Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Alyn Oakenfist

Opinions on the dragons?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I mean tbf, I think we're discussing the wrong issue.

Should Dany have executed all the masters? Yes, definitely, both in Astapor and in Meereen.

Should she have left such vague ass instructions, and make the age limit for the slaughter as low as 12? Definitely not, that's a war crime even by Westerosi standards.

Prove it.  And if that is a war crime is not also a war crime than to arm 12 year old (even girls) and expect them to fight for you and obey all your orders?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, El Guapo said:

Prove it.  And if that is a war crime is not also a war crime than to arm 12 year old (even girls) and expect them to fight for you and obey all your orders?

We're talking about different things. Arming children is awful, and the numbnut who armed them is the sole party responsible for their horrible fates.

Harming civilian children on the other hand, that's a pretty big no no even by Westerosi standards, as we can see from all the people outraged by the deaths of the princes, or the High Sparrow talking about the awful fates of the children in the riverlands and specifically at Saltpans, and so on and so forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

We're talking about different things. Arming children is awful, and the numbnut who armed them is the sole party responsible for their horrible fates.

Harming civilian children on the other hand, that's a pretty big no no even by Westerosi standards, as we can see from all the people outraged by the deaths of the princes, or the High Sparrow talking about the awful fates of the children in the riverlands and specifically at Saltpans, and so on and so forth.

Again, Dany did not order the slaughtering of civilian children. And if anything her order was telling the Unsullied not to kill children. The only question is at what age is someone no longer considered a child.  And I have  seen nothing to indicate in the text to indicate that it isn't 12 when they are not considered a child. Because again, Jon Snow one of the most "moral" guys in the story is arming 12 year old boys and girls to defend the Wall.  I don't think it is a coincidence that GRRM had Jon put the cut of age at 12 either. And if this was such an "atrocity" by Westerosi standards than why isn't Barristan bothered by it at all?

Edited by El Guapo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ran @Linda or anyone who can shed a light on the matter : why the "but harm no child under 12"?

It was an estimation (giving the fact that the Unsullied could not be 100% sure about the ages)?It was because she considered those above 12 no longer children (giving her life experience - being pregnant at 14 and start sacking cities at 15)?Or a combination of both?

I'm really puzzled.Thanks in advance!:D

Edited by Dracul's Daughter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, El Guapo said:

Again, Dany did not order the slaughtering of civilian children. And if anything her order was telling the Unsullied not to kill children. The only question is at what age is someone no longer considered a child.  And if this was such an "atrocity" by Westerosi standards than why isn't Barristan bothered by it at all?

No idea honestly.

But, like really think about it, would more crimes happen if Dany included or left out the "harm no children under 12" part, considering her prior orders were to kill just the masters, overseers and soldiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dracul's Daughter said:

@Ran @Linda or anyone who can shed a light on the matter : why the "but harm no child under 12"?

It was an estimation (giving the fact that the Unsullied could not be 100% sure about the ages) or it was because she considered those above 12 no longer children (giving her life experience - being pregnant at 14 and start sacking cities at 15) or a combination of both?

I'm really puzzeld.Thanks in advance!:D

If I were to make a stab at it, I'd say this:-

1. It's not an order to kill every free male aged 12+ in the city.

2. It is an order to kill every Good Master, tokar wearer (the masters' garment) slaver, soldier and overseer in the Plaza of Pride.  The tokar is meant to be similar to the Roman toga virilis, a garment worn by the elite.  It's not a garment that is worn by those who work with their hands.  That will include teenage males among those categories.

3. It's probably intended to limit the killing, but may actually have done the reverse, by leaving the Unsullied wondering whether or not someone who looks 12+ should die. That's where I see the difficulty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

would more crimes happen if Dany included or left out the "harm no children under 12" part, considering her prior orders were to kill just the masters, overseers and soldiers.

Another question : could the Unsullied make distinction between those who were considered children and those who started adulthood giving their early train and their numbless?

Edited by Dracul's Daughter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SeanF said:

3. It's probably intended to limit the killing, but may actually have done the reverse, by leaving the Unsullied wondering whether or not someone who looks 12+ should die. That's where I see the difficulty. 

Exactly. The previous orders were clear and specific, and would probably leave very few dead.

Adding a kill no children thing would be even better.

But "kill no children under 12"? That just makes things worse and more confusing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dracul's Daughter said:

Another question : could the Unsullied make distinction about those who were considered children and those who started adulthood giving their early train and their numbless?

Probably not, which makes the whole thing even weirder, and more likely to do harm than good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Adding a kill no children thing would be even better.

But "kill no children under 12"? That just makes things worse and more confusing

Would they know to make a distinction between children and recent adults without Dany giving the age number?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, El Guapo said:

As opposed to the people that died or were enslaved by swords?  Are they happy because atleast their families weren't killed or enslaved by dragons? :rolleyes:

Two wrongs don't make a right.  Just because people kill and enslave with swords, doesn't justify doing the same with dragons.  Both are evil, but dragons are solely accessible to those with special blood, which leaves those possessing such blood effectively unaccountable for their actions.  A man or woman who murders or enslaves with a sword can be made to answer for their crimes far more easily.

Edited by aeverett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dracul's Daughter said:

Would they know to make a distinction between children and recent adults without Dany giving the age number?

Would they know to make one with Dany giving them an age number?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

Prove it.  And if that is a war crime is not also a war crime than to arm 12 year old (even girls) and expect them to fight for you and obey all your orders?

 

 

8 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

We're talking about different things. Arming children is awful, and the numbnut who armed them is the sole party responsible for their horrible fates.

Harming civilian children on the other hand, that's a pretty big no no even by Westerosi standards, as we can see from all the people outraged by the deaths of the princes, or the High Sparrow talking about the awful fates of the children in the riverlands and specifically at Saltpans, and so on and so forth.

 Most of the outrage was due to the deaths of upper class children.  The regular folk mourn and weep.   That was all they could do.  Robb's Rebellion resulted in the deaths of children too.  And that war was not necessary.  The war to liberate the Unsullied and the other slaves is more justified even if some of the Ghiscari children die from collateral damage.  Those Ghiscari children were part of a sadistic and oppressive system of slavery.  They were torturing their household slaves from the time they could walk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Would they know to make one with Dany giving them an age number?

I mean,they could know more or less who is 12.I tought that maybe if she only would have said "harm no child" they wouldn't have known the limits.Maybe for them a 9 year old is no longer a child.I can't remember now at what age they finish their training culminating with the baby killing.Or when they finish their first part of the training strangling puppies they had for a year or so.

Edited by Dracul's Daughter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dracul's Daughter said:

Would they know to make a distinction between children and recent adults without Dany giving the age number?

Having distinction is not necessarily something which leads to better results.  The Sack of King's Landing were perpetuated by soldiers who had the ability to make distinctions and the freedom to act at their own discretion.  It would not have been a Sack if The Unsullied had taken the city.  It would have been done professionally and efficiently, with a minimum of blood loss.  The people of the city would have called it a change in management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, James West said:

It would not have been a Sack if The Unsullied had taken the city.  It would have been done professionally and efficiently, with a minimum of blood loss.  The people of the city would have called it a change in management.

I mean as long as the city in question wasn't Astapor (in which case the Unsullied would have a major revenge issue to take care of) yeah, pretty much.

Say what you will about their tactics and all, but the Unsullied are disciplined.

Tbf, if the GC took a city and was issued similar orders it would do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Yo, Yennifer. Stop acting like Geralt. Its not semantics, its a nation of vile slavery thats been thriving for thousands of years. Shit needs to stop by any means necessary

I really cannot see how what I am saying is that outlandish and weird. I am not saying that the slavers in general should be left unpunished to continue. I am saying if killings need to happen kill the adults and spare the kids. That’s all.

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

In real life slavery, was part of the culture of Les Grands Blancs but I would find it hard to condemn L’Ouverture and Dessalines for the treatment they meted out to them, horrible as it was;  far worse than anything that Dany dished out.  I think it would be wrong to argue for moral equivalence in that kind of situation.

I don’t know about this I have to read more to be able to have an opinion.

1 hour ago, CamiloRP said:

By not choosing you are choosing to uphold slavery tho.

And even then, it's not even comparable, you can't equate the horrors of a one time war with a system built on torture, rape and murder. For every innocent Dany killed the Masters would have killed ten if things continued as usual and tortured a thousand, and not even a retribution, just because that's how slavery works.so you're not only choosing, you're choosing the clear bad side.

Punish the adults and spare the kids. That’s all. Change the society in order to save the future. Killing everyone gets you in a never ending cycle of violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Alyn Oakenfist find sone information although I don't know at what age they usually win their spiked cap.

Their training starts at age five and is from dawn to dusk. It is brutal, designed not only to teach them how to fight, but to strip away all individuality, empathy, and self-worth. Slaves that fail any aspect of their training are killed. Only a third of the slaves to enter training survive to become Unsullied.[1]

On the day a boy is cut, he is given a puppy to take care of. At the end of the first year, the boy is made to strangle the puppy. Should he fail to do so, he is killed and fed to the surviving dogs. During training boys are culled whenever they fail a task, be it running all day in full pack, scaling a mountain at night or walking across a bed of coals. To win their spiked cap they must take a silver mark go to the slave markets and buy a newborn slave child and kill it before its mother and pay the slave's owner for his loss.[1]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dracul's Daughter said:

@Alyn Oakenfist find sone information although I don't know at what age they usually win their spiked cap.

Their training starts at age five and is from dawn to dusk. It is brutal, designed not only to teach them how to fight, but to strip away all individuality, empathy, and self-worth. Slaves that fail any aspect of their training are killed. Only a third of the slaves to enter training survive to become Unsullied.[1]

On the day a boy is cut, he is given a puppy to take care of. At the end of the first year, the boy is made to strangle the puppy. Should he fail to do so, he is killed and fed to the surviving dogs. During training boys are culled whenever they fail a task, be it running all day in full pack, scaling a mountain at night or walking across a bed of coals. To win their spiked cap they must take a silver mark go to the slave markets and buy a newborn slave child and kill it before its mother and pay the slave's owner for his loss.[1]

The point being?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

The point being?

That they maybe have needed an age number,not just to tell them to kill no children as they lose their childhood at such an early age and become so numb.

Edited by Dracul's Daughter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...