Jump to content

Astaporian Gaffe


Angel Eyes

Recommended Posts

So take me through the mind of Kraznys mo Nakhloz. You're arranging for an army of 8,000 Unsullied to be traded for a dragon (which in the real world would be the equivalent of an artillery piece or two with a few crates worth of rifles, with the soldiers knowing how to use them). Why would you give someone the means of taking back what you just gave away, when they're still close enough to do so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a "gaffe" from the perspective of Kraznys for a few reasons:

  • He perceived no moral problem with slavery and did not understand that others might take issue with it. To this vile creature, trading human beings was but a transaction, as someone purchasing a sword from a blacksmith would be.
    • As a result, he imagined that people would want to continue purchasing Unsullied as a tool of war and plunder. He even suggested sacking nearby cities and selling the victims back into slavery in Astapor, to make more Unsullied. Evidently, this was common practice.
  • No one has ever purchased so many Unsullied at the same time, partly because anyone who would have the fortune needed for it wouldn't have much of a need to sack cities.
  • Dany did an excellent job of playing the naïve little girl, and sexism helped her trick him utterly.
  • The trade was for a dragon.
    • They were fully extinct for 150 years, all but gone from Essos since before then, and he, personally, would have become the owner of one of the only three dragons in the known world. 
    • Someone like Kraznys is obsessed with the glory and potential return of Old Ghis, and having the weapon of their enemy (Valyria) that helped them destroy that empire of old would be a dream come true for him. 

I wouldn't just call this a plot device; there were many valid reasons for things to unfold in this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

So take me through the mind of Kraznys mo Nakhloz. You're arranging for an army of 8,000 Unsullied to be traded for a dragon (which in the real world would be the equivalent of an artillery piece or two with a few crates worth of rifles, with the soldiers knowing how to use them). Why would you give someone the means of taking back what you just gave away, when they're still close enough to do so?

I think the Watsonian answer is that he was a monumentally arrogant douchebag who entirely failed to understand who and what he was dealing with, and therefore it didn't occur to him that anything could go wrong because nothing ever had, without factoring in that this was not a typical deal.

The Doylian answer is what kissdbyfire said, with a generous helping of rule of cool. The scene is such that after it kicks off, it's only much later that the reader goes "wait, hang on a minute".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By this time, dragons had been extinct for more than a century. Kraznys probably didn't know anything about them except what he had heard in folklore. And Daenerys's dragons were far from full grown, so they probably didn't seem that dangerous to him, compared to the ones in the folklore.

A better question might be: why did he agree to sell his entire inventory of Unsullied in one deal? He left himself defenseless. Even without the dragons, Daenerys could have easily killed all the slavers.

The answer, I suppose, boils down to carelessness and arrogance. From the things he was saying (which he thought she didn't understand), we know that he held her in contempt. He probably never thought for a moment that she might be more dangerous than her dragons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aebram said:

By this time, dragons had been extinct for more than a century. Kraznys probably didn't know anything about them except what he had heard in folklore. And Daenerys's dragons were far from full grown, so they probably didn't seem that dangerous to him, compared to the ones in the folklore.

A better question might be: why did he agree to sell his entire inventory of Unsullied in one deal? He left himself defenseless. Even without the dragons, Daenerys could have easily killed all the slavers.

The answer, I suppose, boils down to carelessness and arrogance. From the things he was saying (which he thought she didn't understand), we know that he held her in contempt. He probably never thought for a moment that she might be more dangerous than her dragons.

From his POV, Dany would need Astapor to process the slaves she would capture in her campaigns.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, she captured 100,000 slaves.  What could she do with them?  Well, Astapor has the money to purchase them, the barracks to house them, the guards and overseers to control them, the trainers to break them into accepting their status as slaves, and the contacts to resell them.

Even if they thought a buyer might turn the unsullied on them, they’d dismiss the idea.  Why would a buyer forgo the chance to make much more money by trading with them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 2/22/2023 at 12:06 AM, Many-Faced Votary said:

 

I wouldn't just call this a plot device; there were many valid reasons for things to unfold in this way.

 

I think is goes farther than that. Dany's actions are not just incomprehensible, but also illogical from the point of view of the slaver class.

1) By using the Unsullied to kill them and free the slaves, she essentially makes a declaration of war on ALL slavers, and the coalition of slaver cities largely outnumbers her. She doesn't have much chance to win this war

2) Her primary objective seemed to be going to Westeros, not bogged down in Essos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/21/2023 at 11:57 PM, Angel Eyes said:

So take me through the mind of Kraznys mo Nakhloz. You're arranging for an army of 8,000 Unsullied to be traded for a dragon (which in the real world would be the equivalent of an artillery piece or two with a few crates worth of rifles, with the soldiers knowing how to use them). Why would you give someone the means of taking back what you just gave away, when they're still close enough to do so?

The person you just sold them to is already in danger from the king fo westeros..one of the most powerful men in the world, shes got an open contract on her life and attacking astopor outs her at war with all of slavers bay too and possibly the slaving world

 

So its the equivalent of meeting a made mafia guy  to buy a gun when your on the run from the triads and then shooting the guy and stealing the gun.....so you are now double fucked

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s no reason why Kraznys should believe the Unsullied will be used to liberate slaves.

He really ought to have considered the possibility that they will be used to sack and/or capture the city.

But even then, the profit is only a one-off.  The money to be made by capturing fresh slaves would be far greater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2023 at 10:57 AM, Angel Eyes said:

So take me through the mind of Kraznys mo Nakhloz. You're arranging for an army of 8,000 Unsullied to be traded for a dragon (which in the real world would be the equivalent of an artillery piece or two with a few crates worth of rifles, with the soldiers knowing how to use them). Why would you give someone the means of taking back what you just gave away, when they're still close enough to do so?

Dragons were extinct in essos for 300 years. One dragon is enough to turn the tide of a battle. Also, the greed of the astapori masters took over their logic 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

I think is goes farther than that. Dany's actions are not just incomprehensible, but also illogical from the point of view of the slaver class.

1) By using the Unsullied to kill them and free the slaves, she essentially makes a declaration of war on ALL slavers, and the coalition of slaver cities largely outnumbers her. She doesn't have much chance to win this war

2) Her primary objective seemed to be going to Westeros, not bogged down in Essos

This and a 3rd point people forget too

This is a world of oaths and fealty,people swear  to be vassals and lords and are as good as their word. Dany has essentialy announced to the world she cannot be trusted! No promise, treaty ,allaince or contract is worth shit to her......powerful people will be very wary of trusting her!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2023 at 1:44 AM, Aebram said:

By this time, dragons had been extinct for more than a century. Kraznys probably didn't know anything about them except what he had heard in folklore. And Daenerys's dragons were far from full grown, so they probably didn't seem that dangerous to him, compared to the ones in the folklore.

A better question might be: why did he agree to sell his entire inventory of Unsullied in one deal? He left himself defenseless. Even without the dragons, Daenerys could have easily killed all the slavers.

The answer, I suppose, boils down to carelessness and arrogance. From the things he was saying (which he thought she didn't understand), we know that he held her in contempt. He probably never thought for a moment that she might be more dangerous than her dragons.

Killed all the slavers and declared war on slavers bay which is seemingly suicide....that and greed means they dont see it comming (esp as its such a departure from her known goal.of conquering westeros)

As for the full stock that makes sense...shes known to be wanting the iron throne back thus 8.5k unsullied is a paltry force , shel need them all and come back for repeat buisness  is the seeming common sense approach shel take.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

This and a 3rd point people forget too

This is a world of oaths and fealty,people swear  to be vassals and lords and are as good as their word. Dany has essentialy announced to the world she cannot be trusted! No promise, treaty ,allaince or contract is worth shit to her......powerful people will be very wary of trusting her!

People also break their oaths of fealty, too.  There is one excuse for breaking your oath of fealty, and one only - winning.  As Lord Toronaga put it in his exchange with Edward Blackthorne:

"There are no mitigating circumstances for rebelling against your liege lord."

"Unless you win."  At that point, Toronaga bursts out laughing.

"Ah, there you have it.  Yes, that is the one mitigating circumstance."

From the Good Masters' point of view, I could see that as being another reason not to expect betrayal.  OTOH, it's probably only a slave master who would view it as a betrayal.  The slaves obviosuly approve, and in Westeros, it would be viewed more as a ruse of war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, SeanF said:

OTOH, it's probably only a slave master who would view it as a betrayal.  The slaves obviosuly approve, and in Westeros, it would be viewed more as a ruse of war.

I think other people would still view it as a betrayal but a virtuous one done for a good cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I think other people would still view it as a betrayal but a virtuous one done for a good cause.

Arguably, Tywin's seizure and sack of Kings Landing, while pretending loyalty, should be considered a war crime, in-universe, but no one seems to hold it against him.  The anger felt towards Tywin is over the murder of Elia and her children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SeanF said:

People also break their oaths of fealty, too.  There is one excuse for breaking your oath of fealty, and one only - winning.  As Lord Toronaga put it in his exchange with Edward Blackthorne:

"There are no mitigating circumstances for rebelling against your liege lord."

"Unless you win."  At that point, Toronaga bursts out laughing.

"Ah, there you have it.  Yes, that is the one mitigating circumstance."

From the Good Masters' point of view, I could see that as being another reason not to expect betrayal.  OTOH, it's probably only a slave master who would view it as a betrayal.  The slaves obviosuly approve, and in Westeros, it would be viewed more as a ruse of war.

Its still a contract broken in good faith , good luck getting anyone trusting you agai 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Doesn't Ned hold it against him though? And Varys?

Well yes, but he's shown to be different from the rest of the rebel leaders who brush it off as the reality of the situation.

To quote the Robert Baratheon Histories and Lore about The Sack of King's Landing from Season 1:

Quote

Ned called it murder. Murder? It was war.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...