Angel Eyes Posted February 21, 2023 Share Posted February 21, 2023 (edited) 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? Edited February 21, 2023 by Angel Eyes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kissdbyfire Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 Author fiat. Aldarion, Craving Peaches and Curled Finger 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugorfonics Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 I hope they show the time where they traded guns to the Indians for corn. And then the Indians shot them and took the corn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Many-Faced Votary Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 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. frenin, SeanF, Curled Finger and 6 others 7 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alester Florent Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 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". frenin, Curled Finger and Craving Peaches 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curled Finger Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 Same reason the first dumbass sold the 1st nuke to the 2nd dumbass? Many-Faced Votary 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aebram Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 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. Many-Faced Votary and Craving Peaches 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 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? Morte and Many-Faced Votary 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csuszka1948 Posted April 28, 2023 Share Posted April 28, 2023 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 astarkchoice 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astarkchoice Posted April 28, 2023 Share Posted April 28, 2023 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 Morte 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted April 29, 2023 Share Posted April 29, 2023 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. Morte 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrosh Lannister Posted April 29, 2023 Share Posted April 29, 2023 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astarkchoice Posted April 29, 2023 Share Posted April 29, 2023 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! csuszka1948 and Aldarion 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astarkchoice Posted April 29, 2023 Share Posted April 29, 2023 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted April 30, 2023 Share Posted April 30, 2023 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. Morte 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craving Peaches Posted April 30, 2023 Share Posted April 30, 2023 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted April 30, 2023 Share Posted April 30, 2023 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. Morte 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craving Peaches Posted April 30, 2023 Share Posted April 30, 2023 6 minutes ago, SeanF said: 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. Doesn't Ned hold it against him though? And Varys? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astarkchoice Posted April 30, 2023 Share Posted April 30, 2023 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel Eyes Posted April 30, 2023 Author Share Posted April 30, 2023 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.