The Shakespearean Tragedy of Daenerys Targaryen

[Craving Peaches]

1 minute ago, Rondo said:

Not debatable.  Dany is a better leader than Jon. 

It is very much debatable. Would you like to begin?

[Rondo]

2 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

It is very much debatable. Would you like to begin?

Jon Snow got the equivalent of getting fired by the men he was supposed to lead.  Shows how awful his leadership was.  An order that has stood for thousands of years is now in danger of collapse because of his leadership.  So go ahead, make up excuses for Jon.  I will be back shortly.  Let us see what you can come up with.

 

[SeanF]

The business of men coming before women has to be limited in scope, I think.

It would be absurd to claim that Stannis, Brown Ben, Lord Selwyn, or Sweetrobin come before Dany, just because they have Targaryen ancestry.

Aegon’s claim would rank higher than Dany’s if he was truly, Rhaegar’s.  I expect that Dorne will proclaim his legitimacy, along with supporters in the Reach, Stormlands, and Crownlands.  The Tyrells, Baratheons, Lannisters and their supporters will proclaim him an impostor.

I think Jon’s claim would rank equivalent to Dany’s if Rhaegar married Lyanna. He would surely enjoy widespread support in the North and Vale.  The argument would be that if Rhaegar had survived, Jon would have been formally legitimised and placed in the line of succession, so why disqualify him on a technicality?  As against that, the argument would be simply he was illegitimate, whereas Dany is not.

[Craving Peaches]

23 minutes ago, Rondo said:

Jon Snow got the equivalent of getting fired by the men he was supposed to lead.  Shows how awful his leadership was.  An order that has stood for thousands of years is now in danger of collapse because of his leadership.  So go ahead, make up excuses for Jon.  I will be back shortly.  Let us see what you can come up with.

Jon getting assassinated by Bowen is not the equivaelnt of him being fired by the men he was supposed to lead. Firstly, Bowen's actions are not representative of the watch as a whole. He represents a small faction at best. Secondly, it is not the same as getting fired because it was an assassination. Also, the order is in danger of collapse because of Bowen's actions, not Jon.

I would argue that Jon has a greater ability to lead people based purely on his own merits. Jon is able to convince most of the watch and the Freefolk follow him and work together for the common good of all. Daenerys relies on her dragons to inspire people. Before the dragons hatched the only person who seemed to be 'inspired' by her was the slaver Ser Jorah. No one (save Robert) really cared about Daenerys before the dragons hatched. A large part of her power and prestige derives from the dragons, as does her ability to inspire people. Daenerys' leadership is based less on her own merits than Jon's is.

To put it simply people follow Daenerys because she has dragons and is a Targaryen while people follow Jon because he is Jon.

[Craving Peaches]

5 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The business of men coming before women has to be limited in scope, I think.

It would be absurd to claim that Stannis, Brown Ben, Lord Selwyn, or Sweetrobin come before Dany, just because they have Targaryen ancestry.

It is limited in scope because it specifies females of House Targaryen inherit after all male members of House Targaryen are dead. These people aren't members of House Targaryen so presumably the ladies inherit before them. It says the male line needs to be extinct. The Baratheons are related in the female line, so I don't think they'd come before Daenerys.

10 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Aegon’s claim would rank higher than Dany’s if he was truly, Rhaegar’s.  I expect that Dorne will proclaim his legitimacy, along with supporters in the Reach, Stormlands, and Crownlands.  The Tyrells, Baratheons, Lannisters and their supporters will proclaim him an impostor.

Agreed.

10 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think Jon’s claim would rank equivalent to Dany’s if Rhaegar married Lyanna. He would surely enjoy widespread support in the North and Vale.  The argument would be that if Rhaegar had survived, Jon would have been formally legitimised and placed in the line of succession, so why disqualify him on a technicality?  As against that, the argument would be simply he was illegitimate, whereas Dany is not.

If they were married though then wouldn't Jon be a legitimate male son? He wouldn't need to be legitimised so wouldn't he come before Daenerys?

[Oana_Mika]

26 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Daenerys relies on her dragons to inspire people. Before the dragons hatched the only person who seemed to be 'inspired' by her was the slaver Ser Jorah. No one (save Robert) really cared about Daenerys before the dragons hatched. A large part of her power and prestige derives from the dragons, as does her ability to inspire people. Daenerys' leadership is based less on her own merits than Jon's is.

To put it simply people follow Daenerys because she has dragons and is a Targaryen while people follow Jon because he is Jon.

So, this is false. Daenerys leadership is also based on her merit, not because of her name or dragons. The slaves from Astapor follow her because she freed them, not because she is a Targaryen or because of her dragons. The slaves from Yunkai follow her and call her mother not because or her name or dragons. While she used her dragons as a decoy in Astapor and burned Kraznis, the rest of her millitary success comes from her planning and putting together the ideas her diverse council gives her. She ruled Meereen without dragons, making trades, alliances, passing laws and planting crops, finding ways to make a new economy, and as Barrristan says, she is the only one who holds them all together : 

 

The very men sitting at this table would soon be at dagger points with one another. A young girl she might be, but Daenerys Targaryen was the only thing that held them all together. - A Dance with Dragons - The Queen's Hand

Edited September 29, 2022 by Oana_Mika

[Oana_Mika]

@Craving Peaches as for being Targaryen, I could also say Jon had preference in being LC Mormont's Steward (a position granted to him to learn from him how to lead) because he was Ned's bastard.

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, Oana_Mika said:

So, this is false. Daenerys leadership is also based on her merit, not because of her name or dragons.

Yes, she has some merit, but it cannot be denied that the dragons play a very large role in getting people to follow her. Jon doesn't have such an aid, unless you count Ghost, whom I would not say is the equivalent to the dragons.

2 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

The slaves from Astapor follow her because she freed them, not because she is a Targaryen or because of her dragons.

She had to use the dragons to free them though in the first place though (not that it takes away anthing from her freeing of the slaves, it was completely the right thing to do). She wouldn't have even been in that situation were it not for the dragons.

4 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

She ruled Neereen without dragons, making trades, alliances, passing laws and planting crops

As soon as she locked up the dragons things started falling apart. We can see it with the sellsword companies. When they think the dragons won't be there they abandon Daenerys. Their confidence seems to be in the dragons not her.

6 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

The very men sitting at this table would soon be at dagger points with one another. A young girl she might be, but Daenerys Targaryen was the only thing that held them all together. - A Dance with Dragons - The Queen,'s Hand

They would not be sitting at that table if Daenerys did not have dragons.

I don't think Daenerys is a bad leader, I just think she's not the best. She has a huge aid with her dragons which is independant of her skill as a leader. And I think the dragons play a large role in why people follow her.

[Craving Peaches]

5 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

as for being Targaryen, I could also say Jon had preference in being LC Mormont's Steward (a position granted to him to learn from him how to lead) because he was Ned's bastard.

You can make that argument. But I think Mormont made him steward because he thought he'd be a good leader, not because he was Ned's bastard.

[Moiraine Sedai]

Daenerys was put in a bad situation with the marriage. Through her superb intelligence and wits, she sought the information needed to turn that seemingly hopeless situation into a great opportunity. By contrast, Jon came to the Wall with unearned advantages as the illegitimate son of the  Warden and one of the Watch’s donors.  Jon has his own skills as a leader, but Dany is better in that regard.  

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, Moiraine Sedai said:

Daenerys was put in a bad situation with the marriage. Through her superb intelligence and wits, she sought the information needed to turn that seemingly hopeless situation into a great opportunity.

I won't deny that she made the best of a bad situation but what was the great opportunity? Were it not for the dragons she'd likely be with the Dosh Khaleen or dead in the desert...

[SeanF]

40 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

It is limited in scope because it specifies females of House Targaryen inherit after all male members of House Targaryen are dead. These people aren't members of House Targaryen so presumably the ladies inherit before them. It says the male line needs to be extinct. The Baratheons are related in the female line, so I don't think they'd come before Daenerys.

Agreed.

If they were married though then wouldn't Jon be a legitimate male son? He wouldn't need to be legitimised so wouldn't he come before Daenerys?

It's the fact that the marriage is bigamous that would cause the argument.  No Targaryen married bigamously for 250 years.

[Craving Peaches]

7 minutes ago, SeanF said:

It's the fact that the marriage is bigamous that would cause the argument.  No Targaryen married bigamously for 250 years.

It would be controversial. At the end of the day people will back whoever based on whether they align with their interests, as I belive you mentioned before. But if the marriage was legally binding then I think Jon would come first by law.

[Oana_Mika]

On 9/29/2022 at 8:47 PM, Craving Peaches said:

Yes, she has some merit, but it cannot be denied that the dragons play a very large role in getting people to follow her. Jon doesn't have such an aid, unless you count Ghost, whom I would not say is the equivalent to the dragons.

The only time people followed her because of them was at the end of AGOT and it was because she made the impossible. Plus, saying she is only relying on her dragons, undermines what Martin does with his characters : 

 

Magic should never be the solution to the problem. My credo as a writer has always been Faulkner’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech where he said, “The only thing worth writing about is the human heart in conflict with itself.” That transcends genre. That’s what good fiction, good drama is about: human beings in trouble. You have to make a decision, you have to do something, your life is in danger or your honor is in danger, or you’re facing some crisis of the heart. To make a satisfying story, the protagonist has to solve the problem, or fail to solve the problem – but has to grapple with the problem in some kind of rational way, and the reader has to see that. And if the hero does win in the end, he has to feel that that victory is earned. The danger with magic is that the victory could be unearned. Suddenly you’re in the last chapter and you wind up with a deus ex machina. The hero suddenly remembers that if he can just get some of this particular magical plant, then he can brew a potion and solve his problem. And that’s a cheat. That feels very unsatisfying. It cheapens the work. Well-done fantasy – something like Tolkien – he sets Lord of the Rings up perfectly, right at the beginning. The only way to get rid of the ring, the only way, is to take it to Mount Doom and throw it in the fires from which it comes. You know that right from the first. And if we’d gone through all that, and then at the end of the book suddenly Gandalf had said, wait a minute, I just remembered, here’s this other spell, oh, I can get rid of the ring easily! You would have hated that. That would have been all wrong. Magic can ruin things. Magic should never be the solution. Magic can be part of the problem. (source)

GRRM doesn’t write characters who just get everything solved through magic. He criticizes just that, the use of magic to solve the problems of the characters, without the characters having to make choices, think on how they’ll solve their problems, etc. He would have been an hypocrite to say this if he had written Dany like that.

But the fact is that he didn’t write Dany like that. GRRM gave Dany dragons, but he was very careful not to make dragons the solution to her problems, and sometimes, even make the dragons the source of her problems:

• First, because Dany wasn’t handed her dragons, she had to solve a magical puzzle (her dragon dreams and Mirri’s clues about only death paying for life), make sacrifices and step into a pyre to hatch these dragons from petrified eggs.
• Then, her dragons immediately cause problems: because she has them, Dany has to cross the Red Waste in order to avoid her dragons getting captured and her people slaughtered. The dragons didn’t help to survive the Red Waste and to find a way out of it. Dany had to be resilient and show strength to keep her khalasar united to survive, and she had to be smart to send her bloodriders in different directions to find a way out of the desert 

 

• On 9/29/2022 at 8:47 PM, Craving Peaches said:

  She had to use the dragons to free them though in the first place though (not that it takes away anthing from her freeing of the slaves, it was completely the right thing to do). She wouldn't have even been in that situation were it not for the dragons

 

They were just a bargaining chip and given the fact that Martin considered at first to give Targrayens pyrokinesis instead of dragons I doubt she could not free them without having dragons.

 

On 9/29/2022 at 8:47 PM, Craving Peaches said:

As soon as she locked up the dragons things started falling apart. We can see it with the sellsword companies. When they think the dragons won't be there they abandon Daenerys. Their confidence seems to be in the dragons not her.

 

Things started to fall apart because the masters of Yunkai, the former Masters in Meereen and the rest (Old Volantis and their coalition) want retaliation and things to get back the way they used to be before she disrupted the slave trade. Ideed, her locking up the dragons and refusing to use them makes Ben Plum to see her defeated but the primal reason of things getting bad are the masters, not her being unable to hold them together without the dragons. As I showed you, she does plenty of things without them. She barely used them.

 

On 9/29/2022 at 8:47 PM, Craving Peaches said:

They would not be sitting at that table if Daenerys did not have dragons.

 

How so?? Barristan observed her before he reveald himself to her and pledge himself to her. Missandei stayed with her because she believes in her, loves her and feels safe with her, the freedmen stay with her because they believe in her and love her and so on. Dragons have nothing to do with these people being in her council.

Edited October 18, 2023 by Oana_Mika

[Oana_Mika]

23 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Were it not for the dragons she'd likely be with the Dosh Khaleen or dead in the desert...

Ghost also saved Jon and Summer too saved him so let's not pretend that the Stark have no advantage with their direwolves whatsoever.

Edited September 29, 2022 by Oana_Mika

[Craving Peaches]

1 minute ago, Oana_Mika said:

How so?? Barristan observed her before he reveald himself to her and pledge himself to her. Missandei stayed with her because she believes in her, loves her and feels safe with her, the freedmen stay with her because they believe in her and live her and so on. Dragons have nothing to do with these people being in her council.

If Daenerys did not hatch the dragons, she would most likely not be in any of these situations in the first place because she would be dead or with the Dosh Khaleen.

2 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

They were just a bargaining chip and given the fact that Martin considered at first to give Targrayens pyrokinesis instead of dragons I doubt she could not free them without having dragons.

If Daenerys did not have the dragons she could not have freed the slaves though. Unless you are saying that she develops pyrokinesis as soon as the dragons are not there. I think the pyrokinesis would have been interesting.

4 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

Plus, saying she is only relying on her dragons, undermines what Martin does with his characters

But I wasn't saying she was only relying on her dragons. I was saying they were a big part of why people followed her in the first place. If the dragons were gone I can't see nearly as many people following her.

6 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

Then, her dragons immediately cause problems: because she has them, Dany has to cross the Red Waste in order to avoid her dragons getting captured and her people slaughtered

With or without the dragons she was probably going to have to cross the desert. Unless she wanted to be dragged back to the Dosh Khaleen, she had to leave the Dothraki Sea.

7 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

The dragons didn’t help to survive the Red Waste and to find a way out of it. Dany had to be resilient and show strength to keep her khalasar united to survive, and she had to be smart to send her bloodriders in different directions to find a way out of the desert 

That's true but she wouldn't have even been leading those people in the first place without the dragons.

[Craving Peaches]

2 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

Ghost also saved Jon and Summer too saved him so let's not pretend that the Stark have no advantage with their direwolves whatsoever.

I'm not pretending the Starks have no advantages, I explcitly mentioned Ghost before, I just said that the Direwolf didn't confer as many advantages on Jon's leadership ability as the dragons did for Daenerys.

[Oana_Mika]

16 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

If Daenerys did not hatch the dragons, she would most likely not be in any of these situations in the first place because she would be dead or with the Dosh Khaleen.

If the Starks would not have found the direwolves, they would most likely be dead

16 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

If the dragons were gone I can't see nearly as many people following her.

She freed the slaves from Yunkai and Meereen without dragons and as I said, in Astapor they were just a bargaining chip. She could have found anything else instead of dragons to use as bait. I doubt Martin could not make her story work without her having dragons.

 

16 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

With or without the dragons she was probably going to have to cross the desert.

She could have chose another rout. She went there because of her fear that people might take or kill the dragons, as they were very vulnerable.

 

16 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

That's true but she wouldn't have even been leading those people in the first place without the dragons.

They follow her not because of her dragons. Where in the text is hinted that that is the reason they are with her? Because from what I remember they follow her because she proved herself to them.

Edited September 29, 2022 by Oana_Mika

[Oana_Mika]

5 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I'm not pretending the Starks have no advantages, I explcitly mentioned Ghost before, I just said that the Direwolf didn't confer as many advantages on Jon's leadership ability as the dragons did for Daenerys.

Ghost finds the dragon glass, Ghost saves Jon's ass and Ghost is also intimidating, boosting the people respect for Jon.

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, Oana_Mika said:

If the Starks would not have found the direwolves, they would most likely be dead

Same with Daenerys and the dragons then.

1 minute ago, Oana_Mika said:

She freed the slaves from Yunkai and Meereen without dragons

Without the dragons she could not have done this because she would not have the resources or be in the position to do so in the first place.

2 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

In Astapor they were just a bargaining chip. She could have found anything else instead of dragons to use as bait.

She needed the dragons to burn the Masters alive.

3 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

They follow her not because of her dragons. Where in the text is hinted that that is the reason they are with her? Because from what I remember they follow her because she proved herself to them.

Before the dragons her bloodriders, for example, have no interest in following her. It is only after the dragons hatch that they start.

Before dragons:

Quote

Jhogo took the whip from her hands, but his face was confused. "Khaleesi," he said hesitantly, "this is not done. It would shame me, to be bloodrider to a woman."

"Aggo," Dany called, paying no heed to Jhogo's words. If I look back I am lost. "To you I give the dragonbone bow that was my bride gift." It was double-curved, shiny black and exquisite, taller than she was. "I name you ko, and ask your oath, that you should live and die as blood of my blood, riding at my side to keep me safe from harm."

Aggo accepted the bow with lowered eyes. "I cannot say these words. Only a man can lead a khalasar or name a ko."

Quote

"Rakharo," Dany said, turning away from the refusal, "you shall have the great arakh that was my bride gift, with hilt and blade chased in gold. And you too I name my ko, and ask that you live and die as blood of my blood, riding at my side to keep me safe from harm."

"You are khaleesi," Rakharo said, taking the arakh. "I shall ride at your side to Vaes Dothrak beneath the Mother of Mountains, and keep you safe from harm until you take your place with the crones of the dosh khaleen. No more can I promise."

After Dragons:

Quote

When the fire died at last and the ground became cool enough to walk upon, Ser Jorah Mormont found her amidst the ashes, surrounded by blackened logs and bits of glowing ember and the burnt bones of man and woman and stallion. She was naked, covered with soot, her clothes turned to ash, her beautiful hair all crisped away … yet she was unhurt.

The cream-and-gold dragon was suckling at her left breast, the green-and-bronze at the right. Her arms cradled them close. The black-and-scarlet beast was draped across her shoulders, its long sinuous neck coiled under her chin. When it saw Jorah, it raised its head and looked at him with eyes as red as coals.

Wordless, the knight fell to his knees. The men of her khas came up behind him. Jhogo was the first to lay his arakh at her feet. "Blood of my blood," he murmured, pushing his face to the smoking earth. "Blood of my blood," she heard Aggo echo. "Blood of my blood," Rakharo shouted.

Quote

And after them came her handmaids, and then the others, all the Dothraki, men and women and children, and Dany had only to look at their eyes to know that they were hers now, today and tomorrow and forever, hers as they had never been Drogo's.

As Daenerys Targaryen rose to her feet, her black hissed, pale smoke venting from its mouth and nostrils. The other two pulled away from her breasts and added their voices to the call, translucent wings unfolding and stirring the air, and for the first time in hundreds of years, the night came alive with the music of dragons.

8 minutes ago, Oana_Mika said:

She could hace chose another rout. She go there because of her fear that people might take or kill the dragons, as they were very vulnerable.

The dragons did not force her to cross the red waste. She chose to because of the comet, I think.