor don't have to be kings to torture and murder people.

 

And if he does so his own people will get rid of him. Daenerys however has much greater freedom of action, thanks to her dragons and Unsullied (and the likely cult-like following she will gain during her trip to Westeros).

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Where did I indicate that?

 

You wrote this: 

Cersei took Robert's throne from him and handed it to her bastard. Aegon will take the throne from the Lannisters, and he will it lose again to Euron or Dany or whoever else will have it after Aegon.

In response to this:

Thinking that he can conquer and hold the Iron Throne without dragons is no delusion. Robert had done it, Tywin had done it.

Robert was assassinated. Therefore it appears that you believe that possession of dragons makes person invulnerable to assassinations and accidents.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Why shouldn't she later also execute those people? Aegon's little sycophants might be her enemies, so she should target them if they can't reach a compromise. Those who ousted her family from power should actually be butchered by our buddy Aegon who got there first, assuming anyone is still alive of those people at that point. We are down to Jaime, I think.

The idea that Dany is going to brutally attack people for the crime of believing Aegon is who he says he is and the rightful king is ridiculous, by the way. She might punish people harshly who did her and her people harm, brutalized them, etc. but she is not going to target them for making a mistake.

They actually did state as much during discussion itself; "it cannot be done" is as good as "we will not do it".

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

By making people actually bend the knee to Euron to save their wealth. The Ironborn have to defeat them in battle if they can raid their coasts and lands and prevent them from continuing their trade.

This is not difficult to understand. Imagine the US and other big powers suddenly lost the means to enforce passage through crucial straits and waterways important to international trade. If Egypt and Panama then demanded a huge toll for crossing their waters the companies making money with that trade - depending on that trade - would demand that those demands are met when military intervention isn't an option anymore.

And it will be the same with the Ironborn and the Hightowers and their bannermen.

In addition, I'm arguing that Cersei and Euron are going to marry, meaning that Euron will have the West and all the gold of Casterly Rock at his disposal. That will be more than just a foothold on the mainland. It will make him one of the most powerful pretenders in the field.

You are assuming there is much trade left by now. And even then, there are ways to counter raiding of trade. Euron uses Viking longships, which simply cannot maintain continuous blockage of ports (logistics). In fact, close blockade of ports of the way which you note simply was not an option for most of Middle Ages.

5 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

This is your philosophy that you're imposing onto GRRM. We've seen a lot of cruel and corrupt people in Westeros, and all of them were like that with or without power. LF, Ramsay, Gregor...etc. We also have countless examples of morally good people with a lot of power, like Ned and Davos.

Dany herself has had some power since becoming khaleesi, and that power has only grown. Has that growing power made her evil? No, she's used that power to help the powerless. So does George think power changes people, or does he think power reveals?

It is Martin's philosophy as well. Even ignoring the whole "human heart at conflict with itself" thing, fact is that the entire war is basically about a chair which represents power. Where Tolkien has Rings of Power, and One Ring in particular, George Martin has the Iron Throne and the dragons.

5 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Nobody said that. In fact, some pages back, I laid out how I thought ADWD would shape her character going forward. It's your Dany having a sudden turn theory that I object to, because it's built on false assumptions and wrong interpretations of the text.

 

It is not "sudden turn".

5 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Case in point, all the quotes you pulled for LV, supposedly proving Dany's suppressing her violent instincts, actually show her being angry or violent in response to violence committed against innocents. She's questioning her own propensity for butchery in one (hardly something you'd expect from someone innately bloodthirsty) and even disgusted by crucifixions of her own doing in another.

 

Because those are ones I could easily find, and because she simply hasn't been under a "proper test" so far. Entire Slaver's Bay setup makes her look essentially like a saint by default. Which is part of the reason why I believe it is hiding something much darker.

5 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

So where's his money coming from then? All the lands he's not conquered?

 

Lands (he will have conquered basically some of the richer parts of Westeros), trade (King's Landing by itself is a major port - else it would not exist)...

5 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

This is your philosophy that you're imposing onto GRRM. We've seen a lot of cruel and corrupt people in Westeros, and all of them were like that with or without power. LF, Ramsay, Gregor...etc. We also have countless examples of morally good people with a lot of power, like Ned and Davos.

Dany herself has had some power since becoming khaleesi, and that power has only grown. Has that growing power made her evil? No, she's used that power to help the powerless. So does George think power changes people, or does he think power reveals?

We are talking about a starting point. And I in fact mentioned both; go back and reread what I wrote.

5 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Anyway, didn't Maegor finish construction on the Red Keep and build the dragonpits and other structures? If you insist on Dany being as cruel and unliked as Maegor, you'd also have to accept she will also rebuild Westeros (KL at least). Looks like dragons - even the most fiyah and blud! ones - do build so "dragons plant no trees" building.

I actually do think she might be able to rebuild Westeros. But that would require her to survive the Long Night, which is not likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

That is true. But again, if she wanted to try repproach later, she should have given them a trial. Her not giving them a trial indicates that she had commited to tearing down the system in its entirety - which would not be bad, except for the fact that she has clearly not thought of anything sustainable to replace it. And fact still remains that what she did was not justice per se, but vengeance - even though it might have been appropriate as justice (and it wasn't - see previous, plus as I already explained, she went neither hot nor cold there - not sufficiently thorough if she was aiming to scare them, but too cruel if she was aiming for coexistence), it was in fact an emotional decision.

 

A trial in this world means the Queen/King/Lord/Lord Commander taking a look at you, and deciding if they like the cut of your gib.  Or not.

Where do these fair trials with counsel representing each side, legal aid, etc. exist in the world that Martin has created?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

1) Said brother and king had failed to clean the court in last couple of decades. You need to prove that Stannis had a reasonable chance of saving Robert before blaming him for running away.

By telling the truth he could've made Robert take the matter seriously, in fact if Stannis told the truth to the realm, every assasination plan would be blamed on the Lannisters since now they do have a reason to want to off Robert, Stannis sending his letter three months after Robert's death made him look like a desperate man looking for a way to take the throne.

By telling Ned, he also made his odds better.

 

 

42 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

2) Renly was going to murder Stannis, and was not open to - rather good - terms which Stannis offered him. Again, you can hardly blame Stannis for offing him first.

 

- Renly was going to murder because Stannis left him no pther option.

- Stannis went there to see Renly dead and steal his army.

- Stannis's offer was not generous.

 

@SeanF

 

Quote

Where do these fair trials with counsel representing each side, legal aid, etc. exist in the world that Martin has created?

Tyrion's trial, he had right to give his version, offer witnesses etc.

I don't really believe that is appliable to Dany tho, she is a Conqueror and her word is the new law and she was in war so... Dany's actions are eye for eye, which is the oldest justice measure in the wolrld. One that is repeatedly used in war "Robb is paying the Westerlands back in kind". 

Honestly, i didm't get the outrage, Dany is killing people that are guilty without doubt of impalling and crucifying children. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...