Daenerys Targaryen is a better leader than Jon Snow.

[SeanF]

8 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

How so?

He was trying to fight the Others, then decided he would fight Ramsay after Ramsay said he would come to kill him. That is only two wars. Unless you are counting all disputes he is involved in, which is a criticism that could also apply to Daenerys.

I don’t think it’s possible to fight the Boltons, and hold the Wall, and pull off the Hardhome rescue, simultaneously, with the resources he has at his disposal.  The Hardhome naval rescue mission is already in deep trouble, when he commits to sending reinforcements overland.

 

 

 

Edited February 11 by SeanF

[sifth]

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

I don’t think it’s possible to fight the Boltons, and hold the Wall, and pull off the Hardhome rescue, simultaneously, with the resources he has at his disposal.  The Hardhome naval rescue mission is already in deep trouble, when he commits to sending reinforcements overland.

 

 

 

What's he to do? The Balton's just declared war on the Nights Watch and are psychopaths on top of that.

[Craving Peaches]

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

I don’t think it’s possible to fight the Boltons, and hold the Wall, and pull off the Hardhome rescue, simultaneously, with the resources he has at his disposal.  The Hardhome naval rescue mission is already in deep trouble, when he commits to sending reinforcements overland.

 

 

 

That makes it sound as though Jon chose to fight the Boltons. He didn't, Ramsay declared he was going to attack. He has to beat Ramsay to hold the Wall anyway. He did chose to intervene in Hardhome but the alternative is the Others getting hundreds of free troops.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, sifth said:

What's he to do? The Balton's just declared war on the Nights Watch and are psychopaths on top of that.

 

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

That makes it sound as though Jon chose to fight the Boltons. He didn't, Ramsay declared he was going to attack. He has to beat Ramsay to hold the Wall anyway. He did chose to intervene in Hardhome but the alternative is the Others getting hundreds of free troops.

It is what? 700 miles from Winterfell to Castle Black.  It’s going to take two months to march up there, at least.  Ambushes can be set along the way.

Jon has time to take stock.  He does not have to fight both enemies at once.

Setting Tormund over the Nights Watchmen is a recipe for trouble.

None of this is “noble Boltons”, “breaking his oaths”, “Janos the Martyr”, nonsense. Just picking which battles need to be fought, and when.

Edited February 11 by SeanF

[Craving Peaches]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

700 miles from Winterfell to Castle Black.  It’s going to take two months to march up there, at least.

Maybe but didn't it only take Robert 3 months to get from King's Landing to Winterfell?

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Ambushes can be set along the way.

But you just said Jon didn't have enough resources to fight both battles. If he sets up ambushes there are fewer men to defend the Wall.

[Northern Sword]

On 2/9/2024 at 3:19 PM, SeanF said:

You’re blaming Daenerys for the slavers’ own actions.  These people possess agency of their own.  They’re the ones fighting savagely to reinstate the Peculiar Institution.

”Mordor” means a place of horror.  Think 18th century Haiti.

Daenerys toppled the system. Once the first domino fell, a chain reaction started that led to death and destruction at every turn. I'm not some Danny hater or anything, she ranks in my favorite characters.

Yet, simply looking at results, forget intentions or pre-existing conditions... A LOT of people started dying as soon as she showed up in Slavers Bay. Including in her city, that she chose to stay and rule(not exactly doing a great job). She has created conflict at every place she has been. The question at hand is how good of a leader is Daenerys (or Jon) ? Regardless of intention, a leader that caused so much death and destruction to her own followers would NOT be my selection of best leader. It is great she has her army now, and has a hundred thousand followers calling her mother. But she is responsible for a million deaths and she lit a fire that led to the entire region going to war.

She is being put though the fire to make her into what she will need to be to fight the Others. But that is not great for those following her at the moment.

Fire and Blood, Her fire, everyone else's blood.

Nope, Mordor needs a giant fire eye and orcs or you've got nothing.... JK, Just being a smart ass. Now that I'm thinking of it, The ol' fire eye in Mordor' closest comparable is Mel's god - Red R'hllor. 

Don't think you need to limit Haiti to the 18th century, it is a disaster rn.

 

[Northern Sword]

On 2/10/2024 at 2:29 AM, frenin said:

That's why he gets stabbed.

 

Agreed, he could see it, but Bowen, and his traitorous companions couldn't. People fear what they don't understand I suppose. Not totally surprising after all. 

[Northern Sword]

On 2/10/2024 at 8:50 AM, The Commentator said:

Jon Snow got killed because he was a fool who committed treason. Jon sucked so bad at his job, at governing even a tiny outfit like the watch. Bowen Marsh is a loyal, devoted man of the night’s watch and even he was desperate enough to terminate Jon’s reign. Daenerys is so much better at governing and leading.

Loyalty by Dagger. Classic. Jon understands his oath better then Bowen it would seem.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Northern Sword said:

Daenerys toppled the system. Once the first domino fell, a chain reaction started that led to death and destruction at every turn. I'm not some Danny hater or anything, she ranks in my favorite characters.

Yet, simply looking at results, forget intentions or pre-existing conditions... A LOT of people started dying as soon as she showed up in Slavers Bay. Including in her city, that she chose to stay and rule(not exactly doing a great job). She has created conflict at every place she has been. The question at hand is how good of a leader is Daenerys (or Jon) ? Regardless of intention, a leader that caused so much death and destruction to her own followers would NOT be my selection of best leader. It is great she has her army now, and has a hundred thousand followers calling her mother. But she is responsible for a million deaths and she lit a fire that led to the entire region going to war.

She is being put though the fire to make her into what she will need to be to fight the Others. But that is not great for those following her at the moment.

Fire and Blood, Her fire, everyone else's blood.

Nope, Mordor needs a giant fire eye and orcs or you've got nothing.... JK, Just being a smart ass. Now that I'm thinking of it, The ol' fire eye in Mordor' closest comparable is Mel's god - Red R'hllor. 

Don't think you need to limit Haiti to the 18th century, it is a disaster rn.

 

One cannot ignore pre-existing conditions. Millions of people have been dying violently  in Slavers Bay for centuries.  Think of the Unsullied.  8,000 Unsullied means 25,000 dead children.  Thousands have died in fighting pits.  The scenes at Mirri's village?  Repeated at hundreds of villages across a continent, in order to fuel the demand for slaves.  The lot of the slaves, as shown in the books, is murder, castration, torture, rape, and being worked to death.

So, yes, it has to go.  Slavery does not mean peace.  It's a state of constant war against the majority of the population.

The only people who condemn Daenerys in Essos are the slaver class.  The freedmen and the slaves are overwhelmingly supportive.  Nobody wants to return to the days of ante-bellum Slavers Bay.

You're confusing cause and effect.  The responsibility for creating a society that depends on extreme violence for its elite to prosper, and for fighting to keep it in place, rests 100% with the masters. And, where on earth does the notion come from that "she is responsible for a million deaths."

Your argument is, in essence, do nothing and hope the masters will reform at some stage.  Whereas in real history, it took a great deal of bloodshed to end slavery.

Blaming Daenerys for the condition of Slavers Bay is like blaming Zelensky for the condition of Ukraine.  It's shifting blame from aggressor to victims of aggression.

 

 

Edited February 12 by SeanF

[Craving Peaches]

I don't think anyone is blaming Daenerys for choosing to get rid of the slavers, they are blaming her for failing to protect those she assumed responsibility for. Daenerys overthrew the prior power structure, she (morally speaking) shouldn't then just leave the people without a way to defend themselves like she did in Astapor.

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, Craving Peaches said:

I don't think anyone is blaming Daenerys for choosing to get rid of the slavers, they are blaming her for failing to protect those she assumed responsibility for. Daenerys overthrew the prior power structure, she (morally speaking) shouldn't then just leave the people without a way to defend themselves like she did in Astapor.

If the criticism is that she failed to anticipate how violently the slavers would fight back, and failed to destroy them when she had the power to do so, then that is entirely reasonable.

But, one can't ignore that the slavers chose war, over peace.

 

[Craving Peaches]

8 minutes ago, SeanF said:

If the criticism is that she failed to anticipate how violently the slavers would fight back, and failed to destroy them when she had the power to do so, then that is entirely reasonable.

But, one can't ignore that the slavers chose war, over peace.

 

My criticism is that she failed to give the new council she established in Astapor the ability to defend itself properly with the result that it was overthrown and slavery was reinstituted just with the positions reversed.

Edited February 12 by Craving Peaches

[SeanF]

8 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

My criticism is that she failed to give the new council she established in Astapor the ability to defend itself properly with the result that it was overthrown and slavery was reinstituted just with the positions reversed.

Whilst I think that a garrison would have given the council a better chance of survival, the level of vendetta and hatred towards the old ruling class in the city, could easily have led to civil war. 

My own view is that Dany should have occupied Yunkai, permanently, taken Meereen, asset-stripped the Great Masters. and simply swallowed her scruples and allied with Cleon.  That would make it very difficult for outside powers to successfully invade the place.

Edited February 12 by SeanF

[Northern Sword]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

One cannot ignore pre-existing conditions. Millions of people have been dying violently  in Slavers Bay for centuries.  Think of the Unsullied.  8,000 Unsullied means 25,000 dead children.  Thousands have died in fighting pits.  The scenes at Mirri's village?  Repeated at hundreds of villages across a continent, in order to fuel the demand for slaves.  The lot of the slaves, as shown in the books, is murder, castration, torture, rape, and being worked to death.

So, yes, it has to go.  Slavery does not mean peace.  It's a state of constant war against the majority of the population.

The only people who condemn Daenerys in Essos are the slaver class.  The freedmen and the slaves are overwhelmingly supportive.  Nobody wants to return to the days of ante-bellum Slavers Bay.

You're confusing cause and effect.  The responsibility for creating a society that depends on extreme violence for its elite to prosper, and for fighting to keep it in place, rests 100% with the masters. And, where on earth does the notion come from that "she is responsible for a million deaths."

Your argument is, in essence, do nothing and hope the masters will reform at some stage.  Whereas in real history, it took a great deal of bloodshed to end slavery.

Blaming Daenerys for the condition of Slavers Bay is like blaming Zelensky for the condition of Ukraine.  It's shifting blame from aggressor to victims of aggression.

 

 

My entire point is the cause and effect of Daenerys coming to Slavers Bay, Based on her credentials in leading(i.e. Her choices), Not sure how I am confusing my own opinion. A thousand years of the same system in place, which is then contrasted to what occurs once Daenerys shows up. Slavery has been the norm. Then she shows up. Regardless of what came before. We are analyzing what came after.

At no point did I say she should do nothing. Nor is slaver reform(laughable) something I brought up. The whole point is looking at her actions, decisions and the outcomes . And yes, life is cheap in a slaver society. Again, not my point. I am not blaming Daenerys for slavery or anything else. I am simply looking at the outcome of her policies and the responsibility that goes along with those choices.

Talking about cause and effect, did Zelenskyy not start bombing the Donbas in 2014 (cause) which then led to the consequence(effect) of invasion. 

Daenerys's record once she gets there is one of extreme violence as well. Lets not kid ourselves, she needed extreme violence for her to achieve her goals. Yes, she rescued some slaves. But she also uses slave soldiers to achieve her ends, with countless others dying as a result of her actions. Then there are the ex-slaves who asked her to be sold back to their masters. Which is crazy on the surface, but had a reasonable explanation. Clearly slavery is bad, but so was the result of her policies. How bad do things have to be, to have ex slaves ask to be resold. 

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

If the criticism is that she failed to anticipate how violently the slavers would fight back, and failed to destroy them when she had the power to do so, then that is entirely reasonable.

But, one can't ignore that the slavers chose war, over peace.

Failure to anticipate is the crux of the subject at hand. A society and ruling class that for millennia has been in charge, gets pushed out, killed and attacked. Obviously there would be push back here.

This is an all or nothing type of environment. So, when analyzing leadership, she leaves something to be desired in both decision making and execution.  

 

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

Whilst I think that a garrison would have given the council a better chance of survival, the level of vendetta and hatred towards the old ruling class in the city, could easily have led to civil war. 

My own view is that Dany should have occupied Yunkai, permanently, taken Meereen, and simply swallowed her scruples and allied with Cleon.  That would make it very difficult for outside powers to successfully invade the place

I completely agree with you here. Leaving a garrison would have helped the council survive. All the bloodshed in Astapor may have been avoided. Ironically, saving Yunkai from being sacked contributed to all the problems she is having now. Not sacking the city and taking the head off the slavers there was her biggest strategic blunder.

Overall, I'm a big fan of her, but as a leader... she has several self inflicted wounds, and she is responsible for countless deaths of those she said she was there to protect. 

#TeamJonIsTheBestLeader

[SeanF]

11 minutes ago, Northern Sword said:

My entire point is the cause and effect of Daenerys coming to Slavers Bay, Based on her credentials in leading(i.e. Her choices), Not sure how I am confusing my own opinion. A thousand years of the same system in place, which is then contrasted to what occurs once Daenerys shows up. Slavery has been the norm. Then she shows up. Regardless of what came before. We are analyzing what came after.

At no point did I say she should do nothing. Nor is slaver reform(laughable) something I brought up. The whole point is looking at her actions, decisions and the outcomes . And yes, life is cheap in a slaver society. Again, not my point. I am not blaming Daenerys for slavery or anything else. I am simply looking at the outcome of her policies and the responsibility that goes along with those choices.

Talking about cause and effect, did Zelenskyy not start bombing the Donbas in 2014 (cause) which then led to the consequence(effect) of invasion. 

Daenerys's record once she gets there is one of extreme violence as well. Lets not kid ourselves, she needed extreme violence for her to achieve her goals. Yes, she rescued some slaves. But she also uses slave soldiers to achieve her ends, with countless others dying as a result of her actions. Then there are the ex-slaves who asked her to be sold back to their masters. Which is crazy on the surface, but had a reasonable explanation. Clearly slavery is bad, but so was the result of her policies. How bad do things have to be, to have ex slaves ask to be resold. 

Failure to anticipate is the crux of the subject at hand. A society and ruling class that for millennia has been in charge, gets pushed out, killed and attacked. Obviously there would be push back here.

This is an all or nothing type of environment. So, when analyzing leadership, she leaves something to be desired in both decision making and execution.  

 

I completely agree with you here. Leaving a garrison would have helped the council survive. All the bloodshed in Astapor may have been avoided. Ironically, saving Yunkai from being sacked contributed to all the problems she is having now. Not sacking the city and taking the head off the slavers there was her biggest strategic blunder.

Overall, I'm a big fan of her, but as a leader... she has several self inflicted wounds, and she is responsible for countless deaths of those she said she was there to protect. 

#TeamJonIsTheBestLeader

Ex slaves wishing to return to their masters are a show-only thing. The ex-slaves in the books don’t want their masters back.  Thousands of them join the standing army which she creates in Meereen, as well as the Brazen Beasts.  The Unsullied are also ex-slaves, who have no desire to bring them back.

We do encounter a couple of Overseers like Nurse and Grazdan’s man who enjoy lording it over the rest, but the vast majority prefer freedom.  And of course, the slaves of Volantis are about to revolt.

In general, I think the slaves and freedmen, despite all the hardships, and risks, prefer freedom to enslavement.  So , they at least, must think the changes preferable to what went before.

As to Jon, I think his arguments are fine, and he’s morally justified in seeking to destroy the Boltons, and supporting Stannis.  And, he’s right to bring the free folk through the Wall, over the objections of muppets like Marsh.  I just think he’s becoming  a bit reckless, by the end.

[SeanF]

On 2/11/2024 at 7:41 PM, Craving Peaches said:

Maybe but didn't it only take Robert 3 months to get from King's Landing to Winterfell?

But you just said Jon didn't have enough resources to fight both battles. If he sets up ambushes there are fewer men to defend the Wall.

It’s snowing heavily.  I don’t think that the Boltons would be getting to Castle Black, any time soon, in these conditions.  Conversely, a march on Winterfell could be destroyed by the elements (which we see almost happening to Stannis’ army).

OTOH, small bands of wildling scouts would be excellent at setting ambushes, in case anything came their way, as well as giving plenty of warning.

[Northern Sword]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

Ex slaves wishing to return to their masters are a show-only thing. The ex-slaves in the books don’t want their masters back.  Thousands of them join the standing army which she creates in Meereen, as well as the Brazen Beasts.  The Unsullied are also ex-slaves, who have no desire to bring them back.

We do encounter a couple of Overseers like Nurse and Grazdan’s man who enjoy lording it over the rest, but the vast majority prefer freedom.  And of course, the slaves of Volantis are about to revolt.

In general, I think the slaves and freedmen, despite all the hardships, and risks, prefer freedom to enslavement.  So , they at least, must think the changes preferable to what went before.

As to Jon, I think his arguments are fine, and he’s morally justified in seeking to destroy the Boltons, and supporting Stannis.  And, he’s right to bring the free folk through the Wall, over the objections of muppets like Marsh.  I just think he’s becoming  a bit reckless, by the end.

Hmm, damn. You are probably right. I thought that was in the books. 

Agreed, no person would willingly want to be a slave. FREEEDOOOM ! Braveheart was on the other day, had to do it.

Slave revolt in Volantis will be interesting, will be a good read. 

Yeah, he is walking a fine line. The guy has already been stabbed, so...

I hope he comes back a little more ruthless. 

 

 

[Aldarion]

19 hours ago, SeanF said:

If the criticism is that she failed to anticipate how violently the slavers would fight back, and failed to destroy them when she had the power to do so, then that is entirely reasonable.

But, one can't ignore that the slavers chose war, over peace.

 

Criticism is that she completely fails at the "ruling" part... if you choose to end a system, you have a responsibility to try to set up something... and not just anything, but something that will work. That means ending slavery while still respecting the local culture and setting up an alternative to slavery.

Daenaerys didn't do that. She just went, "I took down the slavers, gg, now I'm gonna go with the entire army elsewhere while you figure out what to do". And when slavers came to Astapor, she washed her hands of them.

[SeanF]

29 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Criticism is that she completely fails at the "ruling" part... if you choose to end a system, you have a responsibility to try to set up something... and not just anything, but something that will work. That means ending slavery while still respecting the local culture and setting up an alternative to slavery.

Daenaerys didn't do that. She just went, "I took down the slavers, gg, now I'm gonna go with the entire army elsewhere while you figure out what to do". And when slavers came to Astapor, she washed her hands of them.

Well that makes her no worse, than any 19th century abolitionist government.  The Americans, British, Brazilians, etc. all took the view towards the slaves "you're free now, so get on with it."  The Russian ex-serfs had to effectively compensate the nobility  for their freedom.  Apart from Thaddeus Stevens, and some Radical Republicans and their counterparts in the UK, nobody ever countenanced redistributing property from master to slave.  Any one of these governments could have done a much better job, in respect of the freedmen, but what they did was still a step forward.

And, in Meereen, she actually does rather a lot to open up opportunities for the freedmen.  They get recruited into the army and Brazen Beasts, they get admitted to guilds, and to her council, she tries to stimulate agriculture, weaving, and building, all things that generate wealth, rather than simply redistributing from slave to master.  

The element that is missing is confiscating the property of the elite, and then redistributing it.

 

Edited February 13 by SeanF

[Aldarion]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

Well that makes her no worse, than any 19th century abolitionist government.  The Americans, British, Brazilians, etc. all took the view towards the slaves "you're free now, so get on with it."  The Russian ex-serfs had to effectively compensate the nobility  for their freedom.  Apart from Thaddeus Stevens, and some Radical Republicans and their counterparts in the UK, nobody ever countenanced redistributing property from master to slave.  Any one of these governments could have done a much better job, in respect of the freedmen, but what they did was still a step forward.

That comparison doesn't work though.

In all the cases you have noted, slavery was already fairly peripheral to economic activity. It was important, sure, but country could easily run without it. So even if slaves were simply set free without gaining any property, there were opportunities for them to look for work, there was an entire system outside the slavery that didn't requre slavery to work. In all the historical cases noted, alternative system already existed, it was simply a question of expanding it to accomodate the former slaves.

In Slaver's Bay however there is none of that. Slavers owned everything, all the land, all the work opportunities. Even in the American South, there existed small ranchers and businessmen who didn't depend on slave workforce - and in any case, many former slaves went northwards to look for work. But the way Slaver's Bay has been described, slavery was their entire economy. There are no other opportunities for work for former slaves, except obviously going to work again for their former masters.

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

The element that is missing is confiscating the property of the elite, and then redistributing it.

 

Precisely.