Why do people ignore that Daenerys sold women into slavery?

[SeanF]

18 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

Yes, you are right. I am not saying that Dany didn't want to invade Westeros to retake her son's 'birthright', but that she (probably) didn't know what an actual Dothraki invasion entailed before Drogo's proclamation and the attack on the village, and after that she tried to justify it to herself.   

Dany (or someone in a similar position) could accept that Jon Arryn was perfectly right to rise in Rebellion, but I don't think she would ever accept that the rebels were right to 'usurp' the Throne by naming Robert as King - an event that prompted Tywin to sack KL and kill Elia and her children to show his loyalty and resulted in Dany and Viserys living in exile.  

It's good to see.  For a long time it was difficult to put into words, but I don't think Dany ending up as a villain would work in a story where the Others are presented as final antagonists.

I feel SeanF's hate towards some of the rebels is overblown, partially fuelled by his desire to view things from a modern perspective. I think we should also factor in the views of their age, and by that standards Hoster wasn't a particularly bad feudal lord and even Robert was far far from Aerys, Robert in Aerys' position would have let Tywin do the ruling.

That is perhaps a fault on my part.

But, even in-universe, there are lords who frown upon casual child murder, and massacring villagers, because their lord switched sides (Stannis rejects Axel Florent’s suggestion of sacking Claw Island, because it’s lord defected).

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, Lord_Tywin_Lannister said:

Daenerys may not become a villain, persay, but by GRRM’s own admission she is a threat to Westeros. I could easily see her defeating the Others with Jon and their coalition. Then turning to be Queen and finding nobody wants her, or that she may want to force drastic change in Westeros and be resisted. Yes, if you assume she is at full power when she brings tyranny to Westeros. She is unbeatable. One of my gripes with her character is how her dragons make her pretty much unbeatable. But if she loses a dragon in the fight with the Others, which if the fight has any gravity, she should. I also think it likely that Euron steals one. Even if just Drogon survives she is pretty much untouchable on the field of battle. If she goes full tyrant, which is entirely possible, she’ll have to be dealt with similar to her show counterpart. Perhaps Jon, perhaps some other character will do it. Arya perhaps.
 

Calling show Dany betrayed, with no context makes her seem like a victim. Poorly written sure, but she WAS the villain. On did nothing wrong in the show.

Bear in mind that a tyrant is not just Aerys II.

It’s also Aegon V.

[Maegor_the_Cool]

13 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Bear in mind that a tyrant is not just Aerys II.

It’s also Aegon V.

Agreed. Like I said, I don’t think it likely she will become some evil person. I think the point of us having her POV could be to disorient us from those currently on Westeros. To make the tension when she does become an antagonist more compelling. I think she could attempt to bring radical change to Westeros, and that will be what makes her the antagonists, but not a villain.

[Jon Fossoway]

The lazhareen were to be carried into slavery after being ravaged. Daenerys intended the women to be a part of the khalasar instead of being slaves and instead of being raped senseless.

[Corvo the Crow]

15 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

The quote you linked actually seems to imply that she didn't know how 'war looks like' before and she was shocked to see Dothraki taking slaves.

During her time with the Dothraki before the posioning attempt, she spent most of her time riding and the Dothraki didn't attack anyone.  Why would a 14 year old girl raised by Viserys give much thought to the exact aspects of war before she sees it actually taking place? She probably thought that it involved the Dothraki smashing the Westerosi armies and then giving the IT to her son, not enslaving people. 

Sorry but this is completely wrong. She has lived in the free cities her entire life and apart from Braavos, these free cities contain many people that aren’t free men but slaves. She has herself owned several slaves long before ever buying one(Doreah, Irri, Jhiqui),she has a fairly good idea of what a slave is, thinking despite there being no slavery on Pentos, those who serve her in the mansion of Illyrio are slaves and she knows perfectly well slaves don’t grow on lemon trees but are “gifted” by Dothraki.

Quote

There came a soft knock on her door. "Come," Dany said, turning away from the window. Illyrio's servants entered, bowed, and set about their business. They were slaves, a gift from one of the magister's many Dothraki friends. There was no slavery in the free city of Pentos. Nonetheless, they were slaves. The old woman, small and grey as a mouse, never said a word, but the girl made up for it. She was Illyrio's favorite, a fair-haired, blue-eyed wench of sixteen who chattered constantly as she worked.

So claiming she has no idea etc. is a ridiculous attempt at exonorating her. 

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Sorry but this is completely wrong. She has lived in the free cities her entire life and apart from Braavos, these free cities contain many people that aren’t free men but slaves. She has herself owned several slaves long before ever buying one(Doreah, Irri, Jhiqui),she has a fairly good idea of what a slave is, thinking despite there being no slavery on Pentos, those who serve her in the mansion of Illyrio are slaves and she knows perfectly well slaves don’t grow on lemon trees but are “gifted” by Dothraki.

So claiming she has no idea etc. is a ridiculous attempt at exonorating her. 

 It’s most unlikely that a pre-pubescent girl, moving from city to city, has much of a knowledge of war or slave-taking.  The only slaves she’s encountered are comparatively well-treated household slaves, not the fieldhands, miners, millworkers, who are worked to death.

She did of course, set Irri, Jhiqui, and Doreah free, the moment she was able to do so.

Edited June 25, 2023 by SeanF

[csuszka1948]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

 It’s most unlikely that a pre-pubescent girl, moving from city to city, has much of a knowledge of war or slave-taking.  The only slaves she’s encountered are comparatively well-treated household slaves, not the fieldhands, miners, millworkers, who are worked to death.

She did of course, set Irri, Jhiqui, and Doreah free, the moment she was able to do so.

 

Yes, I agree.

This doesn't make her view of slavery right, of course, because even well traited slaves are slaves, and slavery is not like rain, like Dany says to Xaro later.

However, I think viewing it as a parallel to Jon's initial view to the wildlings might be a more apt comparison.

[StarkTullies]

18 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

The quote you linked actually seems to imply that she didn't know how 'war looks like' before and she was shocked to see Dothraki taking slaves.

During her time with the Dothraki before the posioning attempt, she spent most of her time riding and the Dothraki didn't attack anyone.  Why would a 14 year old girl raised by Viserys give much thought to the exact aspects of war before she sees it actually taking place? She probably thought that it involved the Dothraki smashing the Westerosi armies and then giving the IT to her son, not enslaving people. 

She had been to Vaes Dothrak.  She knew about the civilizations the Dothraki destroyed.  She knew that the "stallion who mounts the world" will not do so by being a gentle charismatic leader.  She knew that Dothraki plunder, and that her own sun and stars intended to do so:  "Drogo says the stallion who mounts the world will have all the lands of the earth to rule, and no need to cross the poison water. He talks of leading his khalasar east after Rhaego is born, to plunder the lands around the Jade Sea."  Dany is not ignorant enough to think that plunder won't involve murder.

Her husband flat-out promised to murder, rape, and enslave, and he made good on his promise.  If Dany was upset about this promise, the book certainly didn't indicate that.

"I will take my khalasar west to where the world ends, and ride the wooden horses across the black salt water as no khal has done before. I will kill the men in the iron suits and tear down their stone houses. I will rape their women, take their children as slaves, and bring their broken gods back to Vaes Dothrak to bow down beneath the Mother of Mountains."

I didn't get the impression that she was shocked by what she saw.  Sad?  Yes.  Thinking it was a tragically necessary price for the throne she thought she and her son were entitled to?  Also yes.

18 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

Obviously we will never know, but this really points towards Drogo not caring about Westeros AT ALL until the Westerosi King ordered a hit on her wife and his unborn child, the Stallion Who Mounts the World.

I agree.  Definitely the wineseller changed his mind, but it needed Dany's constant encouragement first to make this change of heart.

18 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

It's part of her character development to accept that certain things (such as rape and slavery) are not acceptable, similarly to Jon's change of mind over the wildlings over the series (AGOT Jon definitely wouldn't have welcomed them to the Wall).

I agree with that, but we seemingly disagree where her character development is going.  We will never know until the next books are published, but more on that below.

18 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

I don't think Dany becoming a full-fledged villain would work from a storytelling perspective, because there are only two books left, and Dany will arrive Westeros the same book the Others invade. Dany has been built up as one of the main characters (and the one with dragons and the largest army) for 6 books and the Others as the primary antagonists for 6 books. This means you cannot have both of them as antagonists in the same book and have a bittersweet ending.

Timewise, with only two books left: I agree that there is too much going on for it all to work (which is probably why it is taking so long to write them).  The last two books were great (I am of the mindset that AFFC and ADWD are at least as good as the first 3 books, and ADWD is my favorite book of them all), but frankly, not much happened in them.  I assume that these books were mostly character development book to make up for the discarded 5-year gap, but a lot more needs to happen in the next two books to have proper resolution.

Regardless of what I think of Dany or where I think her story is going, thematically I would hate it if the purpose of the story is "everything went to crap after the family with winged nukes who are so racist they fornicate with their siblings to keep their "blood pure" was overthrown, and now the only way to make things right is for the last surviving member of that family to retake the throne!"  When I first became invested in the story, and when I first liked Dany and assumed that she was a good guy, I still thought that would be a horrible ending.

Based on George Martin's interview (I read it a while ago and don't have it on hand) about "what he was trying to do with the Meereen arc", when Dany gave up on peace and embraced her "family words", I did not get the impression that her future will be heroic.

I am not convinced that the Others are or will be the main or final antagonist.  They directly appeared in two chapters so far.  The very first chapter, and Sam's first POV chapter.  They are villains for sure, but perhaps in the same way as the Lannisters. We just don't know much about them, or their motives. GRRM said he doesn't want one-dimension monsters, and I don't think they will be.  And if they are "complex", then we have no clue where their story is going because we haven't seen any of that complexity yet.

18 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

She doesn't hate the Starks and the Lannisters, she hates Ned Stark and Tywin (+Jaime) Lannister, who are dead.

I've wondered if she meant just the specific individuals, or the entire family.  It's not clear, and we won't know for certain until later.  But once Dany knew more about her father, what Ned did (and didn't do), to hold Ned in the same light as the Lannisters is not a good sign.

18 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

Also, your quote shouldn't end here:

"Lannister or Stark, what difference? Viserys used to call them the Usurper's dogs. If a child is set upon by a pack of hounds, does it matter which one tears out his throat? All the dogs are just as guilty. The guilt …" The word caught in her throat. Hazzea, she thought, and suddenly she heard herself say, "I have to see the pit," in a voice as small as a child's whisper. "Take me down, ser, if you would."

She thinks Ned Stark and Tywin Lannister guilty for following Robert and accepting him as King and this resulting in the murder of the Targaryen kids, but she realizes that by the same standards she should hold herself guilty for the death of Hazzea because it was her dragon that performed the act.

After realizing that, she no longer seems to think about Usurper's dogs in the same context and even somewhat sympathizes with Robert when she sees Barsena ripped apart with a boar. At the end of ADWD, her guilt over Hazzea's death also somewhat abates, because she realizes that she cannot prevent every death. Hopefully this will mean that she will apply the same for its parallel (a parallel in her own mind), the Usurper's dogs.

"For a heartbeat she felt almost sorry for the Usurper" isn't enough to convince me that she re-evaluated anything.  Dany is not a heartless monster, and seeing an innocent woman ripped apart in the same way as the "Usurper", it would be strange not to briefly think of him.  "Almost" feeling sorry for him for "a heartbeat" isn't proof that she hates him any less.  And... she should hate him.  Though Viserys lied (or maybe falsely believed) about the Usurper trying to kill them their entire lives, Robert did try to kill Dany and her unborn son once, and once is enough.

We'll just have to wait and see how she applies her realizations.

[SeanF]

11 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

Yes, I agree.

This doesn't make her view of slavery right, of course, because even well traited slaves are slaves, and slavery is not like rain, like Dany says to Xaro later.

However, I think viewing it as a parallel to Jon's initial view to the wildlings might be a more apt comparison.

I've never heard of anyone in real life who was born, believing that slavery was wrong.  many of those who came to view at as wrong, in the 18th and 19th centuries, only did so after seeing what it was like. Some people who fought against slavery like Toussaint L'Ouverture, were even slave owners, at some point in their lives.

[SeanF]

29 minutes ago, StarkTullies said:

 

Based on George Martin's interview (I read it a while ago and don't have it on hand) about "what he was trying to do with the Meereen arc", when Dany gave up on peace and embraced her "family words", I did not get the impression that her future will be heroic.

 

Where I have real difficulty with that analysis is in being able to view the restoration of slavery to Astapor and Yunkai, the Volantene invasion, the murders of Rilona Rhee, the harpists, and the confectioner's daughter by the Harpies, the lobbing of corpses into Meereen, as being anything other than evil and retrograde.  Martin went to great lengths to establishing the Masters as vile, depraved, and base, not just through Dany's POV, but also through those of Tyrion, Barristan, and Quentyn.  They are men who murder, torture, and rape, and molest children, for their own profit and amusment.

If he's now trying to retcon all that, and treat their efforts to reinstate slavery as being somehow legitimate, and Daenerys and the freedmen as being in the wrong, I hope that TWOW never gets published.  I would not want to read a Lost Cause story.

If he's arguing that peace, however cruel and unjust, is always better than war, however justified, well the text contradicts him.  And, one would have to assume that he's completely changed his mind since writing Fevre Dreme.

I find it very hard to believe that I'm meant to read people like the Widow on the Waterfront urging Daenerys to come to Volantis, or the sufferings of the slaves, and then just to conclude "they don't know how well off they are."

Likewise, I find it hard to believe that Daenerys would have proved herself to be a better person, had she fled for the exits at Daznak's Pit, rather than subduing Drogon and flying off.  One can certainly see the subtext that she's now rejecting all the compromises she's made, but IMHO, she is right to reject those compromises.

Edited June 25, 2023 by SeanF

[Craving Peaches]

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

One can certainly see the subtext that she's now rejecting all the compromises she's made, but IMHO, she is right to reject those compromises.

I think people including myself find it a bit ominous because the line 'Fire and Blood' in the context does not seem to just indicate the rejection of the compromises (which to my mind is the correct decision as Daenerys is the only one really holding up her end of the bargain), but also how she is going to 'deal' with things from now on, including when she comes to Westeros, which will likely result in many people being dead because they don't accept her rule, and unlike with the slavers, Daenerys does not have the moral high ground to stand on. It also reinforces the 'dragons plant no trees' aspect which is really not a positive in my book, since Westeros will need food and healing and rebuilding.

[SeanF]

Just now, Craving Peaches said:

I think people including myself find it a bit ominous because the line 'Fire and Blood' in the context does not seem to just indicate the rejection of the compromises (which to my mind is the correct decision as Daenerys is the only one really holding up her end of the bargain), but also how she is going to 'deal' with things from now on, including when she comes to Westeros, which will likely result in many people being dead because they don't accept her rule, and unlike with the slavers, Daenerys does not have the moral high ground to stand on. It also reinforces the 'dragons plant no trees' aspect which is really not a positive in my book, since Westeros will need food and healing and rebuilding.

I see nothing triumphalist or vindictive about her thoughts, in her final chapter.  She's more reflecting upon what a terrible failure she's been (as she sees it).

[csuszka1948]

3 minutes ago, StarkTullies said:

Timewise, with only two books left: I agree that there is too much going on for it all to work (which is probably why it is taking so long to write them).  The last two books were great (I am of the mindset that AFFC and ADWD are at least as good as the first 3 books, and ADWD is my favorite book of them all), but frankly, not much happened in them.  I assume that these books were mostly character development book to make up for the discarded 5-year gap, but a lot more needs to happen in the next two books to have proper resolution.

 

I think GRRM is planning two books because both books have proper narrative endings for most character arc: for Dany, the only really proper one is departing from Essos and/or arriving in Westeros at the end of the first, planning to prepare to conquer the continent. Can he do it in two books? I have serious doubts, but that's his plan.

AFFC and ADWD have good moments - the quality of writing is better and some of the character arcs are amazing - but I think it lacks narrative payoff and some character arcs are cut off in the middle .

He also introduces way too many POV characters. In the first 3 books, an event like Renly's crowning or Robb's attack on the Westerlands was heard from afar, but in AFFC and ADWD even the attack on Deepwood Motte was narrated by a POV character, Asha.

3 minutes ago, StarkTullies said:

Regardless of what I think of Dany or where I think her story is going, thematically I would hate it if the purpose of the story is "everything went to crap after the family with winged nukes who are so racist they fornicate with their siblings to keep their "blood pure" was overthrown, and now the only way to make things right is for the last surviving member of that family to retake the throne!"  When I first became invested in the story, and when I first liked Dany and assumed that she was a good guy, I still thought that would be a horrible ending.

 

Because Dany's ending is rejecting the Throne (+going back to Essos where she is more capable of affecting change and is more familiar with), not retaking it. She is already going against the Valyrian legacy by using dragons to liberate slaves and fight slavers instead of weapons of oppression.

As for the Targaryens, I also used to believe that they are a villanous family, but since the reveal that Aegon has conquered Westeros based on his dream of a 'three-headed dragon fighting against a darkness', I started to doubt it (even if Aegon's actions in Dorne still mark him as a villain).

I think the main villainous family in ASOIAF are the Lannisters. They (thanks to Tywin's teachings) clearly seem to believe themselves superior to other 'sheep', are usually selfish and ignore the suffering of the smallfolk. The contrast to them are the Starks. 

The Targaryens are more like a family dancing between 'madness and greatness', capable of doing both great and terrible things, just like the dragons represent destruction and freedom ('Dracarys') in the story. Their megalomania, obsession with prophecies and dragon dreams cost a lot to realm in the past, but now when all prophecies seem to come true, they (and the three-headed dragon) might be sorely needed.

3 minutes ago, StarkTullies said:

Based on George Martin's interview (I read it a while ago and don't have it on hand) about "what he was trying to do with the Meereen arc", when Dany gave up on peace and embraced her "family words", I did not get the impression that her future will be heroic.

 

Was Dany wrong do give up on the (unjust) peace when the slaves themselves wanted her to reject it, when the Volantene slaves are waiting for the defeat of the slavers to rise in rebellion? When the slavers didn't even take the peace agreement seriously as seen with Tyrion and Penny sent to die and not informing Dany about the Volantene fleet?

She had taken a Meereenese slaver as her king, as wealthy as he was noble, and when the peace was signed and sealed the fighting pits of Meereen would open once again. Other slaves insisted that the guards were lying, that Daenerys Targaryen would never make peace with slavers. Mhysa, they called her. Someone told him that meant Mother. Soon the silver queen would come forth from her city, smash the Yunkai'i, and break their chains, they whispered to one another.

You believe that Jon should have given into Ramsay's demands then, right? In theory, all he had to give up were 7 or 8 innocent or less than innocent (Selyse, Mel) people, which is nothing compared to the number of people Dany sentences to the state of perpetual violence called slavery with her compromise of allowing slavery everywhere outside of Meereen, but again, it possibly ensures peace. 

3 minutes ago, StarkTullies said:

I am not convinced that the Others are or will be the main or final antagonist.  They directly appeared in two chapters so far.  The very first chapter, and Sam's first POV chapter.  They are villains for sure, but perhaps in the same way as the Lannisters. We just don't know much about them, or their motives. GRRM said he doesn't want one-dimension monsters, and I don't think they will be.  And if they are "complex", then we have no clue where their story is going because we haven't seen any of that complexity yet.

 

I don't see this as evidence that they won't be the final antagonists. Even in his original outline (to which he has stuck to a degree, and he said that his endings of the main 5-6 characters are pretty much the same for decades) they were meant to appear below the Wall and pose a serious danger to humanity only in the last book. They are meant to represent a slowly approaching danger that is coming for a Westeros that is consumed with petty wars.

I don't think the Others are necessarily that complex... they might have a (good) reason to hate humanity, but they sure won't stop trying to exterminate them:

"ASOIAF is in some ways that but in other ways it's a more traditional fantasy. I mean I brought in the white walkers there, the white shadows, perhaps a better term for them and the Others which I actually call them in the books. And they are, I don't want to use the word evil because that's... but they are an inimical forces that's going to end human life as we know it." - GRRM

3 minutes ago, StarkTullies said:

I've wondered if she meant just the specific individuals, or the entire family.  It's not clear, and we won't know for certain until later.  But once Dany knew more about her father, what Ned did (and didn't do), to hold Ned in the same light as the Lannisters is not a good sign.

 

He pretty much only refers to Tywin Lannister and NEd Stark.

Does he know that Ned heavily rejected of the murder of Aegon and Rhaenys (+and the exile of Dany&Viserys, which he seemed to have approved and which drove Viserys to madness) though or that the sack was only done by Lannisters? It doesn't seem so, considering that Ned was perfectly willing to accept the person who pardoned the murderers as his King and even became his Hand.

(Not approving the murder of Dany is slightly different, since she doesn't think she was even a danger to Robert's reign at the time the assassination was ordered)

I agree that it's a bad logic, but she applies the same logic to herself when it comes to her dragon.

[SeanF]

58 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

Yes, I agree.

This doesn't make her view of slavery right, of course, because even well traited slaves are slaves, and slavery is not like rain, like Dany says to Xaro later.

However, I think viewing it as a parallel to Jon's initial view to the wildlings might be a more apt comparison.

The other parallel is with the young men at Renly’s court who think war is all romance, chivalry, and heroism. Catelyn knows better of course, but unlike them, she’s in her thirties.

Or, I can read a passage about the Mongols.

”When therefore, the khan’s forces took the city, not a living thing was left within its walls.”  Or I can read about Caesar coolly explaining his order to wipe out a tribe, in The Gallic War.

But, I can’t truly appreciate the real horror of what took place, without experiencing it.

Edited June 25, 2023 by SeanF

[csuszka1948]

15 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I think people including myself find it a bit ominous because the line 'Fire and Blood' in the context does not seem to just indicate the rejection of the compromises (which to my mind is the correct decision as Daenerys is the only one really holding up her end of the bargain), but also how she is going to 'deal' with things from now on, including when she comes to Westeros, which will likely result in many people being dead because they don't accept her rule, and unlike with the slavers, Daenerys does not have the moral high ground to stand on. It also reinforces the 'dragons plant no trees' aspect which is really not a positive in my book, since Westeros will need food and healing and rebuilding.

 

 

 

I think the 'dragons plant no trees' (said by Jorah) refers to the fact that her desire to 'be a little girl, plant trees and watch them grown' was naive, and 'she should kill the girl and let the woman be born'. I admit there are tons of different way to interpret this quote, but this seem to parallel Jon's arc well and I feel that has been an intention of the author.

Also, this is Dany's state of mind at the end of ADWD, and she will probably arrive in Westeros at the end of TWOW/beginning of ADOS, after learning the truth about her father's atrocities from Tyrion. Why do we assume that her mindset will remain unchanged from that relevation?

That's my other problem with the idea of 'Dany as a villain': it assumes that she will not be capable of changing. For some reason, with the exception of some deranged posters, I don't really seem that applied to other main characters (except to Bran a small degree, mostly due to the hate of King Bran ending), most chiefly Arya, almost everyone accepts that she is going to leave the Faceless Men and eventually let go of her desire of vengeance/violent and somewhat partial justice.

 

GRRM could write a grimdark ending where Arya becomes a faceless killer, Jon is a brutal half-wolfish King of the North ripping those who speak against him apart with Ghost, Sansa becomes LF 2.0 after poisoning her cousin, Bran becoming BR 2.0 (or even worse, since BR didn't warg humans), Tyrion rapes and murders his sister and takes CR laughing, and Dany burns half Westeros for her ambition to become Queen, but I don't think that's what he is going for, nor that he only wants to apply this to Dany&Tyrion because they weren't raised by the honorable Ned Stark and thus never had a chance to become a good person.

Edited June 25, 2023 by csuszka1948

[Craving Peaches]

6 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

That's my other problem with the idea of 'Dany as a villain': it assumes that she will not be capable of changing.

Well arguably the turn to Villain is in itself the change. Not that I am certain it will happen. But I can see potential seeds.

16 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I see nothing triumphalist or vindictive about her thoughts, in her final chapter.  She's more reflecting upon what a terrible failure she's been (as she sees it).

To each their own. I see it as a reflection and what she did wrong but also deciding what she is going to do differently in the future. The issue will come when she no longer has the moral high ground in Westeros, and innocents are hurt, not just the treacherous slavers.

[frenin]

22 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

Dany (or someone in a similar position) could accept that Jon Arryn was perfectly right to rise in Rebellion, but I don't think she would ever accept that the rebels were right to 'usurp' the Throne by naming Robert as King - an event that prompted Tywin to sack KL and kill Elia and her children to show his loyalty and resulted in Dany and Viserys living in exile.  

Nor should she but there's an obvious correlation of events that she is willfully ignoring, case in point when she asked Barri B if Elia mistreated Rhaegar because why else he'd disappear carrying another women.

 

22 hours ago, csuszka1948 said:

Yes, you are right. I am not saying that Dany didn't want to invade Westeros to retake her son's 'birthright', but that she (probably) didn't know what an actual Dothraki invasion entailed before Drogo's proclamation and the attack on the village, and after that she tried to justify it to herself.   

That much is true.

 

But all in all every debate about Dany and Essos devolves into slavery apologia and i'm not up to that today.

 

 

[SeanF]

25 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

 

But all in all every debate about Dany and Essos devolves into slavery apologia and i'm not up to that today.

 

 

We’re a lot better than Quora or Reddit.

[SeanF]

It seems to me that to expect Daenerys to agree that the overthrow of her family was justified would be like expecting a relative of Nicholas II who’d fled the Reds to agree that the Bolsheviks were right to shoot them.  Or a relative of Louis XVI to agree that the Revolutionaries were right to behead him and his wife.

One might objectively support what was done to the Targaryens/Romanovs/Bourbons  but it’s expecting *a lot* to think that surviving scions should agree.

By way of comparison, would any of us expect the Starks and Jon not to want to regain Winterfell and avenge their own  family?

Edited January 2 by SeanF

[Hugorfonics]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

It seems to me that to expect Daenerys to agree that the overthrow of her family was justified would be like expecting a relative of Nicholas II who’d fled the Reds to agree that the Bolsheviks were right to shoot them.  Or a relative of Louis XVI to agree that the Revolutionaries were right to behead him and his wife.

One might objectively support what was done to the Targaryens/Romanovs/Bourbons  but it’s expecting *a lot* to think that surviving scions should agree.

By way of comparison, would any of us expect the Starks and Jon not to want to regain Winterfell and avenge their own  family?

The kings cousin, Louis Phillipe, voted for execution, I think for both of them. Definitely the king. Idk what his son would say, revolutionaries wind up killing his dad and counter revs put him on the throne, but I think even he would say Louis was bugging.

And as for like the craze of Anastasia being a thing, it was for a romantic and excitement thing not like an agenda to put another Romanov back on the throne. 

That's I think the big issue with your comparisons, as Phillipes pal would not say,  Robert was in rebellion, not revolution. Nothing like a free republic or a communist proletariat to take the reigns, just another mad king. So for Dany to replace the madness, it's like business as usual. It's not the same as another Romanov or Bourbon because there's different things at play. 

And no, we expect Jon to honor his vows.