Jump to content

The many political mistakes of Daenaerys Targaryen


Alyn Oakenfist

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is a little bit of hyperbole, but King Aenys was the son of Aegon the Conqueror. He knew what his father did to take possession of Westeros. And he also knew, at the beginning of his reign, that the original rebels had to be put down. He just couldn't decide how to do it because he wanted to be loved by all. Like Dany wants to be loved/accepted as queen by all her subjects, not just the former slaves.

What triggers Dany's anger is the vilest of cruelty and the abominations that are common practice in Slaver's Bay. I guess even King Aenys wouldn't have accepted this kind of behavior if he had been in her shoes there. Could be wrong, though.

But the point is that Dany's issues in Slaver's Bay come more from the fact that she is like her ancestor Aenys than that she is like Maegor. Aenys twice refusing to fly Quicksilver in battle - first when Lord Tully wants him to attack Harrenhal and second when Queen Visenya urges him to use his dragon (or her and Vhagar) to burn Oldtown - can be paralleled with Dany's decision to imprison her dragons and refusing to do what's necessary to defend her people and defeat her enemies. It isn't exactly the same considering Dany doesn't have dragonriders at that point, so it wouldn't really be possible to properly weaponize the dragons, but it still is a sign that she, like Aenys, isn't willing to do everything that it takes.

And that is the kind of weakness the Green Grace and the others tasted ... and then they decide to push her further and further. Just like Aenys' original signs of weakness emboldened the original rebels (and even Visenya) which then led to the Faith Militant Uprising. These people all got cocky because they didn't think Aenys/Daenerys would answer fire with fire.

For Dany that's likely going to be just a phase. She certainly has the potential to be more like Jaehaerys I. The greatest Targaryen king of all time also seems to have conducted a great massacre with the Fourth Dornish War. It didn't blacken his reputation all that much...

I dunno I see her going more in the direction of Maegor, fighting fire with fire, thought without the sadism and the perverse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I dunno I see her going more in the direction of Maegor, fighting fire with fire, thought without the sadism and the perverse

Early Maegor was pretty good IMHO.  The Faith Militant did need to be stamped on hard.  Maegor showed what Jaehaerys I would be capable of if he was pushed too far. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Early Maegor was pretty good IMHO.  The Faith Militant did need to be stamped on hard.  Maegor showed what Jaehaerys I would be capable of if he was pushed too far. 

Not really. I do agree that Dany at her worst might be similar to Maegor at his best, but there are still a couple of fundamental differences, in the Maegor was a sadist and a pervert. Power didn't corrupt him, it revealed his true nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I dunno I see her going more in the direction of Maegor, fighting fire with fire, thought without the sadism and the perverse

Dany has pretty much nothing in common with Maegor - just think of the Trial of Seven which the guy won. And then he had nothing better to do than kill all the Warrior's Sons anyway - for effectively no reason whatsoever. He offered no terms, didn't make any demands, just mounted his dragon and burned them all. That is the behavior of a stupid, sadistic madman.

So far, Daenerys Targaryen is a nice little kitten compared to men like Aegon I, Maegor, Jaehaerys I (who burned thousands or tens of thousands of Dornishmen in the Fourth Dornish War), or the butcher-king Daeron I. Even Tywin, Walder, and Roose are much worse than Dany, and Stannis would have been much worse if he had taken KL.

Her flaws are not cruelty and an iron will but her desire for peace and her willingness to compromise with people who basically only deserve the noose for their 'cultural practices'. Even Robb and Jon have the stomach to execute hostages and severely punish transgressions against their rule. But Dany lost all taste for that kind of thing is ADwD. She is pretty much a peace-loving weakling ruler.

She has to come around to survive but she has no innate Maegor-like tendencies, so she is not going to follow in his footsteps. But she might take a couple of pages out of the books of the Conqueror, the Conciliator, and the Young Dragon.

11 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Early Maegor was pretty good IMHO.  The Faith Militant did need to be stamped on hard.  Maegor showed what Jaehaerys I would be capable of if he was pushed too far. 

They could just as well have abandoned their incest policy, sticking to first cousin marriages in the future. Should have worked, too. It is not that they were not able to reach a compromise with the Faith - Aegon the Conqueror did. But they didn't want to. Even King Aenys didn't want to compromise on that front, weirdly enough.

Maegor was not really needed to end the conflict with the Faith ... especially in light of Maegor's polygamy nonsense ensuring that, no matter what he did in the field, the Faith would and could not back down. If he had gotten rid of the Whore of Harroway and returned to Ceryse Hightower after the Trial of Seven instead of burning the Sept of Remembrance he may have been remembered as Maegor the Magnificent or Maegor the Merciful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Dude. I despise Dany and I wouldnt even go that far.

She has no idea what she’s doing...

 

9 hours ago, SeanF said:

Catelyn was not stupid.  Unlucky, certainly.

Unlucky? She’s a horrible wench with nothing between the ears. Why the fuck would she kidnap Tyrion? She contemplates just moments before how the Starks arent ready for battle (and Ned gave her a list of instructions to do after leaving KL, does she see to them? No) Instead of preparing the north for a possible war, She initiates it by capturing Tyrion then losing him because of her wench of a sister who is almost as dumb as she. All the while her husband is surrounded by enemies (and her daughters). Her son’s abandoned by their mother for no reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

She has to come around to survive but she has no innate Maegor-like tendencies, so she is not going to follow in his footsteps. But she might take a couple of pages out of the books of the Conqueror, the Conciliator, and the Young Dragon.

 

Not necessarily. People who go to one extreme and then fail do have a tendency to overcompensate in the opposite direction. Basically, the very fact that she was too kind and failed because of it may lead her to forgo kindness alltogether and opt for "fire and sword blood" style of governance.

In fact, I am convinced that is what will happen. So far she has shown very bad ability to properly gauge her actions. Her crucifixion of Masters was too aimless to be justice (it was not aimed at those who had commited the transgression), too cruel to facilitate conciliation (crucifixion? Really? Couldn't you have beheading?), and too kind to destroy their will/capacity to resist (if you are going to crucify Masters without trial, why not all of them?). So if her peaceful approach in Mereen fails, I can easily see her turning into a tyrant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bloodraven’s Spider said:

Unlucky? She’s a horrible wench with nothing between the ears. Why the fuck would she kidnap Tyrion? She contemplates just moments before how the Starks arent ready for battle (and Ned gave her a list of instructions to do after leaving KL, does she see to them? No) Instead of preparing the north for a possible war, She initiates it by capturing Tyrion then losing him because of her wench of a sister who is almost as dumb as she. All the while her husband is surrounded by enemies (and her daughters). Her son’s abandoned by their mother for no reason. 

Yeah that was stupid, as was releasing Jaime. Mind bogglingly monumentally stupid. Still it was for a reason, she was beyond distressed by everything happening to her family, her ark is one of slowly dying on the inside as trauma and loss pile up on her. But again, neither she or Dany come even close to Cersei. She's in a league of her own in terms of stupidity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Aldarion said:
 

Not necessarily. People who go to one extreme and then fail do have a tendency to overcompensate in the opposite direction. Basically, the very fact that she was too kind and failed because of it may lead her to forgo kindness alltogether and opt for "fire and sword blood" style of governance.

In fact, I am convinced that is what will happen. So far she has shown very bad ability to properly gauge her actions. Her crucifixion of Masters was too aimless to be justice (it was not aimed at those who had commited the transgression), too cruel to facilitate conciliation (crucifixion? Really? Couldn't you have beheading?), and too kind to destroy their will/capacity to resist (if you are going to crucify Masters without trial, why not all of them?). So if her peaceful approach in Mereen fails, I can easily see her turning into a tyrant.

Certainly, one should not leave wounded tigers alive.

As to the other point, no Great Master is going to think "X deserved to die because he voted for the crucifixion, but Y didn't so he was innocent."  In the eyes of them all, crucifying a child would be like crushing a wasp;  their lives were worth less than those of a hunting dog or a horse. (For a comparison in real life, there's no evidence that any Senator objected to Crassus crucifying 6,000 slaves along the Appian Way).  Their counterparts in Astapor specialised in murdering infants. It was only in the show that there was a Great Master who believed in the human rights of slave children. No one similar exists in the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

(For a comparison in real life, there's no evidence that any Senator objected to Crassus crucifying 6,000 slaves along the Appian way).

To be fair that was quite different, in that those were rebelling slaves not children selected at random just to prove a point. The Appian Way crucifixions were just the brutal execution of a foregone sentence. Also keep in mind that the romans were so scared of the Spartacus revolt that Crassus committed one of the few recorded cases of decimation. Very different circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

To be fair that was quite different, in that those were rebelling slaves not children selected at random just to prove a point. The Appian Way crucifixions were just the brutal execution of a foregone sentence. Also keep in mind that the romans were so scared of the Spartacus revolt that Crassus committed one of the few recorded cases of decimation. Very different circumstances.

The Great/Wise/Good Masters are even crueller than the Romans were.  They have to be, because slaves outnumber free by five to one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The Great/Wise/Good Masters are even crueller than the Romans were.  They have to be, because slaves outnumber free by five to one.

I don't know about that last part, I agree they are far crueler, then the Romans, but it goes over and beyond any realism, They're at cartoon villain levels, without a single redeeming trait. Heck even the Condeferacy looks tame compared to the Masters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I don't know about that last part, I agree they are far crueler, then the Romans, but it goes over and beyond any realism, They're at cartoon villain levels, without a single redeeming trait. Heck even the Condeferacy looks tame compared to the Masters.

I think the treatment of slaves does turn on the ratio of slave to free, and the ease of getting fresh slaves to replace those who are worked to death.  So life as a US slave in 1850 would have been much better than life as a slave in a West Indian sugar colony in 1780.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think the treatment of slaves does turn on the ratio of slave to free, and the ease of getting fresh slaves to replace those who are worked to death.  So life as a US slave in 1850 would have been much better than life as a slave in a West Indian sugar colony in 1780.

Still better then the Masters. Also the ratios in ASOIAF are at the point were a servile rebellion would easily topple Volantis and quite a few other cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:
Not necessarily. People who go to one extreme and then fail do have a tendency to overcompensate in the opposite direction. Basically, the very fact that she was too kind and failed because of it may lead her to forgo kindness alltogether and opt for "fire and sword blood" style of governance.
 
In fact, I am convinced that is what will happen. So far she has shown very bad ability to properly gauge her actions. Her crucifixion of Masters was too aimless to be justice (it was not aimed at those who had commited the transgression), too cruel to facilitate conciliation (crucifixion? Really? Couldn't you have beheading?), and too kind to destroy their will/capacity to resist (if you are going to crucify Masters without trial, why not all of them?). So if her peaceful approach in Mereen fails, I can easily see her turning into a tyrant.

Fire and blood is the standard of good government in this world. It is what should be emulated, not condemned. Aegon I and Jaehaerys I are pretty much ideal kings in this world, as are, one assumes, those hard and cruel Stark kings of old. Nice rulers in this world end like King Aenys or Tytos Lannister - they are, arguably, much worse for their subjects than cruel monsters.

Even as fucked-up as a king like Maegor - who definitely has no redeeming traits in my opinion - enforced some kind of order and justice for the common people. A king who is to weak or indecisive to do that is much worse. He would be like Henry VI during the Wars of the Roses, meaning a complete failure.

And we are talking about a conflict/war scenario here. That you should no longer use fire and blood after the war is over ... but since that is not a period to be covered by those books for any of the pretenders in the field we have no idea how a Dany winning the war would rule.

But a war can only be won by being a competent commander/war leader ... and those usually aren't the guys who don't prove their mettle in battle and pardon their enemies at ever other turn. The lesson Dany will take from Meereen is that she won't conquer the Iron Throne by talking to Aegon/Euron/Stannis/whoever.

I don't think this story is ever going to condemn Daenerys for walking through seas of blood to destroy slavery or to retake what's hers. That is the price for success, progress, and the lifeblood of war and conquest (pun intended). She isn't a character with sadistic traits, meaning she would never enjoy this kind of thing, and thus the author is not going to turn her into a Maegor or Joffrey.

However, the overcompensation angle is very unlikely to happen. Daenerys is still favored by the fortunes and the plot of the story. She is not likely to ever end up in a Rhaenyra-like position were successive betrayals of close family and friends cause her to adopt a 'preemptive execution approach' to justice. Dany didn't stick around in Meereen to see herself betrayed by the Meereenese ... and her treatment of Brown Ben when they met again didn't exactly foreshadow her dealing with him like Maegor dealt with Prince Viserys or Tyanna. She won't even be there, in Meereen, when her people deal with her enemies there.

And her taking over the Dothraki should boost her confidence and put her in a position of imperial, Caesar-like magnanimity. Who could so much as touch much less harm the Stallion that Mounts the World? Who could cast down or hurt Azor Ahai Reborn? The idea that the religious icon Daenerys is going to become is going to be deeply hurt on a personal level because some savage Westerosi don't love her or oppose her is just not very likely.

She will always have the option to mount her dragon and just fly away to Essos or wherever else who truly love her are. She could settle in Volantis or any other place where the slaves freed themselves/were freed in her name ... not to mention just staying in Vaes Dothrak with her adoptive people.

George should and would have given Dany a different arc - Viserys' arc, actually - if he wanted her to be obsessed with Westeros and how the people there felt about her. Instead she perfectly understands she has to convince/win over/bribe/seduce the Westerosi into viewing her as their queen. She doesn't magically expect the people to rise for her the way Viserys did.

In that sense I don't expect many genuinely dark/villainy/nutcasey things from Daenerys even if she won't have as many fanboys and fangirls in Westeros as she could (and perhaps should) have. She isn't the kind of person who jumps from 'this guy is my enemy' to 'all who are on his side must die'. I have certain scenarios in mind which could help to escalate things between her and Aegon, but even that needs a carefully construct plot to be believable. A scenario where Daenerys is going on a rampage throughout Westeros for 'reasons' isn't really imaginable if you take an unbiased take at things.

34 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I don't know about that last part, I agree they are far crueler, then the Romans, but it goes over and beyond any realism, They're at cartoon villain levels, without a single redeeming trait. Heck even the Condeferacy looks tame compared to the Masters.

Actually, I think Ghiscari and Volantene slavery is inspired more by the Old South than antiquity. Like the Americans, the Ghiscari (and Lyseni) breed slaves, the Meereenese conduct weirdo slave fights like some American slavers did, too. The entire slave auction thing we get in ASoIaF is essentially portrayed the same way George portrayed American slavery in Fevre Dream. Even the freakish Yunkai'i with their moronic slave soldiers seems to be more modern slavery in the sense that it channels the idea of slavers using their slaves for their own eccentric whims.

Overall, Martinworld slavery is pretty much a slightly dialed-up version version of American slavery plus slave soldiers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's good to see that some people have their heads on straight.

Dany's greatest flaw is that she has a hard time finishing things and tying up loose ends. Her second-greatest flaw happens to be her greatest strength and most endearing personality trait:  she has a big heart. She cares too much and loves too hard.

Those two things will be her downfall if she is not careful. She got lucky with Drogon in Meereen. If she doesn't address those issues, she won't be so lucky in Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Fire and blood is the standard of good government in this world. It is what should be emulated, not condemned. Aegon I and Jaehaerys I are pretty much ideal kings in this world, as are, one assumes, those hard and cruel Stark kings of old. Nice rulers in this world end like King Aenys or Tytos Lannister - they are, arguably, much worse for their subjects than cruel monsters.

Cruel kings are only tolerated as long as their cruelty is not aimless. Less Nero and more Vlad Dracul. Neither Aegon I or Jaehaerys I are what I would call cruel, much less monsters.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Even as fucked-up as a king like Maegor - who definitely has no redeeming traits in my opinion - enforced some kind of order and justice for the common people. A king who is to weak or indecisive to do that is much worse. He would be like Henry VI during the Wars of the Roses, meaning a complete failure.

 

That I would actually agree with.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And we are talking about a conflict/war scenario here. That you should no longer use fire and blood after the war is over ... but since that is not a period to be covered by those books for any of the pretenders in the field we have no idea how a Dany winning the war would rule.

But a war can only be won by being a competent commander/war leader ... and those usually aren't the guys who don't prove their mettle in battle and pardon their enemies at ever other turn. The lesson Dany will take from Meereen is that she won't conquer the Iron Throne by talking to Aegon/Euron/Stannis/whoever.

If that happens, she will basically start a conflict where one could, potentially, have been avoided. Violence is not useless, but it should be the last option. That is how it actually worked in real Middle Ages: kings had diplomats, intelligence services and so on (yes, Byzantine Empire was the gold standard for such, but they were hardly unique). They already had layers of conflict avoidance - that is not a new thing. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't think this story is ever going to condemn Daenerys for walking through seas of blood to destroy slavery or to retake what's hers. That is the price for success, progress, and the lifeblood of war and conquest (pun intended). She isn't a character with sadistic traits, meaning she would never enjoy this kind of thing, and thus the author is not going to turn her into a Maegor or Joffrey.

 

Oh, it definitely is going to do so. You really think Martin would condone war for a bloody chair? Nevermind the fact that Stannis actually has more right to it than Daenerys does, and he is not a sadist either.

No, Daenerys is not Maegor or Joffrey. But that doesn't mean she will necessarily be able to hold onto her ideals. Sooner or later, she will have to choose between her humanitarian ideals and identity, and the throne. That sort of conflict is what ASoIaF is all about.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

However, the overcompensation angle is very unlikely to happen. Daenerys is still favored by the fortunes and the plot of the story. She is not likely to ever end up in a Rhaenyra-like position were successive betrayals of close family and friends cause her to adopt a 'preemptive execution approach' to justice. Dany didn't stick around in Meereen to see herself betrayed by the Meereenese ... and her treatment of Brown Ben when they met again didn't exactly foreshadow her dealing with him like Maegor dealt with Prince Viserys or Tyanna. She won't even be there, in Meereen, when her people deal with her enemies there.

 

Or she is favoured by the fortunes while in Slaver's Bay precisely in order to allow her to survive and be placed in the Rhaenyra-like position. Did you think of that?

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And her taking over the Dothraki should boost her confidence and put her in a position of imperial, Caesar-like magnanimity. Who could so much as touch much less harm the Stallion that Mounts the World? Who could cast down or hurt Azor Ahai Reborn? The idea that the religious icon Daenerys is going to become is going to be deeply hurt on a personal level because some savage Westerosi don't love her or oppose her is just not very likely.

 

Actually, that makes it more likely. Imagine a living god and [insert arm's length of titles here] be gainsaid by a mere lord, or God forbid, a king? She won't tolerate that, and may not even attempt the persuasion before going to compulsion.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

She will always have the option to mount her dragon and just fly away to Essos or wherever else who truly love her are. She could settle in Volantis or any other place where the slaves freed themselves/were freed in her name ... not to mention just staying in Vaes Dothrak with her adoptive people.

 

Option, yes, but will she take it?

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

George should and would have given Dany a different arc - Viserys' arc, actually - if he wanted her to be obsessed with Westeros and how the people there felt about her. Instead she perfectly understands she has to convince/win over/bribe/seduce the Westerosi into viewing her as their queen. She doesn't magically expect the people to rise for her the way Viserys did.

In that sense I don't expect many genuinely dark/villainy/nutcasey things from Daenerys even if she won't have as many fanboys and fangirls in Westeros as she could (and perhaps should) have. She isn't the kind of person who jumps from 'this guy is my enemy' to 'all who are on his side must die'. I have certain scenarios in mind which could help to escalate things between her and Aegon, but even that needs a carefully construct plot to be believable. A scenario where Daenerys is going on a rampage throughout Westeros for 'reasons' isn't really imaginable if you take an unbiased take at things.

Viserys was insane. I do not think Daenerys will become insane, but it is indeed likely that her actions (and maybe even thoughts) will grow closer to what Viserys was as she gets closer to Westeros and the Iron Throne. Iron Throne is GRRM's equivalent to the One Ring. It corrupts. In order for Daenerys to gain the throne, she will have to become everything she once hated. Remember how Frodo changed between Rivendell and Sammath Naur? How he slowly succumbed to the Ring as it grew stronger and stronger by approaching Orodruin? That is what I expect will happen to Daenerys, and by the time she comes to Westeros she will become unrecognizable. Smeagol will turn into Gollum. Iron Throne is the One Ring equivalent, except much less magical. I already wrote about it before.

Now, she might not intend for such a thing to happen. She may start a war by accident - everything goes fine between her and Aegon, then JonCon goes insane due to greyscale, Daenerys concludes that whatever he does was actually planned by Jon and Aegon instead of an accident, and boom! war. But ultimately, her quest for the Iron Throne will turn her into person she herself will have hated before, and will eventually come to hate once she calms down. Only question is how it will happen.

So yes, there will be dark, villiany and nutcasey things from Daenerys. They just won't be a consequence of insanity, but rather a consequence of an accident combined with paranoia.

EDIT:

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

Certainly, one should not leave wounded tigers alive.

As to the other point, no Great Master is going to think "X deserved to die because he voted for the crucifixion, but Y didn't so he was innocent."  In the eyes of them all, crucifying a child would be like crushing a wasp;  their lives were worth less than those of a hunting dog or a horse. (For a comparison in real life, there's no evidence that any Senator objected to Crassus crucifying 6,000 slaves along the Appian Way).  Their counterparts in Astapor specialised in murdering infants. It was only in the show that there was a Great Master who believed in the human rights of slave children. No one similar exists in the books.

Just to note here, but your Roman parallel doesn't work: those slaves were members of Spartacus' Rebellion. In other words, they were rebels. Guess which was one of crimes for which crucifixion was reserved? In fact, many of rebels actually weren't slaves to begin with, and in any case none were crucified for being slaves. They were crucified for being rebels.

But yeah, considering how Masters are like, you are correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Cruel kings are only tolerated as long as their cruelty is not aimless. Less Nero and more Vlad Dracul

Given that the guys couldn't keep his nobles in check, I don't think he's a good example. Just saying.

15 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Just to note here, but your Roman parallel doesn't work: those slaves were members of Spartacus' Rebellion. In other words, they were rebels. Guess which was one of crimes for which crucifixion was reserved? In fact, many of rebels actually weren't slaves to begin with, and in any case none were crucified for being slaves. They were crucified for being rebels.

Also I'd like to point out this came at a time when the Romans needed to enforce discipline and authority so much that they committed one of the few recorded instances of decimation. It was desperate times for the Roman Republic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the Iron Throne = One Ring parallel works.

The One Ring corrupts everyone who uses it, however well-intentioned.  It is sentient, and has a will of its own.  It is attuned towards Sauron, but a powerful being could break the connection with Sauron - at the cost of becoming like Sauron.  And, it's the real deal.  For a powerful person, like Gandalf, Galadriel, Aragorn, owning the One Ring would give them the power to control the wills of thousands.  For Tolkien, the big sin is commanding other peoples' wills, however well=intentioned you might be. 

The Iron Throne is the symbol of power. It has no power of its own.  And, it does not corrupt those who sit on it.  There have been good, bad, and indifferent rulers of the Seven Kingdoms.

I think the bigger risk of temptation for Daenerys is being seen as God's champion on Earth, by millions of people in the East.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Given that the guys couldn't keep his nobles in check, I don't think he's a good example. Just saying.

Also I'd like to point out this came at a time when the Romans needed to enforce discipline and authority so much that they committed one of the few recorded instances of decimation. It was desperate times for the Roman Republic.

Crucifixion was a fate reserved for slaves and the low-born.  I don't actually think that the Roman upper classes were so depraved as to crucify slave children as a "f*uck you" to an enemy;  hence my view that the Ghiscari slavers are more cruel than the Romans were.  What I was drawing attention to was that in a world where slaves are seen as chattels, nobody in authority is going to object to their being put to death very brutally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...