A Daenerys Character Arc Reread II

[Alkion]

And I'm still going to ask for one (just one) quote in which Ned speaks in condemnation of (even if only by implication) of the Sack. Just one. There are numerous quotes about Elia and about Rhaegar's children. Can I just get one quote about the Sack of King's Landing?

It doesn't matter whether he approves of it or not for the purposes of this thread. The argument has (apparently) become whether Jorah and the Northmen were there, and I feel that the points I posted about above show that there was no evidence for it, and the quote from Eddard to Robert disassociating himself with the taking of KL and placing it on the Lannister's shoulders (who up to that point had not even been part of the rebellion, thereby disassociating the rebellion as a whole from the actions taken in the taking of KL). Saying "it wasn't us, it was those other people" is as close to a condemnation as you're likely to get. had he approved of the actions, he would surely have taken the Lannisters under the collective terms of the rebellion armies, and that he chooses to keep a strict separation speaks volumes.

In contrast, I'd like one quote, as you asked for, that directly contradicts the plethora of accepted circumstantial evidence that points to 1)the sack taking place in one day, and 2) the northmen arriving after it has concluded. Saying "it's not realistic" isn't enough, as there is a lot in the works that isn't realistic.

[Alexia]

In contrast, I'd like one quote, as you asked for, that directly contradicts the plethora of accepted circumstantial evidence that points to 1)the sack taking place in one day, and 2) the northmen arriving after it has concluded. Saying "it's not realistic" isn't enough, as there is a lot in the works that isn't realistic.

My pleasure!

AGOT Daenerys Chapter I

The sack of King's Landing by the ones Viserys called the Usurper's dogs, the lords Lannister and Stark.

Let me reiterate my plea for one quote, just one single quote, from Ned in condemnation of the Sack of King's Landing. We have numerous quotes of his anger over the butchery of highborn innocents. Is there not one single quote expressing anger over lowborn innocents?

I'd say that if there isn't, in tandem with other evidence (Viserys' belief that his men participated in the Sack; Jorah's commentary about the nature of man, et cetera) that forms a very solid basis to believe that Ned's men participated in the Sack.

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

In contrast, I'd like one quote, as you asked for, that directly contradicts the plethora of accepted circumstantial evidence that points to 1)the sack taking place in one day, and 2) the northmen arriving after it has concluded. Saying "it's not realistic" isn't enough, as there is a lot in the works that isn't realistic.

Even if the city was sacked in 1 day (that's what I assumed tbh) that still doesn't prove that Jorah's/Ned's men weren't present but quite the opposite. They had to have arrived on the same day right? Otherwise, Ned wouldn't have found Jaime sitting on the Iron Throne (he took the throne just after killing Aerys, which happened during the sack, and he didn't get up until Ned rode in). In order to say they weren't there at all it seems to me it would have to have been over within hours.

In the quote you provided Ned was upset that the Lannisters had taken KL by treachery. If you look at the context of the whole quote it's pretty clear the treachery is why he was angry, not at the fact the city was sacked.

Anyway wow this is so off topic it's not even funny... I don't even remember how it came up. Something about whether Dany should be required to "forgive" Ned? I think that has nothing to do with the sack of King's Landing and everything to do with Ned supporting Robert. Also since Ned is dead, IDGAF anyway.

[Sevumar]

Let me reiterate my plea for one quote, just one single quote, from Ned in condemnation of the Sack of King's Landing. We have numerous quotes of his anger over the butchery of highborn innocents.

Viserys has no firsthand knowledge. One of my posts already addressed his lack of credibility as a source on anything relating to the rebellion or Robert's reign.

Even if the city was sacked in 1 day (that's what I assumed tbh) that still doesn't prove that Jorah's/Ned's men weren't present but quite the opposite. They had to have arrived on the same day right?

The evidence from the text says that our Northern army's eyewitness accounts concern King's Landing after the sack. In other words, a lack of Northern participation is the null hypothesis. If someone wants to try to make a case for the idea that Ned's troops were involved in the sack, the burden of proof is on that side.

[Alexia]

Viserys has no firsthand knowledge. One of my posts already addressed his lack of credibility as a source on anything relating to the rebellion or Robert's reign.

A request was made for one quote supporting the idea that the Northmen participated in the Sack. I provided one. We can still debate whether or not Viserys was right, but textual evidence exists and there are quotes accusing them of it.

I'm still waiting for a quote in which Ned acknowledges the suffering of the little people in King's Landing. If you read his narrative, he seems to think the only people who suffered that day were Elia and her children. Jorah shows more compassion and disgust over the Sack then I ever recall The Great and Honorable Ned Stark showing.

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

The evidence from the text says that our Northern army's eyewitness accounts concern King's Landing after the sack. In other words, a lack of Northern participation is the null hypothesis. If someone wants to try to make a case for the idea that Ned's troops were involved in the sack, the burden of proof is on that side.

The text isn't clear on this point. Here's from the citadel post that alkion used as evidence.

Having been wounded by Rhaegar, Robert gave command of the pursuit of the routing forces to Lord Eddard, with the goal of his beginning the siege of King’s Landing which was believed to be held by several thousand men (I: 96).

Before Lord Stark’s host could arrive outside of the city, a host 12,000 strong led by Tywin Lannister appeared outside of the city. Lord Tywin claimed to have finally answered Aerys’s summons after ignoring it for a year (I: 96). Grand Maester Pycelle convinced the paranoid King Aerys to throw open his gates, even though Lord Varys argued against it (II: 301. III: 419). What followed was the brutal Sack of King’s Landing, as the Lannister troops slaughtered, looted, and burned their way through the city while Lord Tywin rode for the Red Keep with the intent of taking hold of it (II: 96).

Ser Jaime seated himself on the Iron Throne to await who might come to the throne room (III: 130). He was unaware of the fact that Princess Elia and her children, whom he had sworn to keep safe before Rhaegar departed the city, were in mortal danger. Ser Amory Lorch and Ser Gregor Clegane were scaling the walls of Maegor’s Holdfast, following Lord Tywin’s command to find Rhaegar’s children and murder them (III: 130, 594-595).

It appears that even as this was taking place, Lord Stark’s host had arrived and he himself appears to have entered the Red Keep only a short time after Aerys’s murder (III: 131).

One thing in particular I find puzzling is that even though Tywin arrived before Ned and supposedly (by this account) headed straight for the Red Keep, Ned actually arrived in the throne room first? I can't imagine that Tywin found Jaime sitting on the throne said "Well done, Son Guy" and then moved on...?

Also if we believe Jorah, men invariably become butchers during this kind of battle, hence if we consider him a reliable source, shouldn't the burden of proof be on those wanting to say all northmen were innocent? ;) Okok no need to respond to that - I know you disagree and am only teasing.

[Sevumar]

Okay? I suppose that would be nice, but it's hardly a dealbreaker.

My whole point is that the Ned thing is a test of Dany's maturity and ability to deal with hard/uncomfortable truths. For me, her ability to acknowledge the crimes of her father and the fact that Ned was right in joining the rebellion rather than submit to being murdered. She's failed this test twice up to this point in time: once in ASoS and once in ADWD. A "queen" who can't come to terms with these things isn't fit to rule Westeros.

In that Dany is once again reacting. The moment she entered Quarth, she was told you are worth all the gold in the iron bank because you are the mother of dragons. She expects them to help her because they said they would help her and in fact did help her. Where exactly is the petulance in that?

She's been told many things about her worth throughout her life. From the end of AGoT onward, she's determined not to let others dictate her worth or choices. There's clearly a large gap between what she expected from the Qartheen and what she ends up getting, and all throughout this chapter especially, her attitude is that she's entitled to their help. She believes that she's just a curiosity to the Qartheen and that may be true. They enjoy seeing her and her dragons, but that shouldn't (and doesn't) obligate them to provide help in conquering a land with which they have no quarrel. She's not mature enough to understand this yet.

She's just being honest. She's saying, "yeah thanks for all the gifts and all, but I really don't need them. I need to get to Westeros."

It's not that she just wants to be on her way, it's that she's expecting the Qartheen to provide men, money, and supplies to her cause.

Also she has something of incalculable value to offer. Seeing the Dragons, and having as a friend and ally, the owner of the only dragons in existence. There's a reason the Quartheen began showering her with gifts the moment she entered the city. Even a glimpse of these creatures is worth a lot to the powerful of Quarth. Unfortunately once they've taken what they want, the Quartheen discard her.

Yes, the Qartheen got to see her and the dragons, but they don't owe her anything for this. The hospitality and gifts she receives is more than enough compensation for the "privilege of viewing the dragons." You complain that they "discard" her, but what exactly do they owe her in your mind? The Qartheen have no conflict with Westeros. They have no pressing need to secure an alliance with a woman who has dragon hatchlings, but rules no kingdom. They're getting along just fine as they are.

He is definitely jealous of Xaro - or rather his mistrust of him is in part founded on jealousy.

I don't see any evidence of his jealousy. Can you quote some passages you think show it? When he's visibly jealous of others in ASoS, Dany's PoV remarks on it quite clearly.

[David Selig]

Remember how sad and outraged Ned when he saw that Mycah was killed? Me neither.

Where does this perception that he cared much about the smallfolk comes from? Did he ever felt guilty for being a major player in a big war which caused a lot of suffering for them? Did he care one bit that insisting on Stannis for Robert's successor would cause another major war? Not at all.

[Sevumar]

A request was made for one quote supporting the idea that the Northmen participated in the Sack. I provided one. We can still debate whether or not Viserys was right, but textual evidence exists and there are quotes accusing them of it.

There are also quotes accusing the Lannisters of Jon Arryn's murder, but they're worth about as much as Viserys's belief about what happened during the sack. Not only did he lack firsthand knowledge, he's shown that he's out of touch with reality in a lot of ways.

I'm still waiting for a quote in which Ned acknowledges the suffering of the little people in King's Landing. If you read his narrative, he seems to think the only people who suffered that day were Elia and her children. Jorah shows more compassion and disgust over the Sack then I ever recall The Great and Honorable Ned Stark showing.

You can't find what's not there. Invariably, most of these discussions come up during conversations about the politics of the realm. Since the nobles are the prime movers, it makes sense that they would be the main subjects. There are a lot of PoVs that have knowledge of things that I'd love to see their thoughts on, but for many reasons, they're not addressed. Just because Ned doesn't explicitly think about it in his PoV doesn't mean that he's deaf to the suffering of the people of KL.

Do you remember when Ned holds court in Robert's stead when the king is hunting boar?

"It is all the King's justice," Ned told them. "North, south, east, or west, all we do we do in Robert's name."

"The king's justice," Grand Maester Pycelle said. "So it is and so we should defer this matter until the king -"

"The king is hunting across the river and may not return for days," Lord Eddard said. "Robert bid me to sit here in his place, to listen with his ears, and to speak with his voice. I mean to do just that... though I agree he must be told." He saw a familiar face beneath the tapestries. "Ser Robar."

Ser Robar Royce stepped forward and bowed. "My lord."

"Your father is hunting with the king," Ned said. "Will you bring to them word of what was said and done here today?"

"At once, my lord."

"Do we have your leave to take our vengeance against Ser Gregor, then?" Marq Piper asked the throne.

"Vengeance?" Ned said. "I thought we were speaking of justice. Burning Clegane's fields and slaughtering his people will not restore the king's peace, only your injured pride." He glanced away before the young knight could voice his outraged protest, and addressed the villagers. "People of Sherrer, I cannot give you back your homes or your crops, nor can I restore your dead to life. But perhaps I can give you some small measure of justice, in the name of our king, Robert."

[Alexia]

You can't find what's not there. *** Just because Ned doesn't explicitly think about it in his PoV doesn't mean that he's deaf to the suffering of the people of KL.

I think it is extremely pertinent that on a day when babies, children at play, and old men were butchered, and numerous women raped, the only atrocity Ned Stark ever thinks about (obsesses on, even!) is the murders of the highborn Prince Aegon and Princess Rhaenys, and the rape and murder of the highborn Princess Elia. Oh, he's also pretty loud in his outrage about Jaime killing the highborn Aerys Targaryen in violation of his oath.

But not so much as a whimper about the suffering of the thousands (if not tens of thousands, how big is the population of KL anyway?) of lowborn children and babes who were butchered, women who were raped, homes that were looted, et cetera. If that isn't being deaf to the suffering of the lowborn people of KL, then I'm terrified to ask what is.

[Alexia]

Remember how sad and outraged Ned when he saw that Mycah was killed? Me neither.

Where does this perception that he cared much about the smallfolk comes from? Did he ever felt guilty for being a major player in a big war which caused a lot of suffering for them? Did he care one bit that insisting on Stannis for Robert's successor would cause another major war? Not at all.

He is also extremely vocal in his outrage about the idea of having the highborn Daenerys Targaryen assassinated. Despite the fact that, as others at the table point out, there are plenty of lowborn children who would suffer if she invades.

[Alkion]

My pleasure!

AGOT Daenerys Chapter I

"

The sack of King's Landing by the ones Viserys called the Usurper's dogs, the lords Lannister and Stark."

I'd say that if there isn't, in tandem with other evidence (Viserys' belief that his men participated in the Sack; Jorah's commentary about the nature of man, et cetera) that forms a very solid basis to believe that Ned's men participated in the Sack.

I knew you'd use that quote. :) But I asked for a quote that "directly contradicts" the the evidence and the assertions made by both Jorah and Eddard that they arrived after the conquest/sack (which in this case, as the troops were let in the gate, are one and the same event, which ended with Jamie's order to spare those who did not resist, made after the death of Aerys). Unfortunately, an assertion from Viserys is no more evidence than (to pull a real world scenario to make a point) if I were to talk in specifics about individual actions in Iraq. I've had friends there who have fought, but nothing I can say short of direct quotes from them would even meet the most basic definitions of evidence. Viserys, in the case of that quote, is at best hearsay evidence, and given the path he took after being evacuated, would be extremely doubtful to even be that, as it would require him interacting with those who had survived or participated in the sack.

So again, unless I can be shown wrong.

1. We have no evidence that Stark or his men were there.

2. We have two non-contradictory assertions from usually trustworthy (ie they don't lie) characters that they were there after the conquest/sack.

Without evidence otherwise we should assume this to be the truth until Martin says otherwise.

[Sevumar]

I think it is extremely pertinent that on a day when babies, children at play, and old men were butchered, and numerous women raped, the only atrocity Ned Stark ever thinks about (obsesses on, even!) is the murders of the highborn Prince Aegon and Princess Rhaenys, and the rape and murder of the highborn Princess Elia.

But there's no evidence that that's all he thinks about or that the suffering of the civilians of King's Landing never crosses his mind. I added some more to my post above, showing a situation in which Eddard demonstrates that his concept of honor and justice means not inflicting suffering needlessly on civilians, even if they're sworn to the enemy.

[Parwan]

Even if the city was sacked in 1 day (that's what I assumed tbh) that still doesn't prove that Jorah's/Ned's men weren't present but quite the opposite. They had to have arrived on the same day right? Otherwise, Ned wouldn't have found Jaime sitting on the Iron Throne (he took the throne just after killing Aerys, which happened during the sack, and he didn't get up until Ned rode in). In order to say they weren't there at all it seems to me it would have to have been over within hours.

In the quote you provided Ned was upset that the Lannisters had taken KL by treachery. If you look at the context of the whole quote it's pretty clear the treachery is why he was angry, not at the fact the city was sacked.

Anyway wow this is so off topic it's not even funny... I don't even remember how it came up. Something about whether Dany should be required to "forgive" Ned? I think that has nothing to do with the sack of King's Landing and everything to do with Ned supporting Robert. Also since Ned is dead, IDGAF anyway.

I strongly agree with your analysis of the "one day" argument. The text strongly indicates that the northerners arrived during the sacking of the city. Alkion's so-called "plethora" of evidence of "the northmen arriving after it is concluded" does not exist. Indeed, in at least one of the links Alkion provided, some posters put forward a conjecture (given as a plausible, though not necessarily the best) that the northerners just hung around and made no move to stop the sacking.

More importantly, the original questions weren't off-topic, but the conversation has become so. Let me try to give a reasonable partial history of the dispute:

Alexia: "If she is going to hate Ned, at least hate him based on facts...the atrocities that took place around the rebellion, the murder of the Targaryen children, the Sack of KL, her own enforced exile, et cetera. Ned is one of the key leaders of the rebellion..." (emphasis added by Parwan)

Sevumar's Response:

"I don't think there's any legitimate reason for her to hate Ned. There's no evidence that Ned is guilty of any of the atrocities committed in the war, and certainly he's not responsible for the murders of her niece and nephew. Ned's forces arrived at KL during/after the sack, as Jorah explains, but again, there's no direct evidence that Ned allowed his forces to participate in the looting..."

We go from an assertion of Dany's "hatred for Ned" (relevant to this thread) to whether this supposed hatred is legitimate (relevant if we assume that Dany does, in fact, hate Ned). However, the question of whether the northmen actually did take part in the sacking has come in, and it will soon take over most of the discussion.

MDIND's response to Sevumar: "Is this a legit reason to "hate" Ned? Obviously not since I'm sure Ned (like Jorah) wouldn't have been happy with this behavior. But I don't think me or Alexia were saying that anyway. What we're saying is that she has good reasons to consider him her enemy, and to consider that he has committed crimes against her family. and it would be nice if she knew the whole truth. Anyway there is as of yet NO EVIDENCE that she hates Ned. As I pointed out in my recap she seems more afraid of him than anything." (emphasis added by Parwan)

Good points. Dany's feelings may well be more those of fear than of hate (though Alexia did, in fact, say "hate"). Even more important, the main issue here is the legitimacy of Dany's feelings. Jorah, a trusted adviser at this point, clearly hates Stark. He does not assert that Stark's men sacked King's Landing. He also does not deny it. He says bad things that apply to all men. It is perfectly legitimate for Dany to infer that he is applying his words to northerners. Whether we think he was doing so, even whether he would say this, should not be the central focus of discussion. Viserys was Dany's brother. She still has some love for him, though she knows he was vain and cruel. It is perfectly legitimate for Dany to accept his version of the sacking of the capital city, especially as it fits well with her trusted adviser's view of mankind.

Sevumar: "My whole point is that the Ned thing is a test of Dany's maturity and ability to deal with hard/uncomfortable truths. For me, her ability to acknowledge the crimes of her father and the fact that Ned was right in joining the rebellion rather than submit to being murdered..."

If what is meant by "the Ned thing" is Dany's ideas about the sack of King's Landing and negative feelings that come from these ideas, then there is no basis for saying that she lacks maturity and/or the ability to deal with hard/uncomfortable truths. The business about acknowledging the crimes of her father is a separate issue and deserves a separate discussion.

[Sevumar]

I strongly agree with your analysis of the "one day" argument. The text strongly indicates that the northerners arrived during the sacking of the city. Alkion's so-called "plethora" of evidence of "the northmen arriving after it is concluded" does not exist. Indeed, in at least one of the links Alkion provided, some posters put forward a conjecture (given as a plausible, though not necessarily the best) that the northerners just hung around and made no move to stop the sacking.

I think you're missing a lot of the things that were said. The account that Jorah gives clearly says he saw the city "after the sack," which pretty much excludes much of a Northern presence during the event. If you want to argue that they "may have hung around and not stopped it," that's a different statement than saying they actively participated. The charge leveled by those in on the other side of the discussion is that Ned's forces participated in the sack, though the text provides no reliable evidence that they did.

When Ned arrived, all the signs were that the Lannisters were in control of the city and it was in the possession of someone else's forces, not those of the rebellion. This is further supported by the fact that the Lannister banner flew over King's Landing, not the stag or the dragon.

If what is meant by "the Ned thing" is Dany's ideas about the sack of King's Landing and negative feelings that come from these ideas, then there is no basis for saying that she lacks maturity and/or the ability to deal with hard/uncomfortable truths. The business about acknowledging the crimes of her father is a separate issue and deserves a separate discussion.

No, for me the Ned issue encompasses more than the sack. Concerning the participation of Northern forces in the destruction at King's Landing, I have always argued about what we, as readers, know, not Dany. Dany's reactions to Ned throughout the series are one yardstick I use to measure her maturity. I have never said that I expected her to have all the facts about Ned's life, actions, and character at this point in the book. What I have said is that later in the story, she shows a lack of an ability to accept hard truths when she refuses to accept what Barristan tries to tell her about Ned, honor, nuance, motivation, and the history of her family.

[mediocre cheese]

I think you're missing a lot of the things that were said. The account that Jorah gives clearly says he saw the city "after the sack," which pretty much excludes much of a Northern presence during the event.

I don't see how it can be read this way. Saying he was KL after the sack doesn't mean he didn't see it during the sack. It just means he saw KL after the sack. He never says anything that excludes a northern presence during the event.

[Sevumar]

I don't see how it can be read this way. Saying he was KL after the sack doesn't mean he didn't see it during the sack. It just means he saw KL after the sack. He never says anything that excludes a northern presence during the event.

The best way to make the point about what people do during a sack would be to relate what he saw during the sack. Except, he doesn't. He says after because that's the information that he has. Though he has a healthy dislike for Eddard Stark, Jorah's information is entirely consistent with the account given by Ned himself.

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

ok.

To get on topic!

Let's all make a vow.

Anytime anyone's planning to write anything else about the facts of what happened during the sack of King's Landing... I suggest that instead of posting,

WATCH THE PROMO FOR S2 OF THE HBO SERIES BECAUSE OMFG

Now let's get back to discussing Dany's flawfree/full - depending on your perspective - chapters!!

[Sevumar]

MDIND, #47 answers some of the points that you made in response to one of my posts about this chapter. You may not want to continue the discussion at this point, but there's a chance that content got lost in all the back and forth over the sack.

[Parwan]

I think you're missing a lot of the things that were said. The account that Jorah gives clearly says he saw the city "after the sack," which pretty much excludes much of a Northern presence during the event. If you want to argue that they "may have hung around and not stopped it," that's a different statement than saying they actively participated. The charge leveled by those in on the other side of the discussion is that Ned's forces participated in the sack, though the text provides no reliable evidence that they did.

When Ned arrived, all the signs were that the Lannisters were in control of the city and it was in the possession of someone else's forces, not those of the rebellion. This is further supported by the fact that the Lannister banner flew over King's Landing, not the stag or the dragon.

No, for me the Ned issue encompasses more than the sack. Concerning the participation of Northern forces in the destruction at King's Landing, I have always argued about what we, as readers, know, not Dany. Dany's reactions to Ned throughout the series are one yardstick I use to measure her maturity. I have never said that I expected her to have all the facts about Ned's life, actions, and character at this point in the book. What I have said is that later in the story, she shows a lack of an ability to accept hard truths when she refuses to accept what Barristan tries to tell her about Ned, honor, nuance, motivation, and the history of her family.

I believe that my argument is more with Alkion than with you. However, I flatly reject any assertion that I'm missing a lot of things that were said. You may think that. I think that you provide no evidence to support such a thought. The fact that Jorah said he saw KL after the sack in no way "excludes much of a Northern presence." I agree with Average Cheese. Jorah never says anything that excludes such a presence. For that matter, we have no reason to assume that all of the Stark forces arrived at the same time. Jorah may have arrived quite a while after the first northerners got to the city. The presence of a banner provides no evidence of anything. Soldiers can run up a banner while a city is being sacked.

I have no desire to argue that Stark's men hung around and opted not to stop the activities of the Lannisters; I also have no desire to challenge this theory. As I clearly stated, the idea comes from one of the links that Alkion provided. One of the posters there puts this forth as a good possibility. Let me restate my main argument with more force: Alkion's assertion that there is a plethora of evidence indicating that the northmen arrived after the sack was concluded is totally bogus. It is badly undercut by the very links he provides. MDIND does a pretty good job of showing this in her quotes from the Citadel link Alkion gives us. Go there yourself if you want to. Perhaps the most telling quote is, "It appears that even as this was taking place, Lord Stark’s host had arrived and he himself appears to have entered the Red Keep only a short time after Aerys’s murder (III: 131)." I challenge anyone to read the full entry and then provide a good reason why the "this" stated there does not include full-scale sacking.

One more time: I am taking no position on the guilt or innocence of northerners in the sacking of King's Landing. I have however, read the text carefully. I have also read a good many commentaries. The bulk of the evidence very clearly indicates that there were northerners in the city when the bad events were taking place. Ned Stark himself was there, though he rode directly to the Red Keep. He may not have returned to the streets for some time.

You may be right about Daenerys and hard truths. I view that as a discussion that is only beginning. I expect that we'll hear a lot more about it as we go along.