[D&E Spoilers] Red or Black?

[Arland]

fireeater2

Actually, the Dornish engaged in border wars with the Reach and the Stormlands. The Blackmonts in Dorne raided their neighbors in the Targaryen realm. The people near the borders seemed to have benefited.

Point taken. It didn't remember that. But you would probably agree that we are not talking about some real danger to the realm here. (and those kinds of border disputes between lords have probably continued even after Dorne joining.. thou i am not sure about it) . Considering power disparity between Dorne and Targerians I seemed to be extremely stupid from Dornish side to really piss off Targerians. May be it was difficult for Targs to conquer Dorne but they certainly could mount such retaliatory strike that Dornish would remember it for very long. What I mean is that probably it was very possible to put an end to such disputes by usual combination of diplomacy and threats.

Now, considering some other fellow's point here who brought up Edmure, if we were really talking about as desperate situation as Robb was in.. well may be, Desperate times demand desperate measures, but the Trags Dorne situation simply doesn't seem to be such dire one that demaned such great personal sacrifices.

[The GRRumbler]

snip

Well, that's because there is no room for this discussion in the first place, your discussion makes no sense.

And, again, you chose to ignore the information shared by another commenter in this trgead and that i reminded you in my other post: "Martin himself said that that this was nothing but a rumor, spread with the intention light up the cause against Daeron in the first place, remind yourself that by the time of the rebelion, Daemon had seven sons already."

[7V3N]

@Arland , I think Daenerys was just a better person than you seem to be, and accepted to sacrifice herself for the good of the realm.

I have said it before--do not use this thread for personal bashing.

All this talk of Daeneris marriage for "the good of the realm" is false. Dorne presented no danger to Targerian kingdom. The only reason there was war with Dorne it was because of Targerian ambition to enlarge their realm.

The Dornish were constantly raiding areas along the borders in the Reach. The Reach was taking big losses because of the Dornish.

[Arland]

The Dornish were constantly raiding areas along the borders in the Reach. The Reach was taking big losses because of the Dornish.

Yes , it was mentioned here by fireeater 2 few posts ago and I have responded to it. First i don't know it this wasn't Dorne response to Targerian attempts to conquer it. Was truce proposed by Targerians at any point? It it was and Dronish who don't even have 50000 spears refused they must be exceptionally stupid. And I don't think Targerians couldn't deal with it either diplomatically or forcefully , if they choose to do so, really.

[7V3N]

First i don't know it this wasn't Dorne response to Targerian attempts to conquer it. Was truce proposed by Targerians at any point? It it was and Dronish who don't even have 50000 spears refused they must be exceptionally stupid. And I don't think Targerians couldn't deal with it either diplomatically or forcefully , if they choose to do so, really.

The other Kings of Westeros were given the choice to bend the knee. Why not Dorne? Politically, having Dorne (even in peace) as a neighbor kingdom is horrible. It allows all of your fugitives an easy escape from law, as well as an easy return to your territory. Crossing the narrow sea is much more expensive (I'd imagine) and riskier due to the seas, slavers, etc. The Targs probably saw the need for Dorne submission. My point--the Targs had their reasons for taking Dorne, and Dorne has an out of the war at any point.

[Arland]

The other Kings of Westeros were given the choice to bend the knee. Why not Dorne? Politically, having Dorne (even in peace) as a neighbor kingdom is horrible. It allows all of your fugitives an easy escape from law, as well as an easy return to your territory. Crossing the narrow sea is much more expensive (I'd imagine) and riskier due to the seas, slavers, etc. The Targs probably saw the need for Dorne submission. My point--the Targs had their reasons for taking Dorne, and Dorne has an out of the war at any point.

I am talking about peace and not bending the knee. I think the fugitives issue really not such a big one - European countries survived having neighbors easily accessible by land and so did all the free cities. Sure, it was nice for Targs to have Dorne, as it is quite nice to have that extra herd of sheep. But I don't think you can seriously see it as "survival of the kingdom" issue, by far. And if by chance it so happened that Targs didn't have a daughter they could marry off...Or if she was already married? can you honestly say that it would have derailed the peace?

[King Bronn l]

I am talking about peace and not bending the knee. I think the fugitives issue really not such a big one - European countries survived having neighbors easily accessible by land and so did all the free cities. Sure, it was nice for Targs to have Dorne, as it is quite nice to have that extra herd of sheep. But I don't think you can seriously see it as "survival of the kingdom" issue, by far. And if by chance it so happened that Targs didn't have a daughter they could marry off...Or if she was already married? can you honestly say that it would have derailed the peace?

Didn't the Targs actually conquer Dorne once, and then have it come back and spectacularly blow up in their faces?

[FirstSwordofBraavos]

Equating arranged marriages to rape :stillsick: ?

Idiotic, really. Because marriage after all was a political union to bring stability to the land. Arland, I really must agree with the other poster, you're conveniently forgetting canonical information, and warping said information to hash together an inconclusive, and dare say, foolish argument. Please read the SSm's and various other tidbits and then formulate better arguments. Your support of Daemon is acceptable, after all, that is what the OP asked, but please give better reasons.

[7V3N]

I should add, my grandparents had an arranged marriage. They loved each other very much *my grandfather died). She still loves him. Arranged marriages are not rape. At all.

[Arland]

Equating arranged marriages to rape :stillsick: ?

Idiotic, really. Because marriage after all was a political union to bring stability to the land. Arland, I really must agree with the other poster, you're conveniently forgetting canonical information, and warping said information to hash together an inconclusive, and dare say, foolish argument. Please read the SSm's and various other tidbits and then formulate better arguments. Your support of Daemon is acceptable, after all, that is what the OP asked, but please give better reasons.

Did I equate arranged marriages as a concept to rape (as opposed to particular cases of arranged marriages - see for example Dany& Drogo, Sansa& Tyrion if the would have bedded ) ? Where exactly did I do it? It seems to me that if this is the way you understood my posts, either you didn't read them carefully enough or may be I didn't explain myself well enough . Or may be this is an example of "tunnell vision". Of course you don't have to be convinced by my arguments - well i guess I cannot convince everybody. Actually I don't HAVE to do anything at all. I put my arguments out. It was fun enough. if some like them, great. If don't... well so be it.

Shadow Fox

Arranged marriages are not rape. At all.

Of course not. Usually they are not. I think in the beggining of the thread I had long argument with Apple Martini, in which I claimed (perhaps wrongly) that most of arranged marriages were made with willful participation of the married, with children being allowed sometimes to choose among the suitors, attempts being made to arrange marriage so the couple will match well, and cet . (IIRC she claimed that this is a fantasy and most were supposed to "suck it up") What I claim that sometimes arranged marries can be considered as rape , if one of the parties doesn't wish to be married and is forced/pushed into it... What I claim that this particular case of marriage of Daenaris and Prince of Dorne was the forced one, assuming she was lover of Daemon, and wanted to be with him.

[The Drunkard]

Did I equate arranged marriages as a concept to rape (as opposed to particular cases of arranged marriages - see for example Dany& Drogo, Sansa& Tyrion if the would have bedded ) ? Where exactly did I do it? It seems to me that if this is the way you understood my posts, either you didn't read them carefully enough or may be I didn't explain myself well enough . Or may be this is an example of "tunnell vision". Of course you don't have to be convinced by my arguments - well i guess I cannot convince everybody. Actually I don't HAVE to do anything at all. I put my arguments out. It was fun enough. if some like them, great. If don't... well so be it.

Your argument is incredibly flawed. That's why people don't agree with you. It's not tunnel vision, it's not you being smarter than everyone, it's you making a shoddy argument.

[Arland]

i t

Your argument is incredibly flawed. That's why people don't agree with you. It's not tunnel vision, it's not you being smarter than everyone, it's you making a shoddy argument.

It seems to me that your notion that having difference of opinion has anything to do with someone being "smarter" then someone else is wrong, and frankly, (don't take offense please), childish.

We all are different people, born in different environment and shaped by different experiences. We give different values to such concepts as "love", freedom of choice, "good of the country" and cet. Hence natural difference of opinion. What saddens me thou, is when people claim that I make some argument, which I didn't make at all. After all, I don't really care if i convince anybody - i don't get money for it. I like to have a good discussion, and when people don't get to the bottom of your arguments that cannot happen. (as opposite example- my argument with Apple Martini in beginning of this thread led me to do some small research about marriages in Middle Ages,which enriched my knowledge, and I am thankful her for that) Again may be it is my fault and i didn't explain myself well.

[The GRRumbler]

What a troll <_<

[Revan Baratheon]

What a troll <_<

;)

[puenboy]

I honestly think I'd pull a Lysa and hold myself apart from the conflict, keep my bannermen and forces out of the war, and then when the last blade falls use my conserved strength to help the winner and at the sametime help myself to some prime real estate.

So basically act like Walder Frey?

[The Storm Queen]

For me it´s all hail to king Daeron. Why? I do not believe that mighty warriors also make good kings (see: Robert Baratheon). Daeron sounds just fine to me: learned, cautious yet clever enough to appoint people who balance this tendencies such as Bloodraven. I also can see a king like Daemon being more likely to make rash decisions with bad consequences.

As another poster said I also fundamentally doubt that Aegon was able to make good decisions at all and the idea that Daeron is in fact a bastard is just bullshit that highlights Aegon´s ugly nature.

[Talleyrand]

For me it´s all hail to king Daeron. Why? I do not believe that mighty warriors also make good kings (see: Robert Baratheon). Daeron sounds just fine to me: learned, cautious yet clever enough to appoint people who balance this tendencies such as Bloodraven. I also can see a king like Daemon being more likely to make rash decisions with bad consequences.

As another poster said I also fundamentally doubt that Aegon was able to make good decisions at all and the idea that Daeron is in fact a bastard is just bullshit that highlights Aegon´s ugly nature.

Again It was Aerys who made Bloodraven Hand of the King not Daeron, he gave the position to his son

[The Storm Queen]

This is an ultimate excuse for villainy and inactivity in face of injustice. Lets stop this rapist - Leave it be world is not black and white. Lets stop this slaver - Leave it be world is not black and white. World is not black and white , but it is not whole black either. There are more bright and more dark acts. So I support the one that is more bright. He fought for his freedom and freedom of his beloved. And people choose to support his quest for freedom. Suffragets also have fought for THEIR rights and many people suffered in the process. Fighters of independence in US fought for THEIR right. People fighting apartheid fought for THEIR right. This doesn't invalidates their fight. Someone has a right to fight for his right and those who deny his his right are the once who are to blame for the need to fight for something that should be given without any fight. The fact that Jacob loved her means that his was marriage for love - something you have claimed to be a modern notion. As it was proven such notion was not modern but very ancient. Buying Rachel from Lavan is besides the point.

since when exactly suffered people under feminist protests?

Your example are badly chosen because all those people (feminists and anti-Apartheit fighters) fought for real tangible public goods (e.g the right to vote as woman / PoC). Daemon fought for an individual aim, his wish to be together with Danaerys. He did not fight for women´s lib or democratic reform (if he would have done so my position towards him would be rather different)

Concerning Danaerys, we simply do not know enough about her to say what she thought. It looks like that she liked Daemon well enough in her youth. But can we really say if this was a little crush or fling or the never-ending love?Why did she never play a real role in this mess? Where is her voice? I always got the feeling that for Daemon this thing was about him - he was "denied" his love.

[Arland]

since when exactly suffered people under feminist protests?

Your example are badly chosen because all those people (feminists and anti-Apartheit fighters) fought for real tangible public goods (e.g the right to vote as woman / PoC). Daemon fought for an individual aim, his wish to be together with Danaerys. He did not fight for women´s lib or democratic reform (if he would have done so my position towards him would be rather different)

Concerning Danaerys, we simply do not know enough about her to say what she thought. It looks like that she liked Daemon well enough in her youth. But can we really say if this was a little crush or fling or the never-ending love?Why did she never play a real role in this mess? Where is her voice? I always got the feeling that for Daemon this thing was about him - he was "denied" his love.

Suffragettes movement was not always entirely peaceful, it had it's own radicals and included also very "unorderly" protests (few month ago I saw some education program about it I think). Pretty much like most important civil struggles.

You are right, that many of people I have mentioned fought for ideals and public goods, but I think that sometimes a fight for public goods and ideals is born out of a personal struggle against injustice. Suffragettes fought for their own equality too . Workers fighting for workers rights going on strike, fought for their own rights. Sure, Daemon was not on a level of Mandella, but (unless last part of your post is true), he still fought for something right, at least on personal level. (BTW exactly as Robb fought to avenge personal grievance to Stark family)

We really don't know what Daenarys felt about this issue. I think lack of her voice can work either way - may be Daemon had to be HER VOICE for her. Or may be not. In general we lack good and credible information - remember that most things we hear about the rebellion is from the POV of the victors.

To formulate my argument as clearly as possible : In theoretical possibility that Daenerys was forced or even pushed (by use of father authority or unfair influence) into marrying Prince of Dorne inspite her wish to be with Daemon, then Daemon's rebbelion is justified in my eyes.I don't have any argument with people who disagree with me on matter of facts (what Daenarys felt about his marriage).

In the end it comes to this: What would I have done if the person I love was taken away from me and was forced or convinced (by use of unfair influence) to marry someone she/he doesn't love? (assuming that's what happened here) I think I would have acted exactly as Daemon did - used all my resources to free her/him. Would you have acted differently? I am no pacifist - i believe that when I am fighting for my rights, I am allowed to use force, even if it has costs.

[Slurms McKenzie]

As any good history book will tell you, welshman are a very loyal folk!! :D Hardly any rebellions or revolts or anything!! :P So it stand to reason I'd side with the red dragon......also the welsh flag sports a cool-looking red dragon too.....so there you go!! ;)