Jump to content

Daenerys Mistakes in Slaver's Bay


Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I agree about the inconsistency, but I think it wasn't a problem that she was inconsistent in her soft/hard approach. Her good cop to Skahaz's bad cop applied the right pressures. It was inconsistency in her ideology toward slavery. Don't tell Xaro to go buy his friend. Don't let people sell themselves. Don't force people to plow fields, only paying them food and water. And don't abandon a project like ending slavery after starting it. And yes, I consider burning everyone in a tokar and then leaving "abandonment." Not only are dragons the easy path, they are not even going to solve problems. I don't really agree with the idea that she has to be either noble and kind OR a conquering monster. What about balance??

Unless she plans to not conquer Westeros and stay in Essos then she’ll do one or the other. There’s no room for nuance. The biggest mistake with violence is using it in limited quantity. Either injure so harshly that they can never threaten you again or don’t do anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Hrulj said:

Unless she plans to not conquer Westeros and stay in Essos then she’ll do one or the other. There’s no room for nuance. The biggest mistake with violence is using it in limited quantity. Either injure so harshly that they can never threaten you again or don’t do anything. 

I agree she needs to make up her mind. But I think more often than not, the biggest mistake with violence (and most common), is excessive use of force. Followed by risk of power corruption, risk of making yourself look like a tyrant/fomenting rebellion, and other unintended consequences (they always exist). So there is no art to ruling, in your view? It's either a 100% cudgel or a 100% hands off approach? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I agree she needs to make up her mind. But I think more often than not, the biggest mistake with violence (and most common), is excessive use of force. Followed by risk of power corruption, risk of making yourself look like a tyrant/fomenting rebellion, and other unintended consequences (they always exist). So there is no art to ruling, in your view? It's either a 100% cudgel or a 100% hands off approach? 

Imagine if you will Tywin sparing the Reyne children. Do you believe they would not hate him when grown, that his vassals would fear him as much and that his reign would be as secure? There is art - when you are trying to rule long term. If that is her plan then maybe she should stop moaning about her birthright and coming home. Right now as it stands she should see about destroying the besieging slavers, marry Victarion, feed Hizdar to a Dragon, execute every single master, crib or deathbed, take absolutely everything of value and load up on ironborn ships and leave. If Horn works great, Victarion can ride a Dragon and would be a neat consort. If it doesn't - he's dead so who cares. At least you're in Westeros. 

One hand should give and reward those that are with you, other should utterly crush those who oppose you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hrulj said:

Imagine if you will Tywin sparing the Reyne children. Do you believe they would not hate him when grown, that his vassals would fear him as much and that his reign would be as secure? 

I dont think that's the point - I think point is that eventually, as he gains more power, he can't kill them all and gain security. See: the Northern rebels. Castamere plays to signal the Red Wedding.

Nymeria sent all the kings she conquered to the Wall, by the way. Her legacy lasted longer than Tywin's. 

Quote

There is art - when you are trying to rule long term. If that is her plan then maybe she should stop moaning about her birthright and coming home.

This sounds fine to me. It would certainly make her less hypocritical. Just drop all pretenses that she's a ruler and fly around burning one city and the next because she likes riding Drogon and making "them" pay.

Quote

Right now as it stands she should see about destroying the besieging slavers, marry Victarion, feed Hizdar to a Dragon, execute every single master, crib or deathbed, take absolutely everything of value and load up on ironborn ships and leave. If Horn works great, Victarion can ride a Dragon and would be a neat consort. If it doesn't - he's dead so who cares. At least you're in Westeros.

If you are talking about making progress in terms of improving a society, I think doing this ^ is about the same as doing nothing. 

But maybe I am misunderstanding your point and that improvement doesn't really matter if she's a conqueror.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And since Tywin is always brought up in these discussions I'll just throw this out there. Tywin should have tried to offer a marriage alliance with the Reins. He was 19 and single at the time. Not even treating with them?  Killing the whole house off instead? Sounds like an immature teenagerish thing to do. 

Read GRRM's latest blog entry and tell me if I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I dont think that's the point - I think point is that eventually, as he gains more power, he can't kill them all and gain security. See: the Northern rebels. Castamere plays to signal the Red Wedding.

Nymeria sent all the kings she conquered to the Wall, by the way. Her legacy lasted longer than Tywin's. 

This sounds fine to me. It would certainly make her less hypocritical. Just drop all pretenses that she's a ruler and fly around burning one city and the next because she likes riding Drogon and making "them" pay.

If you are talking about making progress in terms of improving a society, I think doing this ^ is about the same as doing nothing. 

But maybe I am misunderstanding your point and that improvement doesn't really matter if she's a conqueror.

In a world stuck in medieval period for thousands of years, where dynasties are unbroken and continous from our ice age to modern day stagnation is what's to be expected. And why should she improve society if she wants to be queen. Gunpowder, peasant rights and disolution of nobility will only impact her negatively. Doing small things like better medicine is great, but societal changes are unnecesary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daenerys didn't make mistakes in the Bay.  The problems in the Bay are caused by the masters who doesn't want to release their slaves.  It's not even a debate who is right and who is wrong.  No other leader could have done a better job than Daenerys.  The resistance from the masters, who are the bad people in this conflict, are the cause of the issues.  I have complete confidence in young Daenerys because she is the best at thinking her way out of a problem.  She  always has been good at problem solving. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, divica said:

I wasn't talking about exact numbers during the war. It was more along the lines that at the beguining of dance she had a lot of means at her disposal and towards the end of the book because of her decisions she lost a lot of her man power. 

For example, why didn't she look for ways to use her dragons during the book? Why did she put 2 dragons in the dungeon and never looked for a better solution? Her decision to take the dragons out of the game cost her how many sellsword companies? Her way of dealing with the harpies cost her the control of mereen. How was the situation of the freedmen (I don t remember)? Why would she marry a mereenese if her final goal is westeros?

I can't argue war numbers with you because I really can't remember, but she had unsullied, freedman, some sellswords and sheepman? Besides walls... And she didn't have more men because of bad decisions until the war started.

And in regards to the volantene fleet they haven't arrived yet and is quite dubious if they won't be allies because of the red priests.

Her biggest mistakes were made at the end of ASOS.  Once she learned that the Yunkish lords were gathering armies against her, she ought to have brought them fire and sword.  And the Great Masters of Meereen ought to have been asset-stripped, and their property redistributed to the freedmen.  The slavers were left as wounded tigers, but in a position to harm her, and the freedmen of Astapor and Meereen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

And since Tywin is always brought up in these discussions I'll just throw this out there. Tywin should have tried to offer a marriage alliance with the Reins. He was 19 and single at the time. Not even treating with them?  Killing the whole house off instead? Sounds like an immature teenagerish thing to do.

A look at the Wiki tells me that both Ellyn Reyne and her daughters, Rohanne and Cyrelle Tarbeck, seem to have husbands, and Genna was betrothed to Emmon. I guess that approach could be pursued by offering Joanna or either of her sisters to Roger or Reynard... but honestly, that would look like weakness, at least to some. Destabilize the west and get rewarded with a Lannister bride. Why would they not continue? Why would others not do the same? What about justice for the crimes they've committed? (No, I do not call Tywin's war crimes justice. Innocent people died. At best those crimes for justice can be painted as a lesser evil.) If we go by the semi-canon WoIaF sample, the Reynes and Tarbecks killed people, stole land, and owed debts. The actual world book does not go into same detail, though.

Treating is fine, as far as I'm concerned. But if Reynes do not realize that they better behave, then they do not really get to complain when someone for a change does not let them to have their way.

8 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Read GRRM's latest blog entry and tell me if I'm wrong.

Checked Not a Blog, saw May 5 entry and a pic of Nelson Mandela. And no, I'm not about to say the quote is wrong. I think it's narrow in scope, though. Because I think there can be heroism in struggle... and such struggle can take a violent form, just as it can take a peaceful one. Whether it should so do is a different question... and the answer may often be negative. I recently read this piece in Politico Magazine (How American Politics Got Troops Stuck—and Killed—in Afghanistan) and it did make an impression.

Yet I think there are times when one has to fight. I also think that to build anything lasting you may need real, acceptable peace. Which in turn requires mutual will, trust and perhaps even respect. Of course, to achieve the will and in some cases also the respect, you may also need a deterrent - which, in the end, may come down to nothing else but a capability and willingness to use brute force.

This is obviously not to say that raw power and violence is answer to everything. For a start, one needs some basic humanity to generate trust. And respect.

Feel free to tell me, in turn, if you wish to say something about this reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TsarGrey said:

A look at the Wiki tells me that both Ellyn Reyne and her daughters, Rohanne and Cyrelle Tarbeck, seem to have husbands, and Genna was betrothed to Emmon. I guess that approach could be pursued by offering Joanna or either of her sisters to Roger or Reynard... but honestly, that would look like weakness, at least to some. Destabilize the west and get rewarded with a Lannister bride. Why would they not continue?

Ellyn was a widow by the time Tywin arrived to Tarbeck Hall and her daughters were forced to join the silent sisters (a waste).   He could still have them face consequences, while also making alliance overtures. He just couldn't think of anything beyond "killz them Allz!" The Reynes were outnumbered too.

Tywin was too harsh and Tytos too soft. It's the same themes played out with Maegor and Aenys. Tyrion occasionally steps in and offers the more balanced path (see the discussion about what to do with deserters).

I would argue that you are not supposed to be cheering excessive use of force in the story. What message does that send to our own political leaders? That this is a great solution?

1 hour ago, TsarGrey said:

Checked Not a Blog, saw May 5 entry and a pic of Nelson Mandela. And no, I'm not about to say the quote is wrong. I think it's narrow in scope, though. Because I think there can be heroism in struggle... and such struggle can take a violent form, just as it can take a peaceful one. Whether it should so do is a different question... and the answer may often be negative. I recently read this piece in Politico Magazine (How American Politics Got Troops Stuck—and Killed—in Afghanistan) and it did make an impression.

I dont think that's narrow. I think it's one of the main themes of asoiaf. The violent struggle you're talking about seems to be narrow and exceptional, like in WWII situations. Even with the Others, the people who set aside their own differences to fight the Others are making peace moves. Tywin's solution to Tarbeck-Reyne doesn't seem to fit that criteria.

I think a lot of readers get it flipped though. That Dany was too soft, needed to be more destructive, and that obliterating cities will fix the job. I think when she was working toward peace she was heroic, and her hard work would have born fruit later. When she works to destroy she's doing nothing sacrificial...or even helpful for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Hrulj said:

Either injure so harshly that they can never threaten you again or don’t do anything. 

Ender's Game style? 

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Tywin was too harsh and Tytos too soft. It's the same themes played out with Maegor and Aenys. Tyrion occasionally steps in and offers the more balanced path (see the discussion about what to do with deserters).

 

Harsh measures get stuff done. Pressure makes diamonds.

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

Her biggest mistakes were made at the end of ASOS.  Once she learned that the Yunkish lords were gathering armies against her, she ought to have brought them fire and sword.  And the Great Masters of Meereen ought to have been asset-stripped, and their property redistributed to the freedmen.  The slavers were left as wounded tigers, but in a position to harm her, and the freedmen of Astapor and Meereen.

Fire and Blood. She should've razed it to the ground, salted the ground, taken their wealth and killed each and every on of the slaver lords. It's what the Freehold did to Old Ghis. 

10 hours ago, Texas Hold Em said:

Daenerys didn't make mistakes in the Bay. 

Literally, did you NOT read my OP? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Ender's Game style? 

Harsh measures get stuff done. Pressure makes diamonds.

Fire and Blood. She should've razed it to the ground, salted the ground, taken their wealth and killed each and every on of the slaver lords. It's what the Freehold did to Old Ghis. 

Literally, did you NOT read my OP? 

Executing every adult male Wise Master should suffice.  Then install a garrison and arm the freedmen.  There's no need to burn the city to the ground, IMHO.  I think it's inevitable that the big slave powers, like Qarth, New Ghis, Volantis would attack, but this way, they would be faced with a united front in Slavers Bay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

Executing every adult male Wise Master should suffice.  Then install a garrison and arm the freedmen.  There's no need to burn the city to the ground, IMHO.  I think it's inevitable that the big slave powers, like Qarth, New Ghis, Volantis would attack, but this way, they would be faced with a united front in Slavers Bay.

Children suck down their mother's hate with their mother's milk. Kill them now, or else in twenty more years they'll strap on their father's sword and come for vengeance. Maybe spare the women....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Children suck down their mother's hate with their mother's milk. Kill them now, or else in twenty more years they'll strap on their father's sword and come for vengeance. Maybe spare the women....

Children can be raised to view the world differently, and should be given a chance to behave themselves, when they reach adulthood.   Otherwise, one is no better than Tywin Lannister, Jon Connington or the Sand Snakes. 

Since the Reynes and Tarbecks are mentioned upthread, my view would be similar.  Kill the adult males of those families, send the women into holy orders, and raise the children as wards at Casterly Rock.  Drowning women and children was excessive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Children can be raised to view the world differently, and should be given a chance to behave themselves, when they reach adulthood.   Otherwise, one is no better than Tywin Lannister, Jon Connington or the Sand Snakes. 

 

Not if you're half a world away. Tywin was brutal, but he got stuff done. I don't know why you say JonCon since he didn't burn a town or anything. And if I had to fight a war for a Targaryen Restoration, there's no way in hell I'll be lugging children along with me. 

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Since the Reynes and Tarbecks are mentioned upthread, my view would be similar.  Kill the adult males of the family, send the women into holy orders, and raise the children as wards at Casterly Rock.  Drowning women and children was excessive.

The children will always hate you for killing their parents, even if they never knew them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

Not if you're half a world away. Tywin was brutal, but he got stuff done. I don't know why you say JonCon since he didn't burn a town or anything. And if I had to fight a war for a Targaryen Restoration, there's no way in hell I'll be lugging children along with me. 

The children will always hate you for killing their parents, even if they never knew them. 

Jon Con wants to kill Robert's children (not that he knows they are Jaime's).

Actually, having the boys serve as pages, soldiers' servants, squires etc. would be a very good way of integrating them into the new order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Jon Con wants to kill Robert's children (not that he knows they are Jaime's).

 

Technically, wouldn't that be an obvious course if House Targaryen got the throne back? Blood for blood? And erasing the possible threat? 

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Actually, having the boys serve as pages, soldiers' servants, squires etc. would be a very good way of integrating them into the new order.

They will taint your cause by making it look like you're a foreigner through and through.  And what, you want to drag some 3 year old through a war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Ellyn was a widow by the time Tywin arrived to Tarbeck Hall and her daughters were forced to join the silent sisters (a waste).   He could still have them face consequences, while also making alliance overtures. He just couldn't think of anything beyond "killz them Allz!" The Reynes were outnumbered too.

Tywin was too harsh and Tytos too soft. It's the same themes played out with Maegor and Aenys. Tyrion occasionally steps in and offers the more balanced path (see the discussion about what to do with deserters).

I would argue that you are not supposed to be cheering excessive use of force in the story. What message does that send to our own political leaders? That this is a great solution?

Correction about Tarbeck women duly noted.

You seem to be making an argument (not cheering to the use of excessive force) which I do not disagree with.

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I dont think that's narrow. I think it's one of the main themes of asoiaf. The violent struggle you're talking about seems to be narrow and exceptional, like in WWII situations. Even with the Others, the people who set aside their own differences to fight the Others are making peace moves. Tywin's solution to Tarbeck-Reyne doesn't seem to fit that criteria.

I think a lot of readers get it flipped though. That Dany was too soft, needed to be more destructive, and that obliterating cities will fix the job. I think when she was working toward peace she was heroic, and her hard work would have born fruit later. When she works to destroy she's doing nothing sacrificial...or even helpful for that matter.

I think it's narrow for the reason that if it's said that "The heroes are those who make peace and build" that could imply that those who did not do so (for example, those who were not able to, as they may have paid the high price of sacrificing their lives) are not heroes. Their sacrifice and effort would not be recognized. I'm not saying that you've meant anything like that (your reply may imply otherwise) yet that seems to be where my thoughts went.

I think that violence may be necessary when, for example, someone needs help. To use Westerosi examples, I would raise Dunk defending Tanselle, or (if we for the sake of argument entertain the thought that he had an altruistic motive) Jaime intercepting the wildfire plot, even if the latter could perhaps have been done better and Aerys did not necessarily need to die. So yes, it can be called narrow and exceptional. That does not make it any less necessary or even heroic, when such a situation actually arises.

I might raise Jon and Sam. They both swear a vow, and become men whose job it is to face the Others. Jon is a fighter, and seemingly willing to die in action. That does not happen: instead the author hits him where it hurts, his honor, and makes him to act as a spy. On the other hand, Sam, who according to himself is a coward, has to brave the Fist and ends up killing an Other. Let me ask a question: is Sam any less a hero than Jon is, or the other way around? The other sacrifices his precious honor, while the other has to face the fearful enemy.

One might argue that from utilitarian viewpoint, Tywin's brutality may have served as an useful deterrent, making the west more peaceful in turn. I do not make such argument, I just point out that a possibility for such may well exist.

As for Dany, I do not really pay much attention to her, but using my own logic of heroism which can be seen in a struggle, her efforts for peace can certainly be seen as heroic. She does marry Hizdahr, after all. I do not think she necessarily is too soft: Ned says that mercy is never a mistake. I do not necessarily agree... I think it actually can be, when misplaced. Which does not mean that I do not acknowledge the wisdom of Ned's words or in that quote by Mandela. Granting trust and mercy, or making a peace, can be a courageous act. Sparing the lives of her hostages may not do Dany any favors, but that does not mean that it was not a right thing to do, and that making the choice may not have taken moral courage.

However, I do not really have much more to say, and we may be slightly off topic. If that's fine with you, I'd be willing to let this discussion trail off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Jon Con wants to kill Robert's children (not that he knows they are Jaime's).

Actually, having the boys serve as pages, soldiers' servants, squires etc. would be a very good way of integrating them into the new order.

I think this is wishfull thinking.

As long as a kid with a claim against you exists he will eventually bring problems to you. Even if it the next generation someday people will use the kid's claim in order to raise against you. In a medieval world you either kill the kids, make them join orders like the NW or silent sisters or marry them into your house. Anything else just doesn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, divica said:

As long as a kid with a claim against you exists he will eventually bring problems to you. 

I am skeptical that the relative advantages and disadvantages of child murder can be reliably calculated one or more decades into the future.  In any event, the danger  posed by children is hardly imminent, so for this and other reasons, this is indeed murder, and not justifiable self-defense.    Seems to me a plausible claim of child murder might bring its own problems with the passing decades.  In any event, even if such crimes could  be covered up, all must die and no-one lives for ever.  Who wants to die as a child murderer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...