House of the Dragon Flood Gates Open

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

The dragons as nuclear weapons is a metaphor for their destructive power, but it’s nothing close to 1-for-1, and in this scenario they’re akin to warplanes. Moreover, combatants versus non-combatants is a huge difference here; the laws of war do not require you to give invading enemies a chance to escape.

Nor is there some moral imperative for Jaehaerys to risk the lives of his own men in a conventional engagement.

I guess you do recall that Dorne was lacking a war fleet and used sub-contractors like the Golden Company did in ADwD. The sailors on those ships were not combatants.

Of course, dragons aren't nukes but more like conventional bombers. But attacking a fleet at sea with a dragon the size of Vhagar is still literally like trapshooting. It is disgustingly easy, and there is no honor in any of that.

[The Grey Wolf Strikes Back]

@Lord Varys

Those "subcontractors" were pirates, sellsails, and corsairs.

[SeanF]

28 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure enough. But if we view dragons as nukes then Jaehaerys decided to use nukes to defeat a fleet he could also have taken out conventionally ... and in a way that ensured that no sailor would survive the attack. That is a very ugly stratagem.

Folks in Tumbleton, Bittebridge, etc. still had a chance to survive the dragon attacks there. But if you are attacked at sea you are pretty much helpless.

No different to the actions of any modern general, even in post Geneva Conventions times (see the Highway of Death in 1991).

If you have a weapon that gives you a huge military advantage, you use it.  That’s one  of the things that made Seasons 7 and 8 so stupid, the idea that Daenerys was expected to pull her punches, and risk the lives of her own men, in order to minimise enemy casualties.

[Lord Varys]

39 minutes ago, SeanF said:

No different to the actions of any modern general, even in post Geneva Conventions times (see the Highway of Death in 1991).

If you have a weapon that gives you a huge military advantage, you use it.  That’s one  of the things that made Seasons 7 and 8 so stupid, the idea that Daenerys was expected to pull her punches, and risk the lives of her own men, in order to minimise enemy casualties.

True enough. I just don't think that this stratagem is good or honorable or something that should help you to get the reputation of a good and just king. There is little difference between that kind of thing and the destruction of Tumbleton.

Or Aegon's destruction of Harrenhal which didn't just include combatants but whatever civilians and their families lived at the place - cooks, grooms, servants, smiths, etc.

[The Bard of Banefort]

New BTS (I think I like these better than the trailers):

They seem very concerned that people are going to be turned off by the smaller scale of the show. It’s mentioned multiple times in every interview. 

Ryan Condal’s voice sounds like Dan and Dave’s voices mashed together. Hopefully that’s not an omen.

[SeanF]

20 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

True enough. I just don't think that this stratagem is good or honorable or something that should help you to get the reputation of a good and just king. There is little difference between that kind of thing and the destruction of Tumbleton.

Or Aegon's destruction of Harrenhal which didn't just include combatants but whatever civilians and their families lived at the place - cooks, grooms, servants, smiths, etc.

Honestly?  It’s exactly what Jaehaerys’ subjects would consider the act of a good and just king.  The destruction of the Dornish fleet means that people living on the coast won’t be murdered, raped, pillaged and carried off for ransom.

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

25 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

They seem very concerned that people are going to be turned off by the smaller scale of the show. It’s mentioned multiple times in every interview.

Another indication that a large portion of the audience viewed GoT just as a huge spectacle, unfortunately.  

[The Bard of Banefort]

7 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I wonder if they'll use Rhaenyra and Strong as a romance that ends tragically.

That’s the one romance I do want to see. We know next to nothing about Harwin in the books, almost everything here would be new.

[Colonel Green]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I guess you do recall that Dorne was lacking a war fleet and used sub-contractors like the Golden Company did in ADwD. The sailors on those ships were not combatants.

Yes they were? They're enemy sailors.

[C.T. Phipps]

The dragons are essentially the ultimate "I win" button in Westeros as they give whatever army possesses them an unbeatable advantage unless you have them as well. I don't think anyone but the most obnoxious warrior, though, would disagree that you use whatever advantage you can to win a war.

"I can't fight back against a flying enemy!"

"That's the idea!"

Besides, there's no treaties about the proper and honorable conduct in war at this time as we see with the absolute shitty way that prisoners are treated. Even worse than actual history.

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

The dragons are essentially the ultimate "I win" button in Westeros as they give whatever army possesses them an unbeatable advantage unless you have them as well. I don't think anyone but the most obnoxious warrior, though, would disagree that you use whatever advantage you can to win a war.

"I can't fight back against a flying enemy!"

"That's the idea!"

Besides, there's no treaties about the proper and honorable conduct in war at this time as we see with the absolute shitty way that prisoners are treated. Even worse than actual history.

Yes, they’re like Gatling guns, or repeating rifles, against enemies still using edged and pointed weapons.

[The Bard of Banefort]

Another thing that the showrunners keep bringing up in interviews is that “this is a story that needs to be told.” While this has the potential to be a great story, I definitely don’t believe that. I finished rereading “Rhaenyra Overthrown” in FnB the other day, and she’s basically Dany after Missandei died, wandering around haggard and friendless before she gets killed by someone named Aegon* (granted, she doesn’t torch any cities in the meantime). I have always appreciated how George writes historical characters to mirror those from the main series, but books and television are two very different mediums. We’ve already seen a version of Rhaenyra’s story on screen, and it didn’t go over well.

And if what Condal meant is that the Dance mirrors current politics. . . yeah, no. Anything can mirror current politics if you stretch it far enough. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Was it mentioned on GOT that Cersei was the first queen of Westeros (lol)? I know they talked about how Rhaenyra died, but that was from the earlier seasons.
 

*Also, Syrax’s death was almost as bullshit as Rhaegal’s. She just happened to swoop down on the crowd for no reason and gets killed? Laaaaame.

[C.T. Phipps]

5 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Another thing that the showrunners keep bringing up in interviews is that “this is a story that needs to be told.” While this has the potential to be a great story, I definitely don’t believe that.

It's a story that needs to be told to wash the taste out of Season 8 from fans' mouths.

Quote

I have always appreciated how George writes historical characters to mirror those from the main series, but books and television are two very different mediums. We’ve already seen a version of Rhaenyra’s story on screen, and it didn’t go over well.

Rhaenyra is a much-much worse person than Daenerys and especially show Daenerys, who benefited from some softening her edges and then didn't explain how she went from Point A to Point B. Why is Daeny massacring civilians? Magic bells! Why is Rhaenyra massacring civilians? Because they revolted against her and she's never made a "Woman of the People" as part of her self-image.

Quote

Was it mentioned on GOT that Cersei was the first queen of Westeros (lol)? I know they talked about how Rhaenyra died, but that was from the earlier seasons.

I mean, Rhaenyra was a filthy usurper! That's how Westeros writes it because the same thing happened to Maud.

Even if her son is on the throne at the end.

[The Bard of Banefort]

7 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

It's a story that needs to be told to wash the taste out of Season 8 from fans' mouths.

Rhaenyra is a much-much worse person than Daenerys and especially show Daenerys, who benefited from some softening her edges and then didn't explain how she went from Point A to Point B. Why is Daeny massacring civilians? Magic bells! Why is Rhaenyra massacring civilians? Because they revolted against her and she's never made a "Woman of the People" as part of her self-image.

I mean, Rhaenyra was a filthy usurper! That's how Westeros writes it because the same thing happened to Maud.

Even if her son is on the throne at the end.

When did Rhaenyra massacre civilians?

[Angel Eyes]

9 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

It's a story that needs to be told to wash the taste out of Season 8 from fans' mouths.

Rhaenyra is a much-much worse person than Daenerys and especially show Daenerys, who benefited from some softening her edges and then didn't explain how she went from Point A to Point B. Why is Daeny massacring civilians? Magic bells! Why is Rhaenyra massacring civilians? Because they revolted against her and she's never made a "Woman of the People" as part of her self-image.

I mean, Rhaenyra was a filthy usurper! That's how Westeros writes it because the same thing happened to Maud.

Even if her son is on the throne at the end.

I think that Rhaenyra is more of a Stannis analogy (not that he'd ever admit it); she rules Dragonstone as he did, is technically the rightful heir (Rhaenyra by appointment, Stannis by de jure since Joffrey is illegitimate), but their throne is taken by a younger usurper whose mother is queen and whose grandfather is Hand of the King and both are generally feared by the populace for their ruthless streaks.

[Lord Varys]

Watching the behind the scenes videos it is really sad how wrong their claim is that there were lots and lots of Targaryens in that era. There weren't. There were two men, a little girl, and a woman who married into House Velaryon.

That's it. The family is pitifully small. In 103 AC there are fewer Targaryens than in ASoIaF, which has Viserys, Daenerys, Maester Aemon, Bloodraven, Jon Snow, and Aegon. House Baratheon is bigger at the beginning of Game of Thrones.

And then we get just a bunch of kids who, for the most part, are just cannonfodder. They are there so they and their dragons can die.

In light of all that the fear that this is actually a small story, one not exactly deserving of the massive GoT scope is very much justified.

This could have been a big story. But it isn't. It is a chamber drama with dragons.

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

When did Rhaenyra massacre civilians?

She conducted a big purge for months after taking the city, which made her unpopular.

Re Dany, oddly, she regained her military competence (ignoring Tyrion’s terrible advice) when she took Kings Landing, completely destroying Euron’s fleet and Cersei’s forces.  She did what she ought to have done months previously.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, C.T. Phipps said:

It's a story that needs to be told to wash the taste out of Season 8 from fans' mouths.

Rhaenyra is a much-much worse person than Daenerys and especially show Daenerys, who benefited from some softening her edges and then didn't explain how she went from Point A to Point B. Why is Daeny massacring civilians? Magic bells! Why is Rhaenyra massacring civilians? Because they revolted against her and she's never made a "Woman of the People" as part of her self-image.

Rhaenyra never massacred civilians. Rhaenyra never massacred anyone. She just executed a bunch of people who were confirmed and confessing traitors, and she tortured a couple of guys, among them a Lannister thief. And all that she only did because the Greens did it first. Even in cruelty she is just mimicking Aegon II, never trying to outdo him.

She even fails to grasp that her half-brother is going to murder her after he captures her ... something that is rather sad if you think about it. Not to mention that it must also mean that she never actively tried to hurt Aegon's family or else she would have expected what was coming.

Rhaenyra would be cool if she had ordered just one massacre. If she had but once mounted her dragon to torch an army or a castle or just a couple of guys. But she never did. She literally fails because she is a weak-willed woman who cannot cope with the strain and stress of a proper succession war.

Although I very much doubt that we are going to get that Rhaenyra, the real Rhaenyra, in that show. The way the role seems to be cast and written is very different, meaning chances are very low that we can get the same story as we get in the book. Emma D'Arcy is not going to run around in circles while the people of KL storm the Dragonpit. She is also not going to sit on her ass for a year while her sons and mother-in-law get themselves killed.

The real Rhaenyra is no woman who wants to be a man. She is a spoilt princess who likes to do princessly things. She is her dad's favorite child and neither he nor she herself tries to be a female son. She is the chosen heir and a feminine woman and Westeros has to deal with that. There is not the slightest indication that she was ever interested in male-coded pastimes or interests like hunting, shooting, fighting, or military matters. She gladly lets Daemon handle her war strategy, granting him the title of Protector of the Realm. The stratagem to take KL made by her heir Jacaerys. He dies before he can implement it, so Rhaenyra does it in his stead, but she doesn't come up with her own strategies.

Not only does she never lead an army into battle ... she doesn't even accompany one. Not even on dragonback.

Since there is no chance that we are getting any of that - not that this would be an interesting story or character arc, but it is what George actually wrote - it looks like they will turn her into a more selfish version of Daenerys from the show, although I guess the fact that she ends up being the mother of five sons and all her actions are going to defend their rights, too, even that aspect might be toned down.

But in the end really nobody needs another version of that character. Especially not one who fails in an even more pathetic manner than Emilia Clarke.

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, SeanF said:

She conducted a big purge for months after taking the city, which made her unpopular.

There were some executions, but not massacres. Yes, there is this talk about there being public executions in the Dragonpit and whatnot, but we don't get any numbers and there is no indication that innocent people were targeted.

What really angered the people were the high taxes and the fear that the Hightower army and their dragons might turn KL into a second Tumbleton.

Gyldayn's final analysis of Rhaenyra's downfall in his treatment of Tyland Lannister in the Regency chapter seems to be spot on: She lost because she lacked sufficient cash to keep the rabble happy. If the treasury hadn't been empty when she took KL she would have won the war. And that is basically why Tyland Lannister is the guy responsible for her demise.

[C.T. Phipps]

26 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There were some executions, but not massacres. Yes, there is this talk about there being public executions in the Dragonpit and whatnot, but we don't get any numbers and there is no indication that innocent people were targeted.

What really angered the people were the high taxes and the fear that the Hightower army and their dragons might turn KL into a second Tumbleton.

Gyldayn's final analysis of Rhaenyra's downfall in his treatment of Tyland Lannister in the Regency chapter seems to be spot on: She lost because she lacked sufficient cash to keep the rabble happy. If the treasury hadn't been empty when she took KL she would have won the war. And that is basically why Tyland Lannister is the guy responsible for her demise.

Yeah, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of Rhaenyra.  Just like the riots got put down by Joffrey in the books, vilifying him forever, Rhaenyra turns her dragons on the people and torches them horribly. As for not having sufficient cash to keep the rabble happy, that IS a basic function of government and a measure of whether or not you will be considered a good ruler or not.

But yes, my basic interpretation is that we're going to get a lot more dog kicking moments of Rhaenyra in the show that will make her a popular but morally ambiguous figure. I think it'll help with the sting of Daenerys. Mind you, we have no idea what will happen with "Snow." It's unlikely they'll bring her back but not impossible either or at least retcon some of that away somehow.

(Assahai curse!)

Quote

She even fails to grasp that her half-brother is going to murder her after he captures her ... something that is rather sad if you think about it. Not to mention that it must also mean that she never actively tried to hurt Aegon's family or else she would have expected what was coming.

Point A: She never actively tried to hurt Aegon's family.

Point B: Because we don't believe she had Alicent and his wife raped.

But yes, Rhaenyra is correct that it was an incredibly stupid move by Aemond because it not only made him a kinslayer in the eyes of the public and did absolutely nothing to ward off Cregan Stark but it ruined any chance of a peaceful settlement too even if it was, "keep her prisoner for the rest of her life in Dragonstone."

Mind you, like Rhaenyra herself and what she might have done to the Queen Mother and Queen, I don't have any surprise at Aegon blaming her for his children's death or the above.

 

Quote

But in the end really nobody needs another version of that character. Especially not one who fails in an even more pathetic manner than Emilia Clarke.

It's funny that I view Rhaenyra as much more evil thank you but never anything approaching pathetic or a failure. Yeah she dies at the hands of Aegon II but her forces eventually crush his and he is murdered by his own men.

There's no heroes in the Dance of Dragons but it doesn't need to be because everyone is interesting.