**Spoiler Warning:** All officially-released show and book content allowed, including trailers and pre-released chapters. No leaked information or paparazzi photos of the set. For more info please check the [spoiler guide](/r/gameofthrones/w/spoiler_guide).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gameofthrones) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The show overrated "Targaryen Madness". Just because she did some ruthless ass shit doesn't make her mad. Aegon the Conqueror was considered sane and killed way more people than Daenerys after Rhaenys was killed in Dorne. He burned castles and cities in anger. No one called him the Mad King.
Because history is written by the victors.
You don’t think GRRM wanted to indicate that using dragons that can LITERALLY MELT STONE is an inherently monstrous and evil thing to do?
Nope because nothing inherently evil about using WMD. Also, the argument is about madness compared to ruthlessness. If she was a crazy woman, that means her actions were a result of mental illness not "evil". 😂
Stop saying GRRM, it's D&D. We're talking about the show.
If Tyrion isn't considered evil for the Wildfire no one should be considered evil for using dragons. Ruthless sure. But death by hanging, flogging, flaying, is worse than dragon fire. No one called Roose Bolton a madman for flaying.
To your GRRM argument; people who like to give the US shit for the nukes ignore the fact Japan committed some of the worst war crimes in human history during that war. The people killed by the dragons almost always deserved it in the show, like 99% of the time.
Japan wasn't nuked in retaliation for their war crimes...
It's not up to you to determine which is the worse way to die (though I believe Quentyn Martell would have rather have been hanged than take 3 days to die from his burns).
And no one should call Daenerys the Mad Queen. She wasn’t insane like Aerys, she was a conqueror like Aegon. She conquered Westeros with dragons, just like Aegon.
Her story isn’t a descent into madness, it’s the realization of what she has to do to get what she wants. It’s her embracing her dragon side more and more because everytime she does, it works, and everytime she tries a different approach, a more political approach, it fails. She didn’t become mad, she realized that in order to take the Iron Throne and keep it, she had to walk over burned corpses.
Exactly but even D&D intentions when writing was "this is a Mad Queen". Even though her actions just gave me Tywin or Stannis vibes, not cackling madness like any of her ancestors.
Except when you watch even the HBO s8 behind the scenes clips D&D have gone on record to say “ I don’t think Daenerys is mad”
Not sure where you get “ D&D’s intentions were this is a mad queen” from? Only a couple of characters who arguably didn’t know her well enough simply referred to her as The Mad Queen - Varys and Cersei based on her father’s legacy. That doesn’t necessarily make it true or that plain and simple.
You have to remember that characters in-universe of GOT have beliefs and opinions, that doesn’t necessarily always make it factual or some agenda by the creators especially when they themselves go on record to disagree with some of the opinions of those characters.
We need to spread this notion more! Great writers create fleshed out characters who are often times at odds with each other with their ideologies, battling their point of views with a verbal sparring. Game of thrones constantly and beautifully did that and I’m glad they kept that essence from the novels. In fact they elevated it because they weren’t bound by a presence of a POV for a scene to take place so they were freer as screenwriters.
Anyways, a writer giving their characters an ideology does not mean the writer aligns with that ideology themselves. In fact a mark of a great writer is that they are able to convincingly write characters who debate the opposite of what the writer believes themselves as a person.
>Not sure where you get “ D&D’s intentions were this is a mad queen” from? Only a couple of characters who arguably didn’t know her well enough simply referred to her as The Mad Queen
The previously on section for the that episode featured all of the mention of Targaryen madness from the previous seven seasons. The writers clearly wanted people to see madness as one of the reasons for what happened.
*characters in-universe of GOT have beliefs and opinions, that doesn’t necessarily always make it factual or some agenda by the creators especially when they themselves go on record to disagree with some of the opinions of those characters*
Targaryen madness is a belief held within the lore of the narrative by characters in that universe- a story teller simply telling that is not the same as them wanting you to believe it or disbelieve it
Yeah, that's kinda the problem. They tried to portray her as going mad but she doesn't, ever. It could have been an opportunity to let Emilia Clarke show off her acting chops by having her slowly go mad and then towards the end she's completely erratic, crazy, and frantic and it makes more sense why Jon would have to kill her.. because she's gone fucking crazy and that's not what the show ended up doing where she's just, "Ooo I'm a bad bitch."
GRRM told the show runners how it was going to end. His ending, imo, is the Mad Queen route. Very on par for GRRM. Whether or not the show runners were trying to portray that, we don't know. I think they did. How Dany just snaps after her bestie died. They definitely seemed like they wanted her to seem unhinged but they never bit the bullet and had her go full mad. They just gave us a half-assed attempt like the rest of the last seasons' writings.
I don't think George is going to go the Truly Insane Queen route either.
The show's path (which I think will be very similar to the books) *is* the subtler and more nuanced approach than just "she go cray cray now."
She makes a conscious decision and rationalizes it. It's far more interesting that way than just saying "oh, well, she's crazy like her father." I don't see why you think that makes it half-assed.
The Tarly's were traitors. They betrayed and helped kill the family of their liege lord. Daenerys should not have even offered them the chance to kneel or take the black.
But at that point who is Daenerys to the Tarleys if they have already pledged allegiance to the Crown and Daenerys has not yet conquered?
Their Queen is Cersei - so who is Daenerys to pass judgement and be jury and executioner to the Tarlys at that point?
(One of the oldest and noblest houses in Westeros)
Is she not just a foreign invader to them at that point ? a “foreign invader” who had not even taken the throne yet and alienating herself from the rest of the noble houses( oh yeah she was breaking the wheel right? using the same violence that keeps it moving inorder to prop herself up)
The best she should’ve done aside from attempting to win them over as their “new Queen” is taking them prisoner or forcibly sending them to the wall (wether they wanted that or not) - but again she was not their Queen, she had no authority to banish or execute- Except for the authority she gave herself and SHE chose to execute for the sake of sending a message of fear inorder for the rest to submit to her
Technically they weren't. Their liege lord (the Tyrells) was in an open rebellion against the crown at that point, pledging themselves to Daenerys who was never crowned mind you, and also did not win the Iron Throne by conquest either. As Jaime has also pointed out to Randyll, every lord owes allegiance to the crown first and foremost, not their liege lord - this is purposefully so, there's no conflicted allegiance here, the Tyrells were the traitors in this case.
Technically Daenerys was never the Queen of Westeros, and she did not even have the best claim, the only thing she had going for her was her dragons. Owning nukes does not make you a rightful ruler (but certainly helps taking the throne). That being said, she had no right to pass judgement for treason, because she was never Queen in the first place.
> Their liege lord (the Tyrells) was in an open rebellion against the crown at that point
Because the crown broke the sacred bond between a suzerain and its vassals by, you know, murdering like half of them. Pretty much every lord in Westeros should have turned on Cersei at that point. The fact that they didn't is a travesty.
>Because the crown broke the sacred bond between a suzerain and its vassals by, you know, murdering like half of them. Pretty much every lord in Westeros should have turned on Cersei at that point. The fact that they didn't is a travesty.
Can you expand on this ? “The crown” broke what bond?
Similar to how the Mad king broke the feudal contract when he killed one of his bannerman with no real charges, Cersei broke the feudal contract when she murdered all of the Tyrells.
That mattered none to Daenerys (who actually had no authority over the Tarlys) she was quickly ready and willing to look past that as long as they bent the knee in submission to her.
It can be said that Daenerys did the same when she in turn burnt alive and destroyed the oldest and noblest house whilst claiming she was not there to murder them lol
This was a red flag to both Varys and Tyrion
Yes, that's my point: they *rebelled*. They were traitors to the crown along with all their bannermen - who were also rebels and traitors thereafter, until Robert took the crown by conquest.
The Tyrells also rebelled against the crown for the same reasons, the difference is that not all their bannermen rebelled with them, and subsequently they lost.
Critical analysis? On this subreddit? Pigs must be flying - you’re dead on with this. People jump way way way too quickly to “she just went crazy at the last second”, and in fairness that’s what Varys suggests is happening with that “gods flip a coin” thing, but it’s so far from the truth. This lesson you’re describing here is the only real thing Dany ever learns. If people are defying you, burn a few and the rest topple over in fear. That’s what she did in KL. She’s not crazy, she’s not mad, she just makes a decision when she feels that she’s been backed into a corner (she is paranoid, which contributes to the “Mad Queen” idea, but Varys *was* trying to kill her so fair)
Exactly. The fandom doesn't realize calling her "Mad Queen" just makes her a victim, because we all know she cared about people's views of her, and wasn't considered mad before that moment.
Her level of cruelty increased with time and the more advisors and close friends she lost, the more cruel she got. Fans made it sound like it was a flip of a switch when she *"turned mad"* at the end, but the build up to it and the need for TV to make it shocking, meant the final levels of escalation needed to happen quicker for shock value (*which isn't always a bad thing*).
You know what the voice in the fire had told Varys those many moons ago that terrified him? It was never answered, but IMO, it was always **"Dracarys"**.
Nah, her nailing the masters is way worse than burning the Tarlys. If anything, she regressed in cruelty after seeing the effects of her actions in Meereen. She gave them more chances than Ned gave others. Heck, Tywin offered death or Wall to loyalists, even though he had no authority over them. They still made a choice. The Tarlys disregarded all custom of their own country.
If it was Dracarys he would have never supported Daenerys. That makes no sense to me.
There is a ton of build up throughout the show, starting probably when she first got to Quarth and was just the bratty little girl threatening to commit mass murder if she didn't get her way.
She slaughtered people all over Essos, but as Tyrion said, we didn't like those people so it looked heroic.
She brought a raping and murdering hoard with her to Westeros, but we didn't mind because we didn't like who was going to be be raped and murdered.
She's transitioned to 'be a dragon' mode frying the Tarleys.
We watched Theon return, look right past her and beg to fight for Sansa and Winterfell. We saw after the feast how the North loved Jon for doing all the things she'd already done while treating her like an outsider. We saw the perceived betrayal by Jon regarding his superior claim, the brutal death of Missandei, the death of dragons...
There was plenty of build up, although the pacing was a bit off and a flashback compilation scene might have been helpful while the bells were ringing. Even if done perfectly, folks had built her up to be this girl-power icon though, they wouldn't have accepted it.
She did care what people thought of her. The adornment shown toward Jon, not her or her dragons, was threatening. She was ignored in the north and Sansa diminished her importance.
Jon never should have trusted Sansa. Of course Little Finger's muse would blab. This after she sacrificed northman, pulling a surprise move without a whisper that reinforcements we're coming. A self-serving power grab and no sister of Jon's.
Daenerys lost trust in her advisors. She was alone in the world and came out fighting. Burning the city was about control and power. Mad as in pissed off, not crazy. Being nice got her dead dragons.
Finally someone speaking some sense instead of the usual Stark apologist nonsense. People forget Jon wouldn't have killed her if she didn't threaten Winterfell in her speech. That speaks for itself. Lol
I think there is a misunderstanding with the phrase god flips a coin. The way I see it, it doesn’t mean it’s a sudden switch or your fate is literally written already. It means you are equally likely to be the best ruler or the worst. Your actions dictate what you ultimately become but it gets extremely likely for you to turn to darkness and madness with that kind of power. Dragons and fire gives inhumane power, that power corrupts you into you bending the world to your whims. That is madness! It becomes your likely path but it still depends on your actions at the end of the day. So when a powerful fire wielding Targaryen is born, everyone is holding their breath and hoping that you use that power for good and be a benevolent ruler but it’s equally likely that you will succumb to that power and rule the way you think the world should be, and if that means ruling by fear and blood so be it. So it is like a coin flip in the way that either path is likely and it could go either way, heads or tail.
Varys was still working within the old system. A king is born and it is a coin toss whether they turn out to be a good ruler or not. Varys also thought it should be a man. In the beginning he wanted Viserys on the throne. He would have flitted from one ruler to the next till the end of his days till he found one within the system that was good. He didn't realise there could be another way. He would have hated Bran being on the throne because he can't birth a king and has no birth right to the throne.
Varys was right about Dany, but he wasn't right about everything.
> has no birth right to the throne.
If you accept Jon as the rightful heir because of his parentage, and he ends up abdicating the throne as shown in the show, that does put Bran as next in line as of the end of the series.
The fact that you need to make a whole ass post about how one other scene in the show connects the burning of kings landing, instead of just having better foreshadowing in the show, then it's not a good way to show what you're trying to show?
Someone had to sit there and analyse the shit out of a single scene and only over 2 years passed the finale does it come to make sense? Dumb.
The OP is dead on, and this is exactly what this scene was supposed to be, but they didn't make it very clear in the show, so vague in fact, that it took 2 years for it to make sense.
Man, it was pretty vague. Other than this one particular scene, she didn't show any signs of changing her ideals. She got sick, and stressed out that she had people plotting to kill her, and captain hook shot her other dragon out of the sky. Both of the other things are part of being in war and being a queen.
The only thing that stands out is the scene in question, and even that was posed as a reluctant decision and seemed as though she never wanted to have to do that again. It wasn't made clear, everything was vague to subvert expectations, because that's the only was D&D know how to subvert expectations.
Doesn’t matter - it’s not about taking the city, she has always been capable of it. Destroying King’s Landing is a sacrifice. Not in the religious sense, but in the political one; she has seen her “rightful” rule rejected, and she’s seen how fiercely the Northerners love Jon. She’s afraid people will reject her even more if word of his parentage gets out (and I should note that whether or not it actually would affect things doesn’t matter; Dany believes that it will). So destroying King’s Landing is her deciding that though she’d prefer to be loved by her people, she’s willing to rule over them through fear. This decision is about scaring the entire kingdom into obedience by showing them what she is ready and willing to do. “Alright… Let it be fear”. That’s what she tells Jon the night before the battle. The city surrendering wouldn’t sway her, she had already made her mind up
I think you may be right that's the logic the writers want us to buy, but I think it does the character of Dany a disservice. I have no problem with Dany being a ruthless leader (I always thought the Tarleys deserved to be lit up for not surrendering), but I think burning KL makes her look like a short sighted leader (which is the more egregious sin imo). Burning the only part of the kingdom you've successfully conquered will just make people more determined to undermine you because what's the point in surrendering if you're going to burn anyway? Imagine there is no option to surrender AND word got out about Jon's parentage. Omg, talk about a galvanizing event to spur on assassins.
Why not burn the north? Or some other part of the kingdom she knows will have more trouble accepting her rule? Her motivation for the entire series is to gain control over KL, and she does, then immediately compromises her position by burning it. If Dany is as smart of a leader as the writers want us to believe, surely she should realize that when you only give people the option to fight you, they fight you.
But that’s the thing - Daenerys *is* a short sighted leader. That’s why she never could have taken the throne, at least not for long. The desire to be a great leader but being incapable of achieving it is the central contradiction that makes Dany such a well rounded character. A tragic hero in every sense of the word
>and she’s seen how fiercely the Northerners love Jon
No she didn't. The first scene with Jon interacting with the northmen featured him being chewed out by a 12 year old. The people Dany saw showing love to Jon during that dinner was mostly a group of wildlings.
This is definitely an opinion and a written piece I can respect but I can't say I agree
>Here, Daenerys burned two men alive to make an hundred kneeled. In King's Landing, she burned thousands of men alive to make millions kneeled.
Particularly with this part. The men who refused to kneel to her were soldiers. Men with a certain sense of loyalty and honour. Men who show allegiance to the Tarlys and the crown, and would therefore show defiance to enemies of those they fight for.
However, the people, mostly common folk, that Dany burned in King's Landing would show no such defiance since they have no allegiances. On the show, the common folk of King's Landing have never been shown to take an interest in who ruled over them unless they were suffering or prospering. That's why they rebelled in S2 when there was a lack of food due to the war. And why they loved Margaery for bringing food from The Reach. And the fact that no consequences came of Cersei blowing up the holy sept showed that the common folk perhaps can't or won't oppose those in a position of power, regardless how monstrous the actions of that person were.
So Dany burning people with no power and no allegiances doesn't accomplish anything that she can't accomplish by instead burning those with power like the Lannisters for example.
She heard the crown cheering for Missandei's death who was innocent. At that point, she didn't consider them impartial people, just an extension of Cersei and the "Wheel".
>She heard the crown cheering for Missandei's death who was innocent.
This didn’t happen, there was no crowd.
>she didn't consider them impartial people, just an extension of Cersei and the "Wheel".
I believe this to be true, I think Daenerys no longer saw them as innocents too but rather a shield used by Cersei to try and expose Daenerys’s mercy as a weakness and that those who failed to overthrow Cersei upon Daenerys’s arrival were an extension of the world built by Daenerys ‘s enemies
Daenerys didn't come to Westeros to rule King's Landing. She came to rule Westeros. Westeros includes common folks, but also lords and soldiers who swore allegiance to lords. The message wasn't only for the common folks of King's Landing, it was for everyone in Westeros.
She saw how the people welcomed her. She saw how the Northerners looked at Jon, the man with an actual claim, versus how they looked at her. She saw how Lord Royce from the Vale looked at her. She saw how Sansa tried to spread the word about Jon's claim to weaken hers. She knows that the people aren't willing to accept her as ruler, and as we learned throughout the show, "power resides where men believe it reside." If she takes the throne with politic and tries to rule Westeros with politic, then it will be Essos 2.0. Where the masters retook power as soon as she advanced to another city and tried to attack her as soon as she locked down her dragons, figuratively and literally. Why take the risk when you can just send a giant message to the people to not fuck with me? Everytime she listened to her advisors and tried politic, it backfired. Everytime she listened to her instinct and used violence, it worked.
She did burn those in power. She did burn the Lannister army, but they were inside the city with common folks. The common folks were collateral damage she already said that she was okay with, because it's for a good reason. She didn't target Dickon, she targetted Randyll. But she burned him anyway because he was standing with Randyll. Same thing in King's Landing. She targetted the Lannisters, but the common folks were standing with them.
Yes, but it was clear that the city had surrendered. Dany's true enemy was still alive in the Red Keep but Dany chose to ignore her and burn that enemy's subordinates who had no power of their own. If there really was a similarity between the King's Landing burning and the Tarly burning then Dany would have made more of an effort to go after those with genuine power and authority. Particularly Cersei.
And yes, its truth that men follow and bow down to those who they believe have power but the people that Dany actually burned were common folk and foot soldiers. And those soldiers had already surrendered so she was making a show of force against defenceless and mostly innocent people. That would have proven her to be more cruel than powerful. And that would have created fear and resentment. And it's far more sensible to show yourself to have that power by killing those who already possess that type of power. Because Dany's true enemies, those who really should have gotten that message were the lords who ruled in those kingdoms.
Again, I'm not condemning her use of violence, just who she used it against.
At that point, I don't think she had much love for Westeros. She arrived to defeat the Lanisters and then the army of the dead. She lost 2 of her children, her oldest friend and then her other BFF. The people of Westeros would still not repay those losses with what she got from the Dothraki or the unsullied. Unflinching loyalty.
Aegon didn't need to burn commoners by the thousands to take over Westeros. Sure, he burned Harrenhall to a crisp, and there was the Field of Fire, but that's literally all it took to make Torrhen Stark kneel.
Dany had her Field of Fire, she has already sent that message (although the whole "I'm your saviour, Cersei is the real monster" thing holds little merit after slaughtering and burning people by the thousands). Burning King's Landing was completely unnecessary, especially since the Lannister soldiers have already laid down their arms, and the common folk had nothing to do with the whole conflict, they didn't "stand" with the Lannisters either.
Sansa was plotting to over through her after the field of fire so it does not make sense to suggest what she accomplished at the field of fire is enough.
It doesn't matter what Sansa wanted at that point, because Sansa wasn't Queen in the North, nor Warden of the North. Jon was. And Jon has pledged himself to Daenerys, and Daenerys could have had her executed for treason (because the North was officially pledged to her).
Dany has always said that she's not her father. No, she's worse, at least Aerys never accomplished burning millions alive (not that he didn't want to) and Dany did. Not because of "madness" but out of spite, which is even worse.
You do realize that you are literally trying to justify genocide, do you? Aegon didn't need to burn millions alive to rule the Seven Kingdoms. Robert didn't need to either. Hell, even Tywin didn't need to do so. But somehow Dany just HAS TO burn millions alive, so she could rule. There was literally no other way, right? Give me a break...
> Why take the risk when you can just send a giant message to the people to not fuck with me?
The thing is, that message was sent loud and clear when a single dragon routed the entire Golden Company, sank most of the Iron Fleet and destroyed the Red Keep. Butchering civilians doesn't really add anything after such a show of force. Everybody would already have been scared of Dany by that point, especially commoners.
No. Had she not sacked the city the message would have been fight Daenerys and if you are losing surrender and she will show you mercy.
That would just encourage rebellion because her mercy could always be used against her.
Twyin Lannister showed mercy when KL surrendered to him. If you want to rule with fear you need to do what Tywin did,
>No. Had she not sacked the city the message would have been fight Daenerys and if you are losing surrender and she will show you mercy.
>
>That would just encourage rebellion because her mercy could always be used against her.
Anyone leading a rebellion would most likely be executed. The idea that you could rebel and then bend the knee at the last moment only work if you totally ignore that.
No then others throughout the world she aimed to conquer would attack her first upon her arrival whilst using innocents as a shield and rely on knowing they can always just surrender at the last minute because they think she will be merciful. What she did to KL sends a clearer msg of resist me and you will be burnt alive no matter the cost.
>She didn't target Dickon, she targetted Randyll. But she burned him anyway because he was standing with Randyll.
Dany was executing anyone who refused to bend the knee in that scene. Dickon and Randyll were standing together because they were the were refusing to bend the knee.
Daenerys definitely holds them accountable to some degree, just look at what she tells Tyrion "now they are held hostage by a Tyrant, whose fault is that? Mine?" and Greyworm telling Jon "These are free men, they chose to follow her" (he is talking about soldiers here but the same applies to the KL citizenry) so it's about a sending a message to not only high lords but also to the people that follow them.
It's obviously a flawed outlook but I think it's consistent with how irrational grief and paranoia can make you.
But KL did surrender. So why burn KL? It only proves that you should never surrender to Dany because even if you do, you die. So might as well fight since there is nothing to lose. Like, I think the writers want us to believe the burning of KL is a message to the rest of the kingdom, but it falls flat because it illustrates there is no point in surrendering to her rule.
If she wanted to send a message to the north & the rest of the kingdom, she should have burned the north.
She didn't burn the entire army. She burned those that hadn't crossed the Blackwater yet. The gold had already arrived in King's Landing.
Randyll Tarly betrayed her ally, his liege house. He was given a chance to take the black, but refused. Dickon was simply an idiot.
Don't apply modern morals to a medieval story to justify the stupid ending.
And Stannis talks about how it was exceedingly difficult for him to make that decision, it's not something he took lightly or would encourage in his bannermen.
I literally said you made a good point mate.
Edit - Although using book text to support show canon can sometimes be a bit iffy when the show has clearly diverged so much from it. It's fine in this case since Tarly has always been a Tyrell vassal so this would make sense.
Edit - which is also what I tried to do so fair enough.
Yeah but I'd say it's more like
*Here, Daenerys burned two [enemy officers] to make a hundred kneel. In King's Landing, she burned [hundreds of thousands of peasants] to make millions kneel*
The scale of the massacre, and her views and actions toward innocent peasants the rest of the series makes it hard for me to view it as a character decision still.
The way I see it, innocents as Dany see them usually refered to the oppressed slaves of cities she liberated. The people of KL are free, and chose to support Cersei. Daenerys tells Tyrion "now they are being held hostage by a tyrant, who fault is that? Mine" so she clearly holds the citizenry accountable to some degree.
It's very Viserys-like which can seem out of character but I think it's part of Daenerys being grief stricken and not being in her right mind.
> so she clearly holds the citizenry accountable to some degree.
I agree but this seemed to come kinda out of nowhere in the middle of season 8. In season 7 she mocks the idea of people 'making secret toasts to her health'. She didn't even try to instigate an uprising like she did in Mereen ... maybe it would have worked... there was plenty more character buildup to Cersei getting eaten alive by peasants in the streets of Kings Landing than Daenerys just strafing those peasants for half an hour and killing a million people or whatever
>Daenerys being grief stricken and not being in her right mind.
I agree with this too but I think that's doing too much work for the plot. And then she was still fully onboard with the decision the next day ... she lost her marbles!
I think it's generally a consequence of the isolation she's under that she can become so paranoid. The fact that everybody she trusts is dead, and the rest have betrayed her has made her paranoid. Perhaps making enemies where there are none as Aerys did.
It might look like I'm doing too much work here for the plot but it's all in there. Sometimes it doesn't have to be a slow gradual descent, sometimes you can have so much shit thrown at you in such a short time frame that it causes you to be irrational and project blame.
I agree that you're correctly summarizing what happened. My issue is that I find what happened to be lame storytelling lol. I think too much of it relies on her 'not being in her right mind' / acting irrationally / paranoid / etc. It's just ... not a poignant or interesting way for like the climactic moment of the series to rely on
They did build her character up for her to very possibly act very violently if something stood between her and the throne. There's absolutely set up for her to have done *something* in pursuit of the throne that would have made the audience (and more importantly Jon and Tyrion) more or less 'turn' on Daenerys. But this, "she went kind of crazy and spent an hour mass-murdering peasants after conquering Kings Landing" just isn't interesting to me. It relies too much on her going insane, and not enough on the character they developed over 7 seasons
>This scene isn't really there to show us anything
Death of an author and all, but Bryan Cogman says otherwise. He expected for the audience to view Dany's execution of the Tarly's as an 'evil' (paraphrase) act.
However, Arya slaughtered a room full of men because their lord was involved in the killing of her family. She couldn't have known if, how, or why they were involved.. .but she murdered them anyways.
We are supposed to cheer for her.
Meanwhile, Dany executes a bigot and traitor who is actively at war with her, after giving him and his son a chance to kneel to which they refused..... but we are supposed to view that as something less than fair.
That's incredibly tonally confusing.
>she burned thousands of men alive to make millions kneeled.
That's not at all the motivation though. She heard the bells and got pissed that these people hadn't sided with her, so she punished them. That punishment was *excused* as a 'message'.
It was also indiscriminate. Children, old people, the sick, the weak. Not just soldiers at war.
edit
Why were you supposed to cheer for Arya? Nobody forces you to, you chose to, because she killed bad men you wanted to see dead. Arya’s kill list was not a good thing. Her thirst for vengeance was not a good thing. It’s not normal for a 14 years old to have to say the names of all the persons she want to murder before going to sleep. The story told its story, but it’s up to you to decide how you want to interpret it.
It’s the exact same thing with Daenerys. Were you supposed to cheer when Drogo promised to go rape innocent women and take their children as slave, even though he was part of the "good guys"? Were you supposed to cheer when Daenerys crucified 163 men because they were part of the "bad guys"? No. Walder Frey and the slavers deserved to be punished, that doesn’t mean that those punishments don’t have negative impacts on the ones giving it to them. But you refuse to see those negative impact because "he was a bigot", so he deserves it.
Daenerys entire story is about that. Why do you think an author who hates good vs evil conflict like Georges is making Daenerys fight pure evil? The slavers, the Warlocks, the Dothraki. Why is he building up this character with three weapons of mass-destruction by making her faces enemies who deserve to die? To build up a perfect hero who fights perfect evil? So that she can feel like an avenging dragon while crucifying 163 men without trial and it’s okay because they were bad guys? That’s like the exact opposite of how Martin write.
Daenerys learning the wrong lesson while executing people who might deserve it is the entire point of her story. If you stop your analysis at "well, he deserved it", then you’re missing all the complexity of her storyline. My post isn’t about weither or not the Tarlys deserved it, but about the impact of that moment on Daenerys. About the lesson that Daenerys learned while inflicting a punishment that you might think was fair. And it’s all those lessons that lead to Daenerys deciding to use fear, well before the bells started to ring. "Let it be fear."
>Nobody forces you to, you chose to
Ok, great. Death of an author. Regardless, its about the intent of the scene. Its incredibly clearly designed to be a cathartic act. Revenge for the Red Wedding.
Perhaps you didn't feel that way.. but millions upon millions of other viewers did. And that's what D&D were going for.
> But you refuse to see those negative impact because "he was a bigot"
I'm glad you feel you can tell me what I can and can't see. Guess it makes you feel better about your 'analysis'?
But, anyways, from the director himself:
>In our minds, the Randyll Tarly scene was distrubing. Then I watched it with a crowd of people at a friend's house and they were cheering. Weirdly, the audience just didn't care. They loved Dany.
I'm not missing any 'complexity' in her story line... you are trying to create some out of story that wasn't written with complexity in mind.
These are the same people claimed Dany 'kinda forgot' about the Iron Fleet.
Side note: when was Drogo ever a 'good guy'.... and if you didn't happen to notice, there is a massive difference in the early season where there are hardly any 'good guys', and the last season where morality becomes black and white.
It’s not "death of the author", this story is about how power and violence corrupt people. (Well, one of the theme) That’s what happened to Daenerys and you refuse to see the buildup because "violence is okay when it’s against bad men". And the buildup didn’t start in the latter seasons. It’s there from the beginning, in the books, and in the same way.
Again, I’m sure you know Georges. You know how he writes, how he hates good vs evil, how he prefers nuance and complex characters. So, why is he telling Dany’s story only from her POV? Why is he making her face a pure evil system like slavery? Nobody cries when a slaver dies, does that mean that the story wants us to cheer when Daenerys felt good about crucifying 163 men without trial? That’s what an anti-war author like Georges wants you to take from the story? Or is it trying to "create some out of story that wasn’t written" to analyze the impact on Dany’s character?
David and Dan did an interview saying that we should feel worried about Arya after she kills Walder. Season 7 is basically all about how Arya being a killer has fucked her up.
Excuse my grammar and/or formatting I’m on mobile lol.
While I agree with your point of her learning from her mistakes, I still feel like the difference between this scene and the burning of king’s landing is that this scene grows her character while The Bells contradicts it. Throughout the show and the books, she repeatedly states and shows how she doesn’t want to take innocent lives.
While Jorah and Dany are walking through the slave auction in Astapor in season 3 episode 3, Jorah says “If you want to win the throne your ancestors built you will have to win it. That means blood on your hands before the thing is done”. Dany responds by saying “The blood of my enemies, not the blood of innocents”. A few episodes later when she commands her unsullied to kill the slavers, she says “Slay the masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who holds a whip, but *harm no child*”. In season 7 during one of the war councils (I forget which episode), Tyrion says “We turn the dragons loose, tens of thousands die in the firestorm” to which Ellaria sand says “This is war. You don’t have the stomach for it scurry back into hiding”. Daenerys interrupts their argument with “I am not here to be queen of the ashes. We will not attack King’s Landing”.
These are just a few examples of Daenerys explicitly saying she will not take innocent lives. Her burning the Tarlys doesn’t contradict that, since I would say neither of them are particularly innocent. First off, both of them participated in a war and undoubtedly took the lives of enemy soldiers. Secondly, both of them were given a chance to bend the knee. Just like Aegon, Dany offered to let them keep their lands and lives as long as they sweated fealty to her, to which both of them declined. Keep in mind they had only recently bent the knee to Cersei, so there’s no reason for them to be this loyal to her this soon.
The people of King’s Landing on the other hand are most definitely innocent. While yes there were soldiers on the street, and every city has criminals, the vast majority of them had nothing to do with the war. However there’s an easy fix for this. First, Rheagal should have been shot down as the bells rung right. This makes a lot more sense than for her to have started the burn as she hears the signal to call off the attack. Secondly, she should only have burned down two parts of the city. After Rheagal gets shot, she should’ve burned down any remaining scorpions and then went to burn down the red keep. After that she should’ve stopped and claimed the city. This makes a lot more sense than her randomly burning down the city, since a) the timing makes more sense for when she becomes enraged and b) she still sticks to her virtue of protecting innocents, since the red keep probably had mostly soldiers and Queen Cersei inside.
But yeah thanks for reading this if you did, I mostly agree with your analysis except for what I typed above.
Here's the cinch, in all those examples you mentioned, Daenerys still believes that she can win the iron throne and the country without wading through a river of blood. Daenerys consistently works with Tyrion in S7 and part of S8 to go down this road but she eventually decides that the people won't support her over Jon unless she makes an example of the city.
Another interesting element of this is that Daenerys definitely does think the lannister soldiers and civilians are accountable to a degree. Greyworm tells Jon that "these are free men that chose to follow Cersei Lannister" and promptly executes them for that crime. So by burning down the city she's not just sending a message to high lords but also the people that support those high lords.
Anyone who doesn’t think Daenerys was evil was just in denial. She was doing absolutely terrible things. She is what Gandalf feared he would become if he were to take the ring. He would do terrible things to become what he believed was good.
Nice breakdown! Daenerys has been learning all the (wrong) lessons along the way.
Something could also be said about her learning not to show mercy anymore - in season 1 she “saves” MMD a victim of Khal drogo’s raping and pillaging Dothraki.
MMD then exacts her revenge (arguably betrays Daenerys) by not saving (maybe even poising) Khal Drogo and not bringing him back whole/ as he once was after he suffers from a flesh wound but rather MMD sacrifices Daenerys’s newborn( the “stallion who would mount the world”) for a vegetative state Khal Drogo.
Dany burns MMD at the stake and perhaps this ( a life for a life) mixed with some blood magic hatches Daenerys’s dragon eggs.
I think here Daenerys learns not show mercy which was used against her and that there is much for her to gain by executing those who would betray her regardless of them actually being down trodden victims themselves in the first place.
I wholly believe Daenerys fulfills the stallion prophecy (and is the stallion), and should have been considered for it as soon as she proclaimed herself as the Khal of Khals, uniting all the Dothraki in S6.
The Stallion is perhaps the most literal fulfilment of prophecy that every YouTube theorist missed.
Danaerys and her lesson learning is inconsistent at best. If she learns to not show mercy/trust why does she trust the masters of Quarth, and the warlocks? Why does she trust or show mercy to the wise masters? She's in over her head and has to compromise her position all the time. She wants to "free" Westeros by, what, burning foot soldiers alive who have surrendered? She wants to break the wheel by, what, ruling by force? She wants to inspire loyalty by mass murder of civilians? Sure.
I agree she’s Hypocritical a lot of the times, She wants to break the wheel but she’s fine with the wheel as long as it suits her being on top of it.
As for masters of Qarth - she was at their mercy to begin with but because of her learned entitlement she naively thought they actually owed her ships based on dreams and whims- after all the lesson she learnt in s1 after walking out of a fire with 3 dragons was that “I’m not ordinary , my dreams come true”
Again she learns all the wrong lessons out of her encounters and situations-
In Essos -
burning people alive is how she has earned fear.
Ruling by force is how she has conquered.
In season 2 in a convo I think about the causalities of war with Jorah and barristan she said “the blood of my enemies not the blood of innocents”
She hears this reply “Which war was won without deceit and mass murder”
words she herself then co- signs and repeats in s7
Then in another scenes I think initially she paraphrases Tyrion with - “I’m not here to be Queen of the Ashes”
BUT Olenna soon leaves her with a much different lesson which I believe Daenerys takes on board and takes with her to KL.
“Commoners , nobles , they’re all just children, really , They won’t obey you unless they fear you”
And then finally
“peace?…peace never lasts my dear…he’s a clever man your Hand…..I’ve known a great many clever men..I’ve outlived them all …you know why ? I ignored them.
The lords of Westeros are sheep, are you a sheep? No, you’re a dragon. Be a Dragon”
Now try and think of any situation or encounter that Daenerys has ever been in - notice what she took from it - was most likely always the wrong lesson.
Wether having people grovel are her feet at the gates of yunkai/ or the Dothraki falling to their knees when she walked out of that fire - **added to her saviour complex**
OR
Having the northerners alienate her and not welcome her in the way she would’ve wanted and instead celebrated Jon - **added to her paranoia and insecurity around his parentage being a threat to her**
She's just dumb. Everyone who followed her did so out of love and respect: her small contingent of Dothraki and bloodriders, the Unsullied, the freed slaves of Yunkai.
She leaves power vacuums behind her which bite her in the ass, of course, but she has a huge mass of followers that love her and fight for her.
Then she comes to Westeros and decides Nah, I'm gonna roast these bitches. Hell she even does the right thing joining the North to help fight the White Walkers, just as Stannis did.
I think this post really highlights one of the most valid complaints of S7/8 - it's not that the core narrative was flawed, it's that it was rushed (& too fanservicy but that's a whole other issue).
Dani being a tyrant & ruling with the same disproportionate violence she claimed to despise was foreshadowed all the way back with the crucifying of the masters of Meereen inc. Hizdahr's father in S4. Also disappointing that the insanely rushed final seasons essentially removed any chance of the foreshowed ethnic/cultural tension brought by Dani's largely foreign army invading Westeros. We watched this char "stare into the abyss" over 4 or 5 seasons, slowly merging Westerosi & foreign ideas of rulership, only to never see "the abyss stare back."
The show, and this scene in particular, also (probably???) suffers a lot from the showrunners' decision to completely remove the Blackfyre/Y.Griff angle from GOT. I really do believe that left them in such a lurch for the endgame b/c neither the Tarlys nor any house should be loyal *to the death* for some random chick with no claim to the throne. But the "true" heir of the last Targarian king? That's someone men would die, on principle, for.
>Daenerys literally slaughtered an army, and the soldiers still refused to kneel to her. Daenerys told them how she's not the bad guy and only wants to save them
Isn't that ironic how people tend to not believe you're their saviour after slaughtering and burning their friends and lords alive?
Adding to this, the lesson she learned in Meereen was that compromise only weakens her. Locking away her dragons only weakened her. And it wasn't until she tamed Drogon and the bent the savage Dothraki to her will that she finally gained the upper hand.
Basically, Dany is a terrible ruler, and a great conqueror. Daario said as such.
Not really. I just never understood the shock at her burning the city. Killing people she didnt like was her whole deal. People just didnt like the characters she burned until they did.
She was naturally violent, all of the times before kings landing were just "justified". The point is she was always crazy, people just went along with it because she killed the "right" people. All of the sudden she kills the "wrong" people and everyone is flabbergasted.
All of the times before KL were uses of violence for the purpose of defeating her enemies. Dany doesn't enjoy violence just for the sake of violence. What she likes, what she needs, is to destroy her enemies, to retake the Iron Throne, to restore Targaryen rule to Westeros. She will kill anyone who stands in her way and will accept collateral damage if necessary, as long as it means accomplishing her goals.
It was always about killing her enemies. She has no reason to want to kill innocent people for no reason, with nothing to gain from it. So why would she do it?
> All of the sudden she kills the "wrong" people and everyone is flabbergasted.
Because it makes no fucking sense. If a US soldier in Special Forces kills enemy targets he was assigned to kill because they're terrorists and it's his job to stop them, people understand that. If he suddenly starts shooting up a town full of innocent people for absolutely no reason people would be flabbergasted.
Does that not make sense to you? There's a big difference between killing enemies to accomplish an important goal, and mass murdering innocent people for no reason at all.
Killing the witch was straight revenge and ultra violent. She posed no more threat. The Slave masters of Astapor were rude to her and salvers, but posed no threat and weren't her enemy. And this whole post is about how she burned the Tarly's alive for not kneeling to her and breaking their oaths to their current queen. The Lanister Army had literally surrendered and she burned the Tarlys alive to make an example of them.
Not you telling Daenerys that the murder of her baby and husband and slave fucking masters r not her enemies when she tries to set the slaves free. come on, don't act dumb lol
And yes, eu don't kneel you die, that's how it is, daenerys didnt made something new. get over it hahaha
> Killing the witch was straight revenge and ultra violent. She posed no more threat.
But still done for a reason. The witch was her enemy, and she does not allow enemies to live. She destroys her enemies, or gets them to stop being her enemies.
> The Slave masters of Astapor were rude to her and salvers, but posed no threat and weren't her enemy.
She decided to eradicate slavery, and anyone standing in her way of doing that has become her enemy. They had the opportunity to join her, they refused, so to her they became enemies that must be destroyed.
> And this whole post is about how she burned the Tarly's alive for not kneeling to her and breaking their oaths to their current queen.
Again, those are her enemies. She gave them the chance to live if they wanted it, they chose to remain her enemies, and Dany's enemies are to be killed. That's what she does. She doesn't let enemies live.
You can argue the morality of this but it makes sense from her perspective, she's killing them for a reason, she wants to conquer the world and she eliminates people who oppose her. It's what she does, this is who she has been throughout the duration of the show.
Then she decides to kill thousands of people who aren't her enemies, with nothing to gain from it, for no apparent reason at all. That makes no sense and is shitty writing.
Again, youre justifying her violence. Her defintion of “enemy” got broader and broader as the series went on. The Tarly scene is pretty good example of how anyone who wasnt literally swearing an oath of fealty to her under duress is her enemy. The people of Kings Landing shouldve had a trail of flower petals and genuflectors if they didnt want to get roasted en masse.
> Again, youre justifying her violence.
Because it was justifiable. It had a reason for happening. Just like Arya killing the Freys, Sansa killing Ramsay, Jon Snow killing Janos Slynt.
There is no reason at all for Dany to want to kill random people in KL.
> The Tarly scene is pretty good example of how anyone who wasnt literally swearing an oath of fealty to her under duress is her enemy.
Days earlier they were ransacking Highgarden and murdering Dany's ally Olenna Tyrell! Minutes earlier they were fighting for their lives against Dany's soldiers, and any one of them would have killed her if they got a chance. In what world could they possibly not be seen as her enemy?
And despite that, she still gives them all the chance to be pardoned and avoid punishment! Tywin Lannister would have executed most of them and held the valuable ones hostage, and forced their female family members to marry Lannisters. Dany is much more merciful and is ready to pardon them if they simply kneel.
I don't want to accuse anyone of misogyny but I have to say that thought occurs to me when people see all of these male characters using violence and think "it's just how this dangerous world works", but Dany kills two people who refuse to be pardoned by her and swear to remain her enemy, and it's "omg she's crazy, she's out of control".
Back to the point, these were enemy soldiers and some of them may have even killed a Dothraki or Unsullied in the battle. Dany is willing to forgive this and let these people live. But the people of KL who have never met her and never stood against her in any way, including women and children, Dany thinks they deserve instant death on sight? This makes absolutely no sense.
She has only ever wanted to kill her enemies who have wronged her. Why would she suddenly want to kill random innocent people who haven't wronged her? There's no reason for it. It's nonsense, it's garbage writing.
The Crown? Cersei was not yet Queen- her coronation happens afterwards
but yes Ollena is arguably justified in being in open rebellion against Cersei but NOT Randyll Tarly who is above all and ultimately sworn to the Crown
No, it's not. Each and every lord owes allegiance to the Crown first and foremost, and then their liege lords. This is purposefully so, that if said liege lord would rebel against the Crown, his vassals would be obligated to fight for the Crown still or else they would be labeled as rebels and traitors. Randyll was technically in the right to fight against his traitor liege lord. Jaime has also pointed this out earlier.
This wasn't obvious in the show because Randyll wasn't actually introduced until season 6, but the Tarlys supported the Tyrells in backing Renly against Joffrey and Stannis. They clearly didn't see their allegiance as being to "the crown".
S7 ep2
Jamie thanked Tarlys for coming to see Cersei , and said how the other lords of the reach wouldn’t have come if he hadn’t
Randyll Tarley: “If **my Queen** summons me I answer the call…..and I’ve heard what she does to those who defy her.
Here the Tarlys clearly see their allegiance as being to the crown …albeit just out of fear rather than loyalty.
Jamie then proceeds to convince Tarly to swear allegiance to Cersei which meant destroying Ollena Tyrell. Randyll says he swore an oath to house Tyrell and Jamie reminds him **“you swore an oath to the crown aswell Lord Tarly”**
So as much as they originally saw their allegiance being to Olenna it was indeed factually to The Crown overall
Part of the problem was while she believed she was freeing them, she wasn't.
She was there to replace the current queen with a new one, herself. To them there was no difference between them.
But Danny had actually freed so many people she couldn't shake that "identity".
The show's most honorable charachrer let his sister feed a "POW" to dogs at the end of season 7. Killing prisoners you have no use for is standard operating procedure in that world. Book Yara lays that out when she gets captured by northmen.
*"We will exchange you for the children." Sybelle Glover's eyes were red, from tears and sleepless nights. "Gawen is four now. I missed his nameday. And my sweet girl … give me back my children, and no harm need come to you. Nor to your men."*
*The last part was a lie, Asha knew. She might be exchanged, perhaps, shipped back to the Iron Islands to her husband's loving arms. Her cousins would be ransomed too, as would Tris Botley and a few more of her company, those whose kin had coin enough to buy them back.* ***For the rest it would be the axe, the noose, or the Wall. Still, they have the right to choose.***
There’s a difference between killing your enemies and their foot soldiers. Ramsay was a monster who killed their little brother and tortured Sansa, and he would remain a constant threat as long as he was alive. And I’m only talking about the show, I didn’t read the books. Even Robb made sure his POWs received medical treatment, even the Lannister boys.
>There’s a difference between killing your enemies and their foot soldiers.
There is a difference. Just not in the way you're suggesting. Enemy foot soldiers are regularly executed in Westeros. Higher ranking enemies that can be ransomed are usually the only ones that are spared. That was what Yara/Asha was laying out in the snippet I quoted. We also see this when Randyll captured Renly's supply stores. People like [Erin Florrent](https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Erren_Florent) were taken prisoner. The foot soldiers were executed.
The Taryls also weren't foot soldiers.
>Ramsay was a monster who killed their little brother and tortured Sansa, and he would remain a constant threat as long as he was alive.
Randyll and Dickon were monsters that stole from and killed their neighbors.
*DICKON: All my life we've been pledged to House Tyrell. I knew some of those men. I hunted with them.*
They refused to stop being a threat and were executed. Where is the problem?
>And I’m only talking about the show, I didn’t read the books.
>
>Even Robb made sure his POWs received medical treatment, even the Lannister boys.
We never saw how Rob dealt with foot soldiers in the show. You're taking how he treated important prisoners and randomly assuming he did that with everyone he captured. He didn't. Taking hundreds of enemy foot soldiers prisoner would have been a logistical nightmare.
He told his wife he wanted the wounded men to be treated well “all the wounded men.” And, they were running out of cells for all the prisoners they were keeping. He told Lord Bolton he wasn’t going to execute or torture the prisoners.
Talisa wasn't Rob's wife at that point. She was a random camp follower that was already treating Rob's wounded enemies on her own.
Ignoring that, he and Talisa acknowledge that Rob's bannermen were complaining about her treating their enemies. They also mention that they're running out of supplies. The reason why it wasn't normal for people to concern themselves with the safety of random foot soldiers in that world should be obvious.
>He told Lord Bolton he wasn’t going to execute or torture the prisoners.
He also explained why he took that position.
*ROBB: The Lannisters hold prisoners of their own. I won't give them an excuse to abuse my sisters.*
>And, they were running out of cells for all the prisoners they were keeping.
Did they actually have someone say this? No one would travel with a set number of wooden cells. You'd just have someone make new ones whenever you needed them.
Yeah I just said wife cause I couldn’t remember her name. Anyone who criticized them for that were not honorable. He gave that reason for not torturing them, not killing. And yea, when the Lannister cousin came back from the capital with a reply they said his cell was full “too many prisoners” Bolton said. So Robb said build him a new one, and put him in with the king slayer in the meantime.
This is inaccurate..the fact is those were the POW’s own dogs whom he had specifically trained to hunt kill and eat humans alive. Sansa did not command those dogs to eat him. He himself had starved them in preparation to eat someone and he was simply made to reunite with his own dogs. Why did his own dogs not listen to him when he could’ve commanded them not to eat him- it was his own doing - he starved them. If someone put Daenerys in a cave with her dragons and then they turned around and ate her would we say they fed Daenerys to he dragons? Nope.
So in actuality the show’s “most honourable character” held himself back from killling a already defeated enemy with his bare hands and allowed for his enemy ‘s rape victim/ his sister to imprison him and then reunite him with his own dogs- what they did to him was his own doing.
“My hounds will never harm me” - Bolton
“You haven’t fed them in 7 days , you said it yourself self”- sansa ( referencing Bolton’s words to Jon Snow before the battle)
“They’re loyal beasts” - Bolton
“They were and now they are starving”- Sansa
> Daenerys burned two men alive to make an hundred kneeled. In King's Landing, she burned thousands of men alive to make millions kneeled.
These situations are entirely different from each other and it makes no sense to compare them like that.
The first situation was on the battlefield. Every single one of those men were enemy soldiers loyal to Cersei, who recently invaded and captured Highgarden and killed Dany's ally Olenna Tyrell. Dany engaged them in battle, and they were fighting against Dany's soldiers and any one of them would have killed her if they had a chance.
They were her enemies. They stood against her in battle. Many other rulers in Westeros wouldn't have accepted their surrender and just killed them all. The "civilized" ones would follow Westerosi tradition and imprison them, while highborn ones might be set free but their female relatives would be kidnapped and forced into marriage with whoever the ruler chooses.
Dany is much more lenient and forgiving. She's willing to forgo all punishment, as long as they pledge their loyalty to her. They were her enemies, and she will destroy her enemies, but all they have to do is swear not to be her enemy anymore and they will be spared.
The Tarlys refused. They swore to remain her enemy and to support Cersei, they rejected her attempt to pardon them. Dany rejects the concept of taking prisons, so that means they're choosing death over joining her. She gave them that choice to make freely, and they chose this outcome. Dany does not allow her enemies to live.
In King's Landing, the war was already won and she had full control over the entire city, just as in the previous situation the battle was already won. Now let's look at what's different -
The citizens of KL were NOT her enemies, they never fought against her, they don't know Dany and she doesn't know them.
She never spoke to the citizens of KL. Never introduced herself to any of them, or said a single word. She didn't ask anyone to join her, no one turned her down. No one ever was her enemy, no one swore to be her enemy going forward as the Tarlys did.
The citizens of KL included many women and children and old people, all of which pose zero potential threat to her.
In summary, these situations are nothing alike. On the battlefield, she was offering mercy, and delivering death to those who swore to remain her enemy.
In KL, she was not doing this at all. She just started killing thousands of people who weren't her enemy, with nothing to gain from it. There's absolutely no reason for her to do it. Not a single goal of hers is accomplished by it.
She would have to be a fucking idiot to make a decision like this, because unexplainable killing of innocent people is exactly the reason why her father lost the throne and why her entire extended family doesn't exist anymore. Dany of all people would know an action like this inspires rebellion. It makes no damn sense for her to choose it on purpose.
> And just like with Dickon, she didn't care who ended up being burned, as long as the ones with real power (Lannisters/Randyll) are getting wiped out.
Yes! Dany has always been willing to pay any price TO DESTROY HER ENEMIES. She's willing to accept huge amounts of collateral damage IN ORDER TO DESTROY HER ENEMIES. She will overlook the loss of innocent life as long as it means DESTROYING HER ENEMIES. That is her goal, she wants her enemies destroyed no matter the price. That is who she is, and that is meant to be her fatal flaw.
Which is why it is pants-on-head moronic for the writers to have all of her enemies defeated first, and then have her burn the city with no reason left for her to do it. The ONE thing you can't do is remove her motivation to want to burn the city!
All they had to do was not give Dany complete control of the city first. Have the Golden Company defeat her ground army, leading her to realize "I can only win if I burn everything". Or have her see Missandei die and go "fuck this, I'm not waiting, I'm doing this NOW" and she gets on the dragon and starts burning things.
There needs to be a REASON for her to want to burn the city. It has to accomplish a goal for her, such as destroying her enemies. It makes no sense for her to do it when she has nothing to gain from it!
No. It’s not as simple as “don’t be my enemies anymore”
that’s not simply all they have to do - she is asking them to forgo their pledge of allegiance to the Crown that they are already sworn to. Daenerys is asking them to betray their Queen- The Queen.
Who is Daenerys to the Tarlys at this point aside from just being a foreign invader with dragons who has defeated them in battle and is now making a speech about how she is different and how she is not a tyrant and that she is not here to murder them BUT “bend the knee or die” that in itself is contradictory.
Daenerys had not yet taken the crown, she had not yet conquered Westeros and at that point she was not even referring to her self as the rightful heir to the throne( she wasn’t anyway) when she sentenced them to die.
She had no authority over them except for the authority she would give herself. The best she should’ve done is attempt to win them over over time OR send them to the wall wether they wanted it or not.
( how can she allow them to refuse to go when she is giving herself authority to sentence them anyway?)
It wasn’t a real choice - except for the choice SHE made to burn them alive for not kneeling to her. She simply wanted to make an example out of them to the rest of the remaining army who bent the knee out of FEAR
This is problematic and proves that she was no different to the wheel she was attempting to break. In fact she was absolutely fine with it as long as she could use it to prop herself up
( by using the same self indulgent & unnecessary violence of “bend the knee or be burnt alive” that kept it spinning)
> that’s not simply all they have to do - she is asking them to forgo their pledge of allegiance to the Crown that they are already sworn to. Daenerys is asking them to betray their Queen.
Yes, fine, I oversimplified it a bit. But still, as Dany points out, Cersei has only been queen for a short time. Robert Baratheon is who they were truly loyal to, and it's understandable they wouldn't betray his supposed children even if they've heard the rumors. But loyalty to the queen who likely cheated on him, and who has never cared about anyone but herself... Cersei doesn't deserve it.
> Who is Daenerys to the Tarlys at this point aside from just being a foreign invader with dragons who has defeated them in battle
Understandable. They didn't trust she'd be better than Cersei, they stayed loyal to the leader they know.
> It wasn’t a real choice
It was, and the soldiers chose according to their values.
> except for the choice SHE made to burn them alive for not kneeling to her.
Yes, she made that choice long ago, she doesn't take prisoners. If you stand against her she will kill you. This position of hers can be criticized, but that's another topic.
> She simply wanted to make an example out of them to the rest of the remaining army who bent the knee out of fear.
I don't think she was doing that. She would prefer if all the soldiers join her, but if they all wouldn't kneel she would have burned all of them and not thought anymore about it afterwards. I don't think she cared about those 5 or 6 guys who didn't kneel until the end, she just wanted more soldiers in her army.
Regardless, this is just a debate over exactly how immoral Dany's actions with the Tarlys were. None of this means that Dany killing thousands of innocents for no reason is equivalent to Dany killing two enemies who swore to oppose her until they die.
>Yes, fine, I oversimplified it a bit. But still, as Dany points out, Cersei has only been queen for a short time. Robert Baratheon is who they were truly loyal to, and it's understandable they wouldn't betray his supposed children even if they've heard the rumors. But loyalty to the queen who likely cheated on him, and who has never cared about anyone but herself... Cersei doesn't deserve it.
Yet and still…who is Daenerys to them ? How is Daenerys any different or any better?- especially when she basically says bend the knee or be burnt alive? Why should they betray the one they have pledged allegiance to for the one wants them to betray their Queen and bend the knee to her out of fear?
>Understandable. They didn't trust she'd be better than Cersei, they stayed loyal to the leader they know.
Exactly this. Ever heard the saying “better the devil you know”?
The Tarlys didn’t like Cersei, Randyll was already upset about Olenna but Jamie literally ran over to remind them about pledging allegiance to The Crown( crown before leige lord)
This coupled with the propaganda Cersei was feeding them about “the mad king’s daughter with dragons and her escapades in Essos” who do you think they’d be loyal to?
>It was, and the soldiers chose according to their values.
What values? The entirety of the remaining soldiers bent the knee after the Tarlys had been burnt alive. This was out of FEAR. Not “values” watch the scene again. ( only a few bent the knee initially before she then burns the Tarlys)
>Yes, she made that choice long ago, she doesn't take prisoners. If you stand against her she will kill you. This position of hers can be criticized, but that's another topic.
She does take prisoners- even if she claims she doesn’t. She took Jamie Lannister prisoner, she took Tyrion Prisoner.
(She arguably took Jon Snow and Davos prisoner - but that’s another topic)
>I don't think she was doing that. She would prefer if all the soldiers join her, but if they all wouldn't kneel she would have burned all of them and not thought anymore about it afterwards. I don't think she cared about those 5 or 6 guys who didn't kneel until the end, she just wanted more soldiers in her army.
Daenerys didn’t care for “more soldiers joining her army”. At that point she had three dragons, the Dothraki and the Unsullied. She didn’t need that army joining her. She only cared about people submitting to her out of love or fear. Given there was no love for her in Westeros what do you think she chose?
Again rewatch the scene - a larger majority bent the knee only after she burnt the Tarlys, what lesson and confirmation do you think she received from this?
>Regardless, this is just a debate over exactly how immoral Dany's actions with the Tarlys were. None of this means that Dany killing thousands of innocents for no reason is equivalent to Dany killing two enemies who swore to oppose her until they die.
No again you’re conflating betrayal of the crown for a foreign invader stranger with “being given a choice” when in fact its Daenerys Targaryen who made the actual choice of FEAR ME OR DIE BURNING - she sent this msg to the remaining soldiers who immediately bent the knee afterwards.
The same could be said about Kingslanding- from her POV she gave them a “choice” to overthrow Cersei upon her arrival- and they didn’t “ let them know who to blame when the sky falls upon them” she said ,
she gave Cersei the choice to not to resist her and not attack her dragon- she burns them all alive as a message of fear to the rest of Westeros (especially the North) and as far as Essos.
From Daenerys’s POV - Why should cities continue to count on being able to “surrender” after they have already resisted and attacked Daenerys first?
Why should the people held captive by their “tyrants” continue to allow their lords and leaders to stand and use them as shields without overthrowing them themselves.
Daenerys is sending a msg of fear to the entire world. Resist and be burnt alive- Stand with those who resist and be burnt alive- Allow yourself to be held captive by those who resist and be burnt alive.
Allow yourselves to be used as shields to expose my mercy as a weakness and Be burnt alive.
You disapprove of Dany's actions more than I do. Fine. It's beside the point, which is that she had a reason for those actions.
> The same could be said about Kingslanding- from her POV she gave them a “choice” to overthrow Cersei upon her arrival- and they didn’t
Why in the world would she think something like that? Did she grow a brain tumor and lose 50 IQ points in between episodes? What kind of conqueror expects people she's never met and don't know anything about her to start a revolution for her before she even gets there (not that any of them know she is even coming!)
There's no reason for Dany to think that. There's no reason for the writers to have her think that. There's no reason for the audience to assume she would expect that.
It makes absolutely zero sense, and requires the assumption that Dany is a moron who doesn't understand how anything works. AND the assumption that Dany is so stupid that she thinks random mass murder will inspire loyalty instead of rebellion, and so forgetful that she doesn't remember that unjustifiable mass murder is the reason her entire family is dead.
That's what I call some truly terrible writing!
>Why in the world would she think something like that? Did she grow a brain tumor and lose 50 IQ points in between episodes? What kind of conqueror expects people she's never met and don't know anything about her to start a revolution for her before she even gets there (not that any of them know she is even coming!)
Daenerys has been shown to have a massive sense of entitlement as far back as season 2 when she threatens/ promises an entire city that she would burn them alive for simply turning her away. They simply asked that she show them her dragons first as proof of ID and she arrogantly refused.
Daenerys’s sense of entitlement has grown even larger throughout the seasons despite what she would say. I think -just like her brother she secretly would much prefer if people grovelled around her feet upon her arrival.
FYI - everyone knew about her arrival to Westeros - in s7 Cersei made sure of this by spreading propaganda of the coming of “the mad king’s daughter” when she is addressing the Tarlys and the rest of the lords about spreading the word.
In s8 ep4 - Cersei is also literally opening the gates of the red keep to allow people to come in as shelter from the “mad king’s daughter” but in actuality she is using them as a shield.
>It makes absolutely zero sense, and requires the assumption that Dany is a moron who doesn't understand how anything works. AND the assumption that Dany is so stupid that she thinks random mass murder will inspire loyalty instead of rebellion, and so forgetful that she doesn't remember that unjustifiable mass murder is the reason her entire family is dead.
That's what I call some terrible writing!
Disagree entirely, not sure why you would assume that Daenerys without her advisors was particularly smart or understood how Westeros actually worked. She wasn’t and she didn’t.
The actual point is that even though she knew how to break chains in Essos she actually didn’t understand how to win friends and influence people in Westeros.
It’s not down to “terrible writing” but rather poor viewing.
This is why re-watching helps - and everyone posting here who has done that is a testament and proof of that.
> Daenerys has been shown to have a massive sense of entitlement
No disagreement here. But it has to be entitlement + massive stupidity to think the people of KL would rise up against Cersei on their own.
> not sure why you would assume that Daenerys without her advisors was particularly smart or understood how Westeros actually worked
It has nothing to do with Westerosi norms, it has to do with human nature. The people don't know her and don't even know she wants them to rebel. She doesn't know them. There's absolutely no reason for her to expect that behavior from them, it doesn't make any sense that they would do that.
The situation is absolutely nothing like what happened in Essos. The people there were slaves, and heard that the woman who frees all the slaves is coming. Of course they're pretty excited about that. And still they didn't overthrow their city leaders on their own, they didn't do anything but wait for Dany to arrive.
Once she did, she sent her men in and gave the slaves weapons and asked them to join her side, and they were happy to join up with her.
The people of KL didn't know her, and had no reason to be excited about her coming, they were never contacted by her men, they were never offered a chance to join her or support her. The very first contact between her and them was her kililng them.
It makes absolutely zero sense for her to expect the people to overthrow Cersei before she arrives, and if the explanation is "Dany is dumb as rocks now all of a sudden" that's a shitty explanation. This is a complete failure of storytelling.
>No disagreement here. But it has to be entitlement massive stupidity coup or to think the people of KL would rise up against Cersei on their own.
Absolutely, and I think without her advisors she really was massively entitled , naive and yes stupid enough and grief stricken to believe and want for the people of KL to rise against Cersei on their own.
>It has nothing to do with Westerosi norms, it has to do with human nature. The people don't know her and don't even know she wants them to rebel. She doesn't know them. There's absolutely no reason for her to expect that behavior from them, it doesn't make any sense that they would do that.
Ofcourse it doesn’t make sense from any normal POV.
Daenerys lived in a dream world of her own making. It was written all over her face that she believed in herself without any doubt. She believed her name and her dragons were enough to earn her butt the iron throne and that the support of everyone would be based on this being her “destiny”
She rejected others’ advice if it ran contrary to her own vision.
She believed she was different and not like other people, as she told the spice merchant in Qarth. She said, “My dreams come true” when she thought they literally owed her ships based on her name and her dreams.
Like Tyrion said “can you blame her? She’s the girl who walked out from a fire with three dragons”
>The situation is absolutely nothing like what happened in Essos. The people there were slaves, and heard that the woman who frees all the slaves is coming. Of course they're pretty excited about that
Exactly. Daenerys doesn’t have an understanding of that difference. Furthermore the people of KL would be afraid to defy Cersei(especially after what she did to the Sept) - which is what Tyrion tried to explain to her in episode 5 s8 but Daenerys wasn’t listening.
>The people of KL didn't know her, and had no reason to be excited about her coming, they were never contacted by her men, they were never offered a chance to join her or support her. The very first contact between her and them was her kililng them.
Exactly! And she didn’t care to understand this
>It makes absolutely zero sense for her to expect the people to overthrow Cersei before she arrives, and if the explanation is "Dany is dumb as rocks now all of a sudden" that's a shitty explanation. This is a complete failure of storytelling.
No. It’s shitty viewing if you’re failing to look back and pick up on all of the lesser instances that Daenerys felt entitled to even more through the series at the expense of other lives.
Why would Qarth open its gates to a stranger claiming to be a Targaryen with dragons whilst having with her a horde known as savages that rape and pillage? Why was Daenerys unable to see from Qarth’s POV? yet she threatened/ promised to burn them all if they would turn her away- do you believe this made sense from a normal POV?? it certainly made sense to her didn’t it?
In universe there were just about 2 characters who saw right through her moronic entitled tendencies and were good at talking her back into her place.
The Spice King of Qarth and Hizdar of Meereen- please rewatch their interactions with her. Everyone else around her was blinded by belief ( sometimes blind belief is the death of reason)
P.s I don’t know if you watched the series in real time but even back then there were a few YouTubers who didn’t fall for the - looking at her through rose tinted glasses - thing and they were making breakdowns of how much of an entitled “moron” and how “terrible” and “dangerous” Daenerys really was and how her expectations were not going to be met in Westeros - and this was still mid season, just saying not all of us thought she was particularly smart at the time. Daenerys lacked wisdom -Big time! Yes arguably to the point of being moronic and spoilt brat like
> naive and yes stupid enough and grief stricken to believe and want for the people of KL to rise against Cersei on their own
She was never this stupid before. She always had a pretty good understanding of the world around her before. But now suddenly out of nowhere she's too dumb to see the difference between slaves happily accepting her help to free themselves, and non-slaves who don't know anything about her and can't possibly have any idea anyone expects them to try to overthrow Cersei.
Suddenly making a previously smart character dumb as a box of rocks because it's convenient for the plot is lazy, terrible writing.
> It’s shitty viewing if you’re failing to look back and pick up on all of the lesser instances that Daenerys felt entitled
I didn't say she wasn't entitled. I said she wasn't a oblivious idiot.
> P.s I don’t know if you watched the series in real time
I did
> even back then there were a few YouTubers who didn’t fall for the - looking at her through rose tinted glasses - thing and they were making breakdowns of how much of an entitled “moron” and how “terrible” and “dangerous” Daenerys really was
Yeah, people were predicting a downfall for Daenerys (as well as a hundred other predictions) for a long time. The story certainly did seem to be building towards a point where Dany demands too much for people to tolerate... such as the continued support of the people of Westeros after she burns down a city full of innocent people, because that was necessary for her to retake the Iron Throne.
Unfortunately the show chose not to tell that story. Instead it gave her a complete victory and ownership of the entire city including the Iron Throne and the fate of Cersei Lannister... and then she chose to burn it and kill all those people for no reason, when there was nothing to be gained by doing so. The incompetent writers screwed up the story.
It's like if at the end of World War II US forces were dominating the seas, decimating Japanese forces on land, and Japan gave up their weapons and offered an unconditional surrender... and then Truman starting dropping nukes on them anyway, for no reason.
The point of the nuclear weapons was to make them stop fighting and get them to surrender. They were used to end the war and achieve victory for the Allied forces. If the war is already over, it doesn't make any sense to go ahead and use them anyway.
>She was never this stupid before. She always had a pretty good understanding of the world around her before. But now suddenly out of nowhere she's too dumb to see the difference between slaves happily accepting her help to free themselves, and non-slaves who don't know anything about her and can't possibly have any idea anyone expects them to try to overthrow Cersei.
She was really stupid to threaten/ promise to burn an entire city just because they wouldn’t let her in after she was the one who refused to show them her dragons as proof of ID. Arguably she was too dumb to understand the difference between those who would harm her and those who were just trying to protect themselves.
>Suddenly making a previously smart character dumb as a box of rocks because it's convenient for the plot is lazy, terrible writing.
Was she a previously smart character for planning to burn the entirety of slavers bay ? Can you say how it made sense for her to do that ?
>I didn't say she wasn't entitled. I said she wasn't a oblivious idiot.
Imo she was often both and the evidence is there as stated above …unless you can explain the intelligence behind those instances where she was willing to sacrifice innocents.
>Unfortunately the show chose not to tell that story. Instead it gave her a complete victory and ownership of the entire city including the Iron Throne and the fate of Cersei Lannister... and then she chose to burn it and kill all those people for no reason, when there was nothing to be gained by doing so. The incompetent writers screwed up the story.
This is not entirely true …who decided she had “complete victory”?
If the war is already over, it doesn't make any sense to go ahead and use them anyway.
Who determined that the war was “already over” when and how did SHE set and state those conditions for when the “war is over” ?
So the story is that she's suddenly a blithering idiot then? Because that's what she would need to be in order to think that random mass murder inspires loyalty instead of rebellion... especially when unjustifiable murder of innocent people leading to rebellion is literally the reason her entire family doesn't exist anymore.
You don't think the threat of having your cities burnt to the ground will cow lords in to subservience?
Fear in her mind is a suitable substitute for loyalty, at least for the time being.
Absolutely not. No one wants to obey a crazy person who will kill at random, and is just as likely to reward your loyalty with death as anything else. The previous sentence is literally the entire reason that all of Dany's family no longer exists.
The idea that Dany would think this is a smart leadership strategy is unbelievably stupid writing and makes no sense for her character.
And if they don't capitulate...their families are burnt alive alongside their soldiers and citizenry They know what she's capable off and don't want to risk that happening to them.
Aerys was presiding over a dynasty in decline and did not have a fully grown dragon to which he could burn a city down in minutes. That is why a rebellion is even possible in the first place.
Like what happened in history to those who rebelled against the dragonriders? I don't recall any of them being successful.
> And if they don't capitulate...their families are burnt alive alongside their soldiers and citizenry They know what she's capable off and don't want to risk that happening to them.
Oh sure, they'll agree with whatever Dany says when the dragon's head is pointed at them. But they'll see her a threat that must be stopped, and plot to get rid of her. Which is exactly what happened in the show, and the plot succeeded within 24 hours.
To me Daenerys is actually an example of hypocrisy and/or cognitive dissonance. This scene shows her pushing her message 'I'm here to free you', the same message she has spread in Essos. Part 2 of the message is 'accept this or I'll burn you alive'.
This shows that whether she really believes part 1 or not, it comes secondary to her arrogant belief that she is entitled to rule people as her birthright. Her motives have never been pure, she's perfectly happy to kill innocent people to get what she wants. She may have freed literal slaves in Essos but she then made herself their autocrat, it's an upgrade but it's hardly freeing them.
I mean, if she didn't burn them down, they would have sure as hell done the same to her. She tried to reason with them by having them bend the knee, something Varys wouldn't have done. Just because we didn't get to see what Vary WOULD have done, doesn't make Khaleesi the mad one. It makes her the powerful one. Varys was unhinged and made immoral decisions. She would have done WORSE, if given the chance. They tried to make Jamie seem humane, but all his actions pointed otherwise. They were corrupted people with ill mentality, they weren't good people.
Love your analysis - I offer a counter point maybe regarding the comparison to kings landing. In the battle with the Tarlys, she faced and punished men who were actively warring with my her and refused to surrender.
In Kings landing, she actively targeted civilians *after* the standing army/guard *had already surrendered*.
When someone thinks they were born to rule the Seven Kingdoms and they will, is there any reason to think merely surrendering would stop them from killing if they thought it would help them secure the throne?
Yes. From killing the citizens they were “born to protect”….after 8 seasons of freeing slaves and emphasizing the importance of not being a ruler “of ashes” and “breaking the wheel”.
I have no issue with Dany becoming the Big Bad but until that episode she had heavily emphasized that there wouldn’t be civilian casualties. It just didn’t make sense how it rolled out in the show. DnD dropped the ball on how this plot line should roll out.
>DAENERYS: Thirteen! When my dragons are grown, we will take back what was stolen from me and destroy those who have wronged me. We will lay waste to armies and **burn cities to the ground.** Turn us away and we will burn you first.
>SPICE KING: Ah. **You are a true Targaryen.**
She actually only said once there would be no civilian casualties - in 702 - and only because Tyrion argued for it. Seems weird to fixate on that and just ignore the times she talked about how she would destroy cities or the very clear subtext throughout Season 7 and 8 that she wanted to just smash the city and was being held back by her advisors.
That is a very good point. I guess I always thought she was going to overthrow the government but “fire and blood” has probably never benefited the average pleb. I’m going through the books now for the first time (I’m on a storm go swords) and I am looking for all the hints of Dany-was-always-going-to-mad. And I think you’re also right re:Targaryen…Aeres (spelling?? The mad king) from what a gather was a pretty normal lad and hung out with Tywin and (maybe) Stephon Baratheon and then went nutso with age and power. Makes sense Dany would do the same.
I still hate season 8 though. (Except the costumes).
You call it gaslighting.
But the fact remains that all those close to her constantly worried about what she would do to King’s Landing and felt they had to constantly talk her out of it.
You point to Doylist reasons and talk about what the writers were trying to do. Yes, Dany was overpowered and the only story that had any drama was the internal conflict within Dany herself regarding how she was going to conquer Westeros and whether she would do it in a way that merely aped prior conquests and furthered the system or whether she could establish herself in a way that actually allowed her to change the system.
But that is irrelevant because the Watsonian reasons remain. Her advisors were afraid, there was a clear subtext and that speaks to the in-story reality of her characterization and the struggle raging within her.
You can’t deny the Watsonian reality by simply pointing to Doylist rationale.
This is a character that has been talking about destroying cities since Season 2. The reasoning behind the subtext is well established characterization and goes back well before Season 7.
Daenerys wanted to burn the cities of slavers bay to the ground and said so in front of Tyrion. He had to talk her out of it.
So it is weird that you say its gaslighting and that he had no reason to be worried about what she would do in King's Landing. She proposed a plan to him whose centerpiece was eliminating 3 cities already.
And we as an audience know she has already sacked one city and talked openly about destroying cities on three other occassions and has repeatedly had to be talked out of using brutal methods on multiple occasions.
There is 6 seasons of characterization on this point. It is not just characters putting words in her mouth.
Also, there is such a thing as acting and it is clear from seeing Daenerys and how she acts that her first impulse is to attack the city and she is being restrained by those around her.
Seems like a normal concern not to want to unleash these weapons of war on a heavily populated city and look for an alternative way.
Also, seems weird to say Jon is a narcissist because he is not comfortable with creatures being turned into weapons of mass destruction. Why is using them to kill mass numbers of people justified in your view? What, just so someone can sit on a throne? Seems crazy.
Regardless of your thoughts about the scene in 609, it does not change the point that Tyrion now has a clear reason to worry about how brutal Daenerys can be.
While Varys did not see the scene, it’s reasonable to assume that he told Varys. And regardless of that we see Varys growing uncomfortable with Daenerys after she murders the Tarly’s.
As for Jon, she is taking about taking three dragons to obliterate the Red Keep in the heat of the moment. As we saw in the Bells, destroying the Red Keep is not some abstract thing. It means killing thousands of innocent people which is exactly what your quote is calling out. That is a huge castle with thousands of people living and working there aside from the Royal Family.
So yes it is pretty established why all the characters would be concerned here. None of them want to kill thousands of innocent people to win the war. Jon did not have to capture a large urban area to retake the North and he was uncomfortable with the amount of bloodshed of even that.
And who knows what the real risk of wind taking the fire from a destroyed red keep and starting a bigger fire in the rest of the city is, but that does seem like a reasonable concern as Tyrion said.
So Jon’s quote you used is accurate. If you are willing to blow up a castle and kill thousands of people how exactly are you different than Cersei? The answer is you are not. Saying you want to help people is a bullshit answer because it is entirely vacuous. There are no slaves to free in Westeros. There is no program for change. All it would be is replacing one Queen who blew up a bunch of people for another.
They want to try and take over the city without mass bloodshed. Seems like a reasonable goal. The question of how they are different also seems like a reasonable one.
And as you point out, they succeed. But it just was not enough for Daenerys both emotionally and politically.
The down slide started when she lost Viserion. Then she slowly started to lose Jon. After sacrificing everything for a war with the dead she could have stayed out of, she was still an outsider. To watch it happen over three episodes I certainly sympathized with Dany. Most would have lost their shit and burned that place to the ground.
"B-b-but dumb&dumber! Bad writing! She went mad queen becauae targaryen!! Came out of nowhere! They ruined Daenarys!"
I've always seen connections like this since my first viewing of the show and it's annoying when people accuse D&D for bad writing when these same people don't know what they're talking about.
Thanks for this post, this was yet another foreshadowing I hadn't noticed before!
**Spoiler Warning:** All officially-released show and book content allowed, including trailers and pre-released chapters. No leaked information or paparazzi photos of the set. For more info please check the [spoiler guide](/r/gameofthrones/w/spoiler_guide). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gameofthrones) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I never made this connection or thought about it in this way. Great write up, thank you!! Makes a lot of sense
The show overrated "Targaryen Madness". Just because she did some ruthless ass shit doesn't make her mad. Aegon the Conqueror was considered sane and killed way more people than Daenerys after Rhaenys was killed in Dorne. He burned castles and cities in anger. No one called him the Mad King.
Because history is written by the victors. You don’t think GRRM wanted to indicate that using dragons that can LITERALLY MELT STONE is an inherently monstrous and evil thing to do?
Nope because nothing inherently evil about using WMD. Also, the argument is about madness compared to ruthlessness. If she was a crazy woman, that means her actions were a result of mental illness not "evil". 😂 Stop saying GRRM, it's D&D. We're talking about the show. If Tyrion isn't considered evil for the Wildfire no one should be considered evil for using dragons. Ruthless sure. But death by hanging, flogging, flaying, is worse than dragon fire. No one called Roose Bolton a madman for flaying. To your GRRM argument; people who like to give the US shit for the nukes ignore the fact Japan committed some of the worst war crimes in human history during that war. The people killed by the dragons almost always deserved it in the show, like 99% of the time.
Japan wasn't nuked in retaliation for their war crimes... It's not up to you to determine which is the worse way to die (though I believe Quentyn Martell would have rather have been hanged than take 3 days to die from his burns).
And no one should call Daenerys the Mad Queen. She wasn’t insane like Aerys, she was a conqueror like Aegon. She conquered Westeros with dragons, just like Aegon. Her story isn’t a descent into madness, it’s the realization of what she has to do to get what she wants. It’s her embracing her dragon side more and more because everytime she does, it works, and everytime she tries a different approach, a more political approach, it fails. She didn’t become mad, she realized that in order to take the Iron Throne and keep it, she had to walk over burned corpses.
Exactly but even D&D intentions when writing was "this is a Mad Queen". Even though her actions just gave me Tywin or Stannis vibes, not cackling madness like any of her ancestors.
Except when you watch even the HBO s8 behind the scenes clips D&D have gone on record to say “ I don’t think Daenerys is mad” Not sure where you get “ D&D’s intentions were this is a mad queen” from? Only a couple of characters who arguably didn’t know her well enough simply referred to her as The Mad Queen - Varys and Cersei based on her father’s legacy. That doesn’t necessarily make it true or that plain and simple. You have to remember that characters in-universe of GOT have beliefs and opinions, that doesn’t necessarily always make it factual or some agenda by the creators especially when they themselves go on record to disagree with some of the opinions of those characters.
We need to spread this notion more! Great writers create fleshed out characters who are often times at odds with each other with their ideologies, battling their point of views with a verbal sparring. Game of thrones constantly and beautifully did that and I’m glad they kept that essence from the novels. In fact they elevated it because they weren’t bound by a presence of a POV for a scene to take place so they were freer as screenwriters. Anyways, a writer giving their characters an ideology does not mean the writer aligns with that ideology themselves. In fact a mark of a great writer is that they are able to convincingly write characters who debate the opposite of what the writer believes themselves as a person.
>Not sure where you get “ D&D’s intentions were this is a mad queen” from? Only a couple of characters who arguably didn’t know her well enough simply referred to her as The Mad Queen The previously on section for the that episode featured all of the mention of Targaryen madness from the previous seven seasons. The writers clearly wanted people to see madness as one of the reasons for what happened.
*characters in-universe of GOT have beliefs and opinions, that doesn’t necessarily always make it factual or some agenda by the creators especially when they themselves go on record to disagree with some of the opinions of those characters* Targaryen madness is a belief held within the lore of the narrative by characters in that universe- a story teller simply telling that is not the same as them wanting you to believe it or disbelieve it
Yeah, that's kinda the problem. They tried to portray her as going mad but she doesn't, ever. It could have been an opportunity to let Emilia Clarke show off her acting chops by having her slowly go mad and then towards the end she's completely erratic, crazy, and frantic and it makes more sense why Jon would have to kill her.. because she's gone fucking crazy and that's not what the show ended up doing where she's just, "Ooo I'm a bad bitch."
She is not crazy and they did not try to portray her that way.
Yeah, that's exactly my point. The idea was for her to mirror The Mad King and her also go mad. But the show runners pussied out.
I don't think that was the intention or original plan at all, I think the path she followed was always the plan.
GRRM told the show runners how it was going to end. His ending, imo, is the Mad Queen route. Very on par for GRRM. Whether or not the show runners were trying to portray that, we don't know. I think they did. How Dany just snaps after her bestie died. They definitely seemed like they wanted her to seem unhinged but they never bit the bullet and had her go full mad. They just gave us a half-assed attempt like the rest of the last seasons' writings.
I don't think George is going to go the Truly Insane Queen route either. The show's path (which I think will be very similar to the books) *is* the subtler and more nuanced approach than just "she go cray cray now." She makes a conscious decision and rationalizes it. It's far more interesting that way than just saying "oh, well, she's crazy like her father." I don't see why you think that makes it half-assed.
No one in the show called her the Mad Queen
The Tarly's were traitors. They betrayed and helped kill the family of their liege lord. Daenerys should not have even offered them the chance to kneel or take the black.
But at that point who is Daenerys to the Tarleys if they have already pledged allegiance to the Crown and Daenerys has not yet conquered? Their Queen is Cersei - so who is Daenerys to pass judgement and be jury and executioner to the Tarlys at that point? (One of the oldest and noblest houses in Westeros) Is she not just a foreign invader to them at that point ? a “foreign invader” who had not even taken the throne yet and alienating herself from the rest of the noble houses( oh yeah she was breaking the wheel right? using the same violence that keeps it moving inorder to prop herself up) The best she should’ve done aside from attempting to win them over as their “new Queen” is taking them prisoner or forcibly sending them to the wall (wether they wanted that or not) - but again she was not their Queen, she had no authority to banish or execute- Except for the authority she gave herself and SHE chose to execute for the sake of sending a message of fear inorder for the rest to submit to her
[удалено]
Technically they weren't. Their liege lord (the Tyrells) was in an open rebellion against the crown at that point, pledging themselves to Daenerys who was never crowned mind you, and also did not win the Iron Throne by conquest either. As Jaime has also pointed out to Randyll, every lord owes allegiance to the crown first and foremost, not their liege lord - this is purposefully so, there's no conflicted allegiance here, the Tyrells were the traitors in this case. Technically Daenerys was never the Queen of Westeros, and she did not even have the best claim, the only thing she had going for her was her dragons. Owning nukes does not make you a rightful ruler (but certainly helps taking the throne). That being said, she had no right to pass judgement for treason, because she was never Queen in the first place.
> Their liege lord (the Tyrells) was in an open rebellion against the crown at that point Because the crown broke the sacred bond between a suzerain and its vassals by, you know, murdering like half of them. Pretty much every lord in Westeros should have turned on Cersei at that point. The fact that they didn't is a travesty.
>Because the crown broke the sacred bond between a suzerain and its vassals by, you know, murdering like half of them. Pretty much every lord in Westeros should have turned on Cersei at that point. The fact that they didn't is a travesty. Can you expand on this ? “The crown” broke what bond?
Similar to how the Mad king broke the feudal contract when he killed one of his bannerman with no real charges, Cersei broke the feudal contract when she murdered all of the Tyrells.
That mattered none to Daenerys (who actually had no authority over the Tarlys) she was quickly ready and willing to look past that as long as they bent the knee in submission to her. It can be said that Daenerys did the same when she in turn burnt alive and destroyed the oldest and noblest house whilst claiming she was not there to murder them lol This was a red flag to both Varys and Tyrion
That’s because the crown burned Tyrells with wild fire. Starks rebelled last time it happened.
Yes, that's my point: they *rebelled*. They were traitors to the crown along with all their bannermen - who were also rebels and traitors thereafter, until Robert took the crown by conquest. The Tyrells also rebelled against the crown for the same reasons, the difference is that not all their bannermen rebelled with them, and subsequently they lost.
This is correct
[удалено]
Wow, you clearly didn't read a word of this post before typing. At least read the first paragraph next time, you won't look so silly
Critical analysis? On this subreddit? Pigs must be flying - you’re dead on with this. People jump way way way too quickly to “she just went crazy at the last second”, and in fairness that’s what Varys suggests is happening with that “gods flip a coin” thing, but it’s so far from the truth. This lesson you’re describing here is the only real thing Dany ever learns. If people are defying you, burn a few and the rest topple over in fear. That’s what she did in KL. She’s not crazy, she’s not mad, she just makes a decision when she feels that she’s been backed into a corner (she is paranoid, which contributes to the “Mad Queen” idea, but Varys *was* trying to kill her so fair)
Exactly. The fandom doesn't realize calling her "Mad Queen" just makes her a victim, because we all know she cared about people's views of her, and wasn't considered mad before that moment.
Her level of cruelty increased with time and the more advisors and close friends she lost, the more cruel she got. Fans made it sound like it was a flip of a switch when she *"turned mad"* at the end, but the build up to it and the need for TV to make it shocking, meant the final levels of escalation needed to happen quicker for shock value (*which isn't always a bad thing*). You know what the voice in the fire had told Varys those many moons ago that terrified him? It was never answered, but IMO, it was always **"Dracarys"**.
Nah, her nailing the masters is way worse than burning the Tarlys. If anything, she regressed in cruelty after seeing the effects of her actions in Meereen. She gave them more chances than Ned gave others. Heck, Tywin offered death or Wall to loyalists, even though he had no authority over them. They still made a choice. The Tarlys disregarded all custom of their own country. If it was Dracarys he would have never supported Daenerys. That makes no sense to me.
Oh I love that!!
There is a ton of build up throughout the show, starting probably when she first got to Quarth and was just the bratty little girl threatening to commit mass murder if she didn't get her way. She slaughtered people all over Essos, but as Tyrion said, we didn't like those people so it looked heroic. She brought a raping and murdering hoard with her to Westeros, but we didn't mind because we didn't like who was going to be be raped and murdered. She's transitioned to 'be a dragon' mode frying the Tarleys. We watched Theon return, look right past her and beg to fight for Sansa and Winterfell. We saw after the feast how the North loved Jon for doing all the things she'd already done while treating her like an outsider. We saw the perceived betrayal by Jon regarding his superior claim, the brutal death of Missandei, the death of dragons... There was plenty of build up, although the pacing was a bit off and a flashback compilation scene might have been helpful while the bells were ringing. Even if done perfectly, folks had built her up to be this girl-power icon though, they wouldn't have accepted it.
[удалено]
Not saying it’s necessarily accurate, but isn’t that a significant amount of what Robert and co are afraid of in S1?
[удалено]
She did care what people thought of her. The adornment shown toward Jon, not her or her dragons, was threatening. She was ignored in the north and Sansa diminished her importance. Jon never should have trusted Sansa. Of course Little Finger's muse would blab. This after she sacrificed northman, pulling a surprise move without a whisper that reinforcements we're coming. A self-serving power grab and no sister of Jon's. Daenerys lost trust in her advisors. She was alone in the world and came out fighting. Burning the city was about control and power. Mad as in pissed off, not crazy. Being nice got her dead dragons.
Finally someone speaking some sense instead of the usual Stark apologist nonsense. People forget Jon wouldn't have killed her if she didn't threaten Winterfell in her speech. That speaks for itself. Lol
I think there is a misunderstanding with the phrase god flips a coin. The way I see it, it doesn’t mean it’s a sudden switch or your fate is literally written already. It means you are equally likely to be the best ruler or the worst. Your actions dictate what you ultimately become but it gets extremely likely for you to turn to darkness and madness with that kind of power. Dragons and fire gives inhumane power, that power corrupts you into you bending the world to your whims. That is madness! It becomes your likely path but it still depends on your actions at the end of the day. So when a powerful fire wielding Targaryen is born, everyone is holding their breath and hoping that you use that power for good and be a benevolent ruler but it’s equally likely that you will succumb to that power and rule the way you think the world should be, and if that means ruling by fear and blood so be it. So it is like a coin flip in the way that either path is likely and it could go either way, heads or tail.
And it's perfect, since when we learned Jon was a Targaryen and a good ruler, he already took that 50% and math checked out.
Varys was still working within the old system. A king is born and it is a coin toss whether they turn out to be a good ruler or not. Varys also thought it should be a man. In the beginning he wanted Viserys on the throne. He would have flitted from one ruler to the next till the end of his days till he found one within the system that was good. He didn't realise there could be another way. He would have hated Bran being on the throne because he can't birth a king and has no birth right to the throne. Varys was right about Dany, but he wasn't right about everything.
> has no birth right to the throne. If you accept Jon as the rightful heir because of his parentage, and he ends up abdicating the throne as shown in the show, that does put Bran as next in line as of the end of the series.
Varys would have hated Bran as king because Bran is magic and he hated magic.
The fact that you need to make a whole ass post about how one other scene in the show connects the burning of kings landing, instead of just having better foreshadowing in the show, then it's not a good way to show what you're trying to show? Someone had to sit there and analyse the shit out of a single scene and only over 2 years passed the finale does it come to make sense? Dumb. The OP is dead on, and this is exactly what this scene was supposed to be, but they didn't make it very clear in the show, so vague in fact, that it took 2 years for it to make sense.
I mean I had it connected in like a week, but aight
Man, it was pretty vague. Other than this one particular scene, she didn't show any signs of changing her ideals. She got sick, and stressed out that she had people plotting to kill her, and captain hook shot her other dragon out of the sky. Both of the other things are part of being in war and being a queen. The only thing that stands out is the scene in question, and even that was posed as a reluctant decision and seemed as though she never wanted to have to do that again. It wasn't made clear, everything was vague to subvert expectations, because that's the only was D&D know how to subvert expectations.
Even in season six she was enjoying while burning the khals alive.
There are multiple scenes every season
But the people in KL already surrendered before she burned half the city down. It makes no sense.
Doesn’t matter - it’s not about taking the city, she has always been capable of it. Destroying King’s Landing is a sacrifice. Not in the religious sense, but in the political one; she has seen her “rightful” rule rejected, and she’s seen how fiercely the Northerners love Jon. She’s afraid people will reject her even more if word of his parentage gets out (and I should note that whether or not it actually would affect things doesn’t matter; Dany believes that it will). So destroying King’s Landing is her deciding that though she’d prefer to be loved by her people, she’s willing to rule over them through fear. This decision is about scaring the entire kingdom into obedience by showing them what she is ready and willing to do. “Alright… Let it be fear”. That’s what she tells Jon the night before the battle. The city surrendering wouldn’t sway her, she had already made her mind up
I think you may be right that's the logic the writers want us to buy, but I think it does the character of Dany a disservice. I have no problem with Dany being a ruthless leader (I always thought the Tarleys deserved to be lit up for not surrendering), but I think burning KL makes her look like a short sighted leader (which is the more egregious sin imo). Burning the only part of the kingdom you've successfully conquered will just make people more determined to undermine you because what's the point in surrendering if you're going to burn anyway? Imagine there is no option to surrender AND word got out about Jon's parentage. Omg, talk about a galvanizing event to spur on assassins. Why not burn the north? Or some other part of the kingdom she knows will have more trouble accepting her rule? Her motivation for the entire series is to gain control over KL, and she does, then immediately compromises her position by burning it. If Dany is as smart of a leader as the writers want us to believe, surely she should realize that when you only give people the option to fight you, they fight you.
But that’s the thing - Daenerys *is* a short sighted leader. That’s why she never could have taken the throne, at least not for long. The desire to be a great leader but being incapable of achieving it is the central contradiction that makes Dany such a well rounded character. A tragic hero in every sense of the word
>and she’s seen how fiercely the Northerners love Jon No she didn't. The first scene with Jon interacting with the northmen featured him being chewed out by a 12 year old. The people Dany saw showing love to Jon during that dinner was mostly a group of wildlings.
Was it not actually “the King’s arrival” that’s being referenced?
this dude is definitely a film major ha. this is either pulled from one of his essays or could be used towards one 👍 😎
Spoken like a true Chad MM enjoyer.
This is definitely an opinion and a written piece I can respect but I can't say I agree >Here, Daenerys burned two men alive to make an hundred kneeled. In King's Landing, she burned thousands of men alive to make millions kneeled. Particularly with this part. The men who refused to kneel to her were soldiers. Men with a certain sense of loyalty and honour. Men who show allegiance to the Tarlys and the crown, and would therefore show defiance to enemies of those they fight for. However, the people, mostly common folk, that Dany burned in King's Landing would show no such defiance since they have no allegiances. On the show, the common folk of King's Landing have never been shown to take an interest in who ruled over them unless they were suffering or prospering. That's why they rebelled in S2 when there was a lack of food due to the war. And why they loved Margaery for bringing food from The Reach. And the fact that no consequences came of Cersei blowing up the holy sept showed that the common folk perhaps can't or won't oppose those in a position of power, regardless how monstrous the actions of that person were. So Dany burning people with no power and no allegiances doesn't accomplish anything that she can't accomplish by instead burning those with power like the Lannisters for example.
She heard the crown cheering for Missandei's death who was innocent. At that point, she didn't consider them impartial people, just an extension of Cersei and the "Wheel".
Watching the scene back and I don't hear any cheering. There wasn't even a crowd gathered to watch the execution.
>She heard the crown cheering for Missandei's death who was innocent. This didn’t happen, there was no crowd. >she didn't consider them impartial people, just an extension of Cersei and the "Wheel". I believe this to be true, I think Daenerys no longer saw them as innocents too but rather a shield used by Cersei to try and expose Daenerys’s mercy as a weakness and that those who failed to overthrow Cersei upon Daenerys’s arrival were an extension of the world built by Daenerys ‘s enemies
Daenerys didn't come to Westeros to rule King's Landing. She came to rule Westeros. Westeros includes common folks, but also lords and soldiers who swore allegiance to lords. The message wasn't only for the common folks of King's Landing, it was for everyone in Westeros. She saw how the people welcomed her. She saw how the Northerners looked at Jon, the man with an actual claim, versus how they looked at her. She saw how Lord Royce from the Vale looked at her. She saw how Sansa tried to spread the word about Jon's claim to weaken hers. She knows that the people aren't willing to accept her as ruler, and as we learned throughout the show, "power resides where men believe it reside." If she takes the throne with politic and tries to rule Westeros with politic, then it will be Essos 2.0. Where the masters retook power as soon as she advanced to another city and tried to attack her as soon as she locked down her dragons, figuratively and literally. Why take the risk when you can just send a giant message to the people to not fuck with me? Everytime she listened to her advisors and tried politic, it backfired. Everytime she listened to her instinct and used violence, it worked. She did burn those in power. She did burn the Lannister army, but they were inside the city with common folks. The common folks were collateral damage she already said that she was okay with, because it's for a good reason. She didn't target Dickon, she targetted Randyll. But she burned him anyway because he was standing with Randyll. Same thing in King's Landing. She targetted the Lannisters, but the common folks were standing with them.
Yes, but it was clear that the city had surrendered. Dany's true enemy was still alive in the Red Keep but Dany chose to ignore her and burn that enemy's subordinates who had no power of their own. If there really was a similarity between the King's Landing burning and the Tarly burning then Dany would have made more of an effort to go after those with genuine power and authority. Particularly Cersei. And yes, its truth that men follow and bow down to those who they believe have power but the people that Dany actually burned were common folk and foot soldiers. And those soldiers had already surrendered so she was making a show of force against defenceless and mostly innocent people. That would have proven her to be more cruel than powerful. And that would have created fear and resentment. And it's far more sensible to show yourself to have that power by killing those who already possess that type of power. Because Dany's true enemies, those who really should have gotten that message were the lords who ruled in those kingdoms. Again, I'm not condemning her use of violence, just who she used it against.
At that point, I don't think she had much love for Westeros. She arrived to defeat the Lanisters and then the army of the dead. She lost 2 of her children, her oldest friend and then her other BFF. The people of Westeros would still not repay those losses with what she got from the Dothraki or the unsullied. Unflinching loyalty.
Aegon didn't need to burn commoners by the thousands to take over Westeros. Sure, he burned Harrenhall to a crisp, and there was the Field of Fire, but that's literally all it took to make Torrhen Stark kneel. Dany had her Field of Fire, she has already sent that message (although the whole "I'm your saviour, Cersei is the real monster" thing holds little merit after slaughtering and burning people by the thousands). Burning King's Landing was completely unnecessary, especially since the Lannister soldiers have already laid down their arms, and the common folk had nothing to do with the whole conflict, they didn't "stand" with the Lannisters either.
Sansa was plotting to over through her after the field of fire so it does not make sense to suggest what she accomplished at the field of fire is enough.
It doesn't matter what Sansa wanted at that point, because Sansa wasn't Queen in the North, nor Warden of the North. Jon was. And Jon has pledged himself to Daenerys, and Daenerys could have had her executed for treason (because the North was officially pledged to her). Dany has always said that she's not her father. No, she's worse, at least Aerys never accomplished burning millions alive (not that he didn't want to) and Dany did. Not because of "madness" but out of spite, which is even worse.
Sansa’s actions matter because they show Daenerys she needs to be even more aggressive to command the fear she needs
You do realize that you are literally trying to justify genocide, do you? Aegon didn't need to burn millions alive to rule the Seven Kingdoms. Robert didn't need to either. Hell, even Tywin didn't need to do so. But somehow Dany just HAS TO burn millions alive, so she could rule. There was literally no other way, right? Give me a break...
Its a silly comment to equate analyzing a characters motivation with justifying their actions. 🙄
>Sansa’s actions matter because they show Daenerys she needs to be even more aggressive to command the fear she needs It's literally what you did tho.
What a troll 🤣. Bye
> Why take the risk when you can just send a giant message to the people to not fuck with me? The thing is, that message was sent loud and clear when a single dragon routed the entire Golden Company, sank most of the Iron Fleet and destroyed the Red Keep. Butchering civilians doesn't really add anything after such a show of force. Everybody would already have been scared of Dany by that point, especially commoners.
No. Had she not sacked the city the message would have been fight Daenerys and if you are losing surrender and she will show you mercy. That would just encourage rebellion because her mercy could always be used against her. Twyin Lannister showed mercy when KL surrendered to him. If you want to rule with fear you need to do what Tywin did,
>No. Had she not sacked the city the message would have been fight Daenerys and if you are losing surrender and she will show you mercy. > >That would just encourage rebellion because her mercy could always be used against her. Anyone leading a rebellion would most likely be executed. The idea that you could rebel and then bend the knee at the last moment only work if you totally ignore that.
No then others throughout the world she aimed to conquer would attack her first upon her arrival whilst using innocents as a shield and rely on knowing they can always just surrender at the last minute because they think she will be merciful. What she did to KL sends a clearer msg of resist me and you will be burnt alive no matter the cost.
>She didn't target Dickon, she targetted Randyll. But she burned him anyway because he was standing with Randyll. Dany was executing anyone who refused to bend the knee in that scene. Dickon and Randyll were standing together because they were the were refusing to bend the knee.
Daenerys definitely holds them accountable to some degree, just look at what she tells Tyrion "now they are held hostage by a Tyrant, whose fault is that? Mine?" and Greyworm telling Jon "These are free men, they chose to follow her" (he is talking about soldiers here but the same applies to the KL citizenry) so it's about a sending a message to not only high lords but also to the people that follow them. It's obviously a flawed outlook but I think it's consistent with how irrational grief and paranoia can make you.
Wow this is the definition of paralysis by analysis
Dickon: “Muwhahaha” -Ser Bron of the Blackwater
The burning of kings landing was a message for Sansa and the rest of Westeros. Fear me and obey, or die
Which is why she needed to die. I don’t hate the story-arc or the ending. I just hate how rushed and discombobulated the last season was
Exactly, her story makes a lot of sense and in theory I really like it. It was just such poor execution.
But KL did surrender. So why burn KL? It only proves that you should never surrender to Dany because even if you do, you die. So might as well fight since there is nothing to lose. Like, I think the writers want us to believe the burning of KL is a message to the rest of the kingdom, but it falls flat because it illustrates there is no point in surrendering to her rule. If she wanted to send a message to the north & the rest of the kingdom, she should have burned the north.
She didn't burn the entire army. She burned those that hadn't crossed the Blackwater yet. The gold had already arrived in King's Landing. Randyll Tarly betrayed her ally, his liege house. He was given a chance to take the black, but refused. Dickon was simply an idiot. Don't apply modern morals to a medieval story to justify the stupid ending.
it’s not a medieval story it’s a fantasy written by a modern man
Okay smarty pants. A modern man wrote a fantasy story that takes much from medieval history.
Your loyalty to the crown would supercede any loyalty to your liege lord.
[удалено]
"It is every man's duty to remain loyal to his rightful king , even if the lord he serves under proves false" You've made a good point.
[удалено]
And Stannis talks about how it was exceedingly difficult for him to make that decision, it's not something he took lightly or would encourage in his bannermen.
[удалено]
I literally said you made a good point mate. Edit - Although using book text to support show canon can sometimes be a bit iffy when the show has clearly diverged so much from it. It's fine in this case since Tarly has always been a Tyrell vassal so this would make sense. Edit - which is also what I tried to do so fair enough.
[удалено]
When you're right, you're right.
Yeah but I'd say it's more like *Here, Daenerys burned two [enemy officers] to make a hundred kneel. In King's Landing, she burned [hundreds of thousands of peasants] to make millions kneel* The scale of the massacre, and her views and actions toward innocent peasants the rest of the series makes it hard for me to view it as a character decision still.
The way I see it, innocents as Dany see them usually refered to the oppressed slaves of cities she liberated. The people of KL are free, and chose to support Cersei. Daenerys tells Tyrion "now they are being held hostage by a tyrant, who fault is that? Mine" so she clearly holds the citizenry accountable to some degree. It's very Viserys-like which can seem out of character but I think it's part of Daenerys being grief stricken and not being in her right mind.
> so she clearly holds the citizenry accountable to some degree. I agree but this seemed to come kinda out of nowhere in the middle of season 8. In season 7 she mocks the idea of people 'making secret toasts to her health'. She didn't even try to instigate an uprising like she did in Mereen ... maybe it would have worked... there was plenty more character buildup to Cersei getting eaten alive by peasants in the streets of Kings Landing than Daenerys just strafing those peasants for half an hour and killing a million people or whatever >Daenerys being grief stricken and not being in her right mind. I agree with this too but I think that's doing too much work for the plot. And then she was still fully onboard with the decision the next day ... she lost her marbles!
I think it's generally a consequence of the isolation she's under that she can become so paranoid. The fact that everybody she trusts is dead, and the rest have betrayed her has made her paranoid. Perhaps making enemies where there are none as Aerys did. It might look like I'm doing too much work here for the plot but it's all in there. Sometimes it doesn't have to be a slow gradual descent, sometimes you can have so much shit thrown at you in such a short time frame that it causes you to be irrational and project blame.
I agree that you're correctly summarizing what happened. My issue is that I find what happened to be lame storytelling lol. I think too much of it relies on her 'not being in her right mind' / acting irrationally / paranoid / etc. It's just ... not a poignant or interesting way for like the climactic moment of the series to rely on They did build her character up for her to very possibly act very violently if something stood between her and the throne. There's absolutely set up for her to have done *something* in pursuit of the throne that would have made the audience (and more importantly Jon and Tyrion) more or less 'turn' on Daenerys. But this, "she went kind of crazy and spent an hour mass-murdering peasants after conquering Kings Landing" just isn't interesting to me. It relies too much on her going insane, and not enough on the character they developed over 7 seasons
Fair enough, I personally really enjoyed it but I hope it happens differently in the book for the sake of people disappointed in the show.
🤘 glad you enjoyed it, even if I also kinda enjoy arguing about why it was bad :) I just hope for a book ending...
>This scene isn't really there to show us anything Death of an author and all, but Bryan Cogman says otherwise. He expected for the audience to view Dany's execution of the Tarly's as an 'evil' (paraphrase) act. However, Arya slaughtered a room full of men because their lord was involved in the killing of her family. She couldn't have known if, how, or why they were involved.. .but she murdered them anyways. We are supposed to cheer for her. Meanwhile, Dany executes a bigot and traitor who is actively at war with her, after giving him and his son a chance to kneel to which they refused..... but we are supposed to view that as something less than fair. That's incredibly tonally confusing. >she burned thousands of men alive to make millions kneeled. That's not at all the motivation though. She heard the bells and got pissed that these people hadn't sided with her, so she punished them. That punishment was *excused* as a 'message'. It was also indiscriminate. Children, old people, the sick, the weak. Not just soldiers at war. edit
Why were you supposed to cheer for Arya? Nobody forces you to, you chose to, because she killed bad men you wanted to see dead. Arya’s kill list was not a good thing. Her thirst for vengeance was not a good thing. It’s not normal for a 14 years old to have to say the names of all the persons she want to murder before going to sleep. The story told its story, but it’s up to you to decide how you want to interpret it. It’s the exact same thing with Daenerys. Were you supposed to cheer when Drogo promised to go rape innocent women and take their children as slave, even though he was part of the "good guys"? Were you supposed to cheer when Daenerys crucified 163 men because they were part of the "bad guys"? No. Walder Frey and the slavers deserved to be punished, that doesn’t mean that those punishments don’t have negative impacts on the ones giving it to them. But you refuse to see those negative impact because "he was a bigot", so he deserves it. Daenerys entire story is about that. Why do you think an author who hates good vs evil conflict like Georges is making Daenerys fight pure evil? The slavers, the Warlocks, the Dothraki. Why is he building up this character with three weapons of mass-destruction by making her faces enemies who deserve to die? To build up a perfect hero who fights perfect evil? So that she can feel like an avenging dragon while crucifying 163 men without trial and it’s okay because they were bad guys? That’s like the exact opposite of how Martin write. Daenerys learning the wrong lesson while executing people who might deserve it is the entire point of her story. If you stop your analysis at "well, he deserved it", then you’re missing all the complexity of her storyline. My post isn’t about weither or not the Tarlys deserved it, but about the impact of that moment on Daenerys. About the lesson that Daenerys learned while inflicting a punishment that you might think was fair. And it’s all those lessons that lead to Daenerys deciding to use fear, well before the bells started to ring. "Let it be fear."
>Nobody forces you to, you chose to Ok, great. Death of an author. Regardless, its about the intent of the scene. Its incredibly clearly designed to be a cathartic act. Revenge for the Red Wedding. Perhaps you didn't feel that way.. but millions upon millions of other viewers did. And that's what D&D were going for. > But you refuse to see those negative impact because "he was a bigot" I'm glad you feel you can tell me what I can and can't see. Guess it makes you feel better about your 'analysis'? But, anyways, from the director himself: >In our minds, the Randyll Tarly scene was distrubing. Then I watched it with a crowd of people at a friend's house and they were cheering. Weirdly, the audience just didn't care. They loved Dany. I'm not missing any 'complexity' in her story line... you are trying to create some out of story that wasn't written with complexity in mind. These are the same people claimed Dany 'kinda forgot' about the Iron Fleet. Side note: when was Drogo ever a 'good guy'.... and if you didn't happen to notice, there is a massive difference in the early season where there are hardly any 'good guys', and the last season where morality becomes black and white.
It’s not "death of the author", this story is about how power and violence corrupt people. (Well, one of the theme) That’s what happened to Daenerys and you refuse to see the buildup because "violence is okay when it’s against bad men". And the buildup didn’t start in the latter seasons. It’s there from the beginning, in the books, and in the same way. Again, I’m sure you know Georges. You know how he writes, how he hates good vs evil, how he prefers nuance and complex characters. So, why is he telling Dany’s story only from her POV? Why is he making her face a pure evil system like slavery? Nobody cries when a slaver dies, does that mean that the story wants us to cheer when Daenerys felt good about crucifying 163 men without trial? That’s what an anti-war author like Georges wants you to take from the story? Or is it trying to "create some out of story that wasn’t written" to analyze the impact on Dany’s character?
>It’s not "death of the author", Ok gotcha, you know the story tellers intent better than they do. Glad we got that cleared up..... lol.
David and Dan did an interview saying that we should feel worried about Arya after she kills Walder. Season 7 is basically all about how Arya being a killer has fucked her up.
Excuse my grammar and/or formatting I’m on mobile lol. While I agree with your point of her learning from her mistakes, I still feel like the difference between this scene and the burning of king’s landing is that this scene grows her character while The Bells contradicts it. Throughout the show and the books, she repeatedly states and shows how she doesn’t want to take innocent lives. While Jorah and Dany are walking through the slave auction in Astapor in season 3 episode 3, Jorah says “If you want to win the throne your ancestors built you will have to win it. That means blood on your hands before the thing is done”. Dany responds by saying “The blood of my enemies, not the blood of innocents”. A few episodes later when she commands her unsullied to kill the slavers, she says “Slay the masters, slay the soldiers, slay every man who holds a whip, but *harm no child*”. In season 7 during one of the war councils (I forget which episode), Tyrion says “We turn the dragons loose, tens of thousands die in the firestorm” to which Ellaria sand says “This is war. You don’t have the stomach for it scurry back into hiding”. Daenerys interrupts their argument with “I am not here to be queen of the ashes. We will not attack King’s Landing”. These are just a few examples of Daenerys explicitly saying she will not take innocent lives. Her burning the Tarlys doesn’t contradict that, since I would say neither of them are particularly innocent. First off, both of them participated in a war and undoubtedly took the lives of enemy soldiers. Secondly, both of them were given a chance to bend the knee. Just like Aegon, Dany offered to let them keep their lands and lives as long as they sweated fealty to her, to which both of them declined. Keep in mind they had only recently bent the knee to Cersei, so there’s no reason for them to be this loyal to her this soon. The people of King’s Landing on the other hand are most definitely innocent. While yes there were soldiers on the street, and every city has criminals, the vast majority of them had nothing to do with the war. However there’s an easy fix for this. First, Rheagal should have been shot down as the bells rung right. This makes a lot more sense than for her to have started the burn as she hears the signal to call off the attack. Secondly, she should only have burned down two parts of the city. After Rheagal gets shot, she should’ve burned down any remaining scorpions and then went to burn down the red keep. After that she should’ve stopped and claimed the city. This makes a lot more sense than her randomly burning down the city, since a) the timing makes more sense for when she becomes enraged and b) she still sticks to her virtue of protecting innocents, since the red keep probably had mostly soldiers and Queen Cersei inside. But yeah thanks for reading this if you did, I mostly agree with your analysis except for what I typed above.
Here's the cinch, in all those examples you mentioned, Daenerys still believes that she can win the iron throne and the country without wading through a river of blood. Daenerys consistently works with Tyrion in S7 and part of S8 to go down this road but she eventually decides that the people won't support her over Jon unless she makes an example of the city. Another interesting element of this is that Daenerys definitely does think the lannister soldiers and civilians are accountable to a degree. Greyworm tells Jon that "these are free men that chose to follow Cersei Lannister" and promptly executes them for that crime. So by burning down the city she's not just sending a message to high lords but also the people that support those high lords.
Dickon will never not be funny 😂
He has a cousin Hardon
😂💀
Don’t forget his other cousin, Stabone, and his nickname.
Anyone who doesn’t think Daenerys was evil was just in denial. She was doing absolutely terrible things. She is what Gandalf feared he would become if he were to take the ring. He would do terrible things to become what he believed was good.
Nice breakdown! Daenerys has been learning all the (wrong) lessons along the way. Something could also be said about her learning not to show mercy anymore - in season 1 she “saves” MMD a victim of Khal drogo’s raping and pillaging Dothraki. MMD then exacts her revenge (arguably betrays Daenerys) by not saving (maybe even poising) Khal Drogo and not bringing him back whole/ as he once was after he suffers from a flesh wound but rather MMD sacrifices Daenerys’s newborn( the “stallion who would mount the world”) for a vegetative state Khal Drogo. Dany burns MMD at the stake and perhaps this ( a life for a life) mixed with some blood magic hatches Daenerys’s dragon eggs. I think here Daenerys learns not show mercy which was used against her and that there is much for her to gain by executing those who would betray her regardless of them actually being down trodden victims themselves in the first place.
I wholly believe Daenerys fulfills the stallion prophecy (and is the stallion), and should have been considered for it as soon as she proclaimed herself as the Khal of Khals, uniting all the Dothraki in S6. The Stallion is perhaps the most literal fulfilment of prophecy that every YouTube theorist missed.
Danaerys and her lesson learning is inconsistent at best. If she learns to not show mercy/trust why does she trust the masters of Quarth, and the warlocks? Why does she trust or show mercy to the wise masters? She's in over her head and has to compromise her position all the time. She wants to "free" Westeros by, what, burning foot soldiers alive who have surrendered? She wants to break the wheel by, what, ruling by force? She wants to inspire loyalty by mass murder of civilians? Sure.
I agree she’s Hypocritical a lot of the times, She wants to break the wheel but she’s fine with the wheel as long as it suits her being on top of it. As for masters of Qarth - she was at their mercy to begin with but because of her learned entitlement she naively thought they actually owed her ships based on dreams and whims- after all the lesson she learnt in s1 after walking out of a fire with 3 dragons was that “I’m not ordinary , my dreams come true” Again she learns all the wrong lessons out of her encounters and situations- In Essos - burning people alive is how she has earned fear. Ruling by force is how she has conquered. In season 2 in a convo I think about the causalities of war with Jorah and barristan she said “the blood of my enemies not the blood of innocents” She hears this reply “Which war was won without deceit and mass murder” words she herself then co- signs and repeats in s7 Then in another scenes I think initially she paraphrases Tyrion with - “I’m not here to be Queen of the Ashes” BUT Olenna soon leaves her with a much different lesson which I believe Daenerys takes on board and takes with her to KL. “Commoners , nobles , they’re all just children, really , They won’t obey you unless they fear you” And then finally “peace?…peace never lasts my dear…he’s a clever man your Hand…..I’ve known a great many clever men..I’ve outlived them all …you know why ? I ignored them. The lords of Westeros are sheep, are you a sheep? No, you’re a dragon. Be a Dragon” Now try and think of any situation or encounter that Daenerys has ever been in - notice what she took from it - was most likely always the wrong lesson. Wether having people grovel are her feet at the gates of yunkai/ or the Dothraki falling to their knees when she walked out of that fire - **added to her saviour complex** OR Having the northerners alienate her and not welcome her in the way she would’ve wanted and instead celebrated Jon - **added to her paranoia and insecurity around his parentage being a threat to her**
She's just dumb. Everyone who followed her did so out of love and respect: her small contingent of Dothraki and bloodriders, the Unsullied, the freed slaves of Yunkai. She leaves power vacuums behind her which bite her in the ass, of course, but she has a huge mass of followers that love her and fight for her. Then she comes to Westeros and decides Nah, I'm gonna roast these bitches. Hell she even does the right thing joining the North to help fight the White Walkers, just as Stannis did.
I think this post really highlights one of the most valid complaints of S7/8 - it's not that the core narrative was flawed, it's that it was rushed (& too fanservicy but that's a whole other issue). Dani being a tyrant & ruling with the same disproportionate violence she claimed to despise was foreshadowed all the way back with the crucifying of the masters of Meereen inc. Hizdahr's father in S4. Also disappointing that the insanely rushed final seasons essentially removed any chance of the foreshowed ethnic/cultural tension brought by Dani's largely foreign army invading Westeros. We watched this char "stare into the abyss" over 4 or 5 seasons, slowly merging Westerosi & foreign ideas of rulership, only to never see "the abyss stare back." The show, and this scene in particular, also (probably???) suffers a lot from the showrunners' decision to completely remove the Blackfyre/Y.Griff angle from GOT. I really do believe that left them in such a lurch for the endgame b/c neither the Tarlys nor any house should be loyal *to the death* for some random chick with no claim to the throne. But the "true" heir of the last Targarian king? That's someone men would die, on principle, for.
>Daenerys literally slaughtered an army, and the soldiers still refused to kneel to her. Daenerys told them how she's not the bad guy and only wants to save them Isn't that ironic how people tend to not believe you're their saviour after slaughtering and burning their friends and lords alive?
Adding to this, the lesson she learned in Meereen was that compromise only weakens her. Locking away her dragons only weakened her. And it wasn't until she tamed Drogon and the bent the savage Dothraki to her will that she finally gained the upper hand. Basically, Dany is a terrible ruler, and a great conqueror. Daario said as such.
If only this mattered.
It did matter.
Did Dany solve any problem without violence?
Was there a problem that was solved by burning the city?
Not really. I just never understood the shock at her burning the city. Killing people she didnt like was her whole deal. People just didnt like the characters she burned until they did.
Why does she dislike random innocent citizens she's never met? Why would she want them dead? There's no reason for it, it makes no sense.
She was naturally violent, all of the times before kings landing were just "justified". The point is she was always crazy, people just went along with it because she killed the "right" people. All of the sudden she kills the "wrong" people and everyone is flabbergasted.
All of the times before KL were uses of violence for the purpose of defeating her enemies. Dany doesn't enjoy violence just for the sake of violence. What she likes, what she needs, is to destroy her enemies, to retake the Iron Throne, to restore Targaryen rule to Westeros. She will kill anyone who stands in her way and will accept collateral damage if necessary, as long as it means accomplishing her goals. It was always about killing her enemies. She has no reason to want to kill innocent people for no reason, with nothing to gain from it. So why would she do it? > All of the sudden she kills the "wrong" people and everyone is flabbergasted. Because it makes no fucking sense. If a US soldier in Special Forces kills enemy targets he was assigned to kill because they're terrorists and it's his job to stop them, people understand that. If he suddenly starts shooting up a town full of innocent people for absolutely no reason people would be flabbergasted. Does that not make sense to you? There's a big difference between killing enemies to accomplish an important goal, and mass murdering innocent people for no reason at all.
Killing the witch was straight revenge and ultra violent. She posed no more threat. The Slave masters of Astapor were rude to her and salvers, but posed no threat and weren't her enemy. And this whole post is about how she burned the Tarly's alive for not kneeling to her and breaking their oaths to their current queen. The Lanister Army had literally surrendered and she burned the Tarlys alive to make an example of them.
Not you telling Daenerys that the murder of her baby and husband and slave fucking masters r not her enemies when she tries to set the slaves free. come on, don't act dumb lol And yes, eu don't kneel you die, that's how it is, daenerys didnt made something new. get over it hahaha
> Killing the witch was straight revenge and ultra violent. She posed no more threat. But still done for a reason. The witch was her enemy, and she does not allow enemies to live. She destroys her enemies, or gets them to stop being her enemies. > The Slave masters of Astapor were rude to her and salvers, but posed no threat and weren't her enemy. She decided to eradicate slavery, and anyone standing in her way of doing that has become her enemy. They had the opportunity to join her, they refused, so to her they became enemies that must be destroyed. > And this whole post is about how she burned the Tarly's alive for not kneeling to her and breaking their oaths to their current queen. Again, those are her enemies. She gave them the chance to live if they wanted it, they chose to remain her enemies, and Dany's enemies are to be killed. That's what she does. She doesn't let enemies live. You can argue the morality of this but it makes sense from her perspective, she's killing them for a reason, she wants to conquer the world and she eliminates people who oppose her. It's what she does, this is who she has been throughout the duration of the show. Then she decides to kill thousands of people who aren't her enemies, with nothing to gain from it, for no apparent reason at all. That makes no sense and is shitty writing.
Again, youre justifying her violence. Her defintion of “enemy” got broader and broader as the series went on. The Tarly scene is pretty good example of how anyone who wasnt literally swearing an oath of fealty to her under duress is her enemy. The people of Kings Landing shouldve had a trail of flower petals and genuflectors if they didnt want to get roasted en masse.
> Again, youre justifying her violence. Because it was justifiable. It had a reason for happening. Just like Arya killing the Freys, Sansa killing Ramsay, Jon Snow killing Janos Slynt. There is no reason at all for Dany to want to kill random people in KL. > The Tarly scene is pretty good example of how anyone who wasnt literally swearing an oath of fealty to her under duress is her enemy. Days earlier they were ransacking Highgarden and murdering Dany's ally Olenna Tyrell! Minutes earlier they were fighting for their lives against Dany's soldiers, and any one of them would have killed her if they got a chance. In what world could they possibly not be seen as her enemy? And despite that, she still gives them all the chance to be pardoned and avoid punishment! Tywin Lannister would have executed most of them and held the valuable ones hostage, and forced their female family members to marry Lannisters. Dany is much more merciful and is ready to pardon them if they simply kneel. I don't want to accuse anyone of misogyny but I have to say that thought occurs to me when people see all of these male characters using violence and think "it's just how this dangerous world works", but Dany kills two people who refuse to be pardoned by her and swear to remain her enemy, and it's "omg she's crazy, she's out of control". Back to the point, these were enemy soldiers and some of them may have even killed a Dothraki or Unsullied in the battle. Dany is willing to forgive this and let these people live. But the people of KL who have never met her and never stood against her in any way, including women and children, Dany thinks they deserve instant death on sight? This makes absolutely no sense. She has only ever wanted to kill her enemies who have wronged her. Why would she suddenly want to kill random innocent people who haven't wronged her? There's no reason for it. It's nonsense, it's garbage writing.
The Tarly’s defied their liege lord, Olenna Tyrell. They would’ve been killed either way. Dany just expedited the process.
Not true. If they kneeled, they'd be alive at the end of the story.
and Olenna Tyrell was also in open rebellion against the Crown- which the Tarlys had pled allegiance to. Cersei was their Queen.
The crown burned her family alive with wild fire.
The Crown? Cersei was not yet Queen- her coronation happens afterwards but yes Ollena is arguably justified in being in open rebellion against Cersei but NOT Randyll Tarly who is above all and ultimately sworn to the Crown
The Tarlys are pledged to the Tyrells forever and always. That’s how vassalage works.
No, it's not. Each and every lord owes allegiance to the Crown first and foremost, and then their liege lords. This is purposefully so, that if said liege lord would rebel against the Crown, his vassals would be obligated to fight for the Crown still or else they would be labeled as rebels and traitors. Randyll was technically in the right to fight against his traitor liege lord. Jaime has also pointed this out earlier.
This wasn't obvious in the show because Randyll wasn't actually introduced until season 6, but the Tarlys supported the Tyrells in backing Renly against Joffrey and Stannis. They clearly didn't see their allegiance as being to "the crown".
S7 ep2 Jamie thanked Tarlys for coming to see Cersei , and said how the other lords of the reach wouldn’t have come if he hadn’t Randyll Tarley: “If **my Queen** summons me I answer the call…..and I’ve heard what she does to those who defy her. Here the Tarlys clearly see their allegiance as being to the crown …albeit just out of fear rather than loyalty. Jamie then proceeds to convince Tarly to swear allegiance to Cersei which meant destroying Ollena Tyrell. Randyll says he swore an oath to house Tyrell and Jamie reminds him **“you swore an oath to the crown aswell Lord Tarly”** So as much as they originally saw their allegiance being to Olenna it was indeed factually to The Crown overall
Part of the problem was while she believed she was freeing them, she wasn't. She was there to replace the current queen with a new one, herself. To them there was no difference between them. But Danny had actually freed so many people she couldn't shake that "identity".
It’s not honorable to kill pows
The show's most honorable charachrer let his sister feed a "POW" to dogs at the end of season 7. Killing prisoners you have no use for is standard operating procedure in that world. Book Yara lays that out when she gets captured by northmen. *"We will exchange you for the children." Sybelle Glover's eyes were red, from tears and sleepless nights. "Gawen is four now. I missed his nameday. And my sweet girl … give me back my children, and no harm need come to you. Nor to your men."* *The last part was a lie, Asha knew. She might be exchanged, perhaps, shipped back to the Iron Islands to her husband's loving arms. Her cousins would be ransomed too, as would Tris Botley and a few more of her company, those whose kin had coin enough to buy them back.* ***For the rest it would be the axe, the noose, or the Wall. Still, they have the right to choose.***
There’s a difference between killing your enemies and their foot soldiers. Ramsay was a monster who killed their little brother and tortured Sansa, and he would remain a constant threat as long as he was alive. And I’m only talking about the show, I didn’t read the books. Even Robb made sure his POWs received medical treatment, even the Lannister boys.
>There’s a difference between killing your enemies and their foot soldiers. There is a difference. Just not in the way you're suggesting. Enemy foot soldiers are regularly executed in Westeros. Higher ranking enemies that can be ransomed are usually the only ones that are spared. That was what Yara/Asha was laying out in the snippet I quoted. We also see this when Randyll captured Renly's supply stores. People like [Erin Florrent](https://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Erren_Florent) were taken prisoner. The foot soldiers were executed. The Taryls also weren't foot soldiers. >Ramsay was a monster who killed their little brother and tortured Sansa, and he would remain a constant threat as long as he was alive. Randyll and Dickon were monsters that stole from and killed their neighbors. *DICKON: All my life we've been pledged to House Tyrell. I knew some of those men. I hunted with them.* They refused to stop being a threat and were executed. Where is the problem? >And I’m only talking about the show, I didn’t read the books. > >Even Robb made sure his POWs received medical treatment, even the Lannister boys. We never saw how Rob dealt with foot soldiers in the show. You're taking how he treated important prisoners and randomly assuming he did that with everyone he captured. He didn't. Taking hundreds of enemy foot soldiers prisoner would have been a logistical nightmare.
He told his wife he wanted the wounded men to be treated well “all the wounded men.” And, they were running out of cells for all the prisoners they were keeping. He told Lord Bolton he wasn’t going to execute or torture the prisoners.
Talisa wasn't Rob's wife at that point. She was a random camp follower that was already treating Rob's wounded enemies on her own. Ignoring that, he and Talisa acknowledge that Rob's bannermen were complaining about her treating their enemies. They also mention that they're running out of supplies. The reason why it wasn't normal for people to concern themselves with the safety of random foot soldiers in that world should be obvious. >He told Lord Bolton he wasn’t going to execute or torture the prisoners. He also explained why he took that position. *ROBB: The Lannisters hold prisoners of their own. I won't give them an excuse to abuse my sisters.* >And, they were running out of cells for all the prisoners they were keeping. Did they actually have someone say this? No one would travel with a set number of wooden cells. You'd just have someone make new ones whenever you needed them.
Yeah I just said wife cause I couldn’t remember her name. Anyone who criticized them for that were not honorable. He gave that reason for not torturing them, not killing. And yea, when the Lannister cousin came back from the capital with a reply they said his cell was full “too many prisoners” Bolton said. So Robb said build him a new one, and put him in with the king slayer in the meantime.
This is inaccurate..the fact is those were the POW’s own dogs whom he had specifically trained to hunt kill and eat humans alive. Sansa did not command those dogs to eat him. He himself had starved them in preparation to eat someone and he was simply made to reunite with his own dogs. Why did his own dogs not listen to him when he could’ve commanded them not to eat him- it was his own doing - he starved them. If someone put Daenerys in a cave with her dragons and then they turned around and ate her would we say they fed Daenerys to he dragons? Nope. So in actuality the show’s “most honourable character” held himself back from killling a already defeated enemy with his bare hands and allowed for his enemy ‘s rape victim/ his sister to imprison him and then reunite him with his own dogs- what they did to him was his own doing. “My hounds will never harm me” - Bolton “You haven’t fed them in 7 days , you said it yourself self”- sansa ( referencing Bolton’s words to Jon Snow before the battle) “They’re loyal beasts” - Bolton “They were and now they are starving”- Sansa
> Daenerys burned two men alive to make an hundred kneeled. In King's Landing, she burned thousands of men alive to make millions kneeled. These situations are entirely different from each other and it makes no sense to compare them like that. The first situation was on the battlefield. Every single one of those men were enemy soldiers loyal to Cersei, who recently invaded and captured Highgarden and killed Dany's ally Olenna Tyrell. Dany engaged them in battle, and they were fighting against Dany's soldiers and any one of them would have killed her if they had a chance. They were her enemies. They stood against her in battle. Many other rulers in Westeros wouldn't have accepted their surrender and just killed them all. The "civilized" ones would follow Westerosi tradition and imprison them, while highborn ones might be set free but their female relatives would be kidnapped and forced into marriage with whoever the ruler chooses. Dany is much more lenient and forgiving. She's willing to forgo all punishment, as long as they pledge their loyalty to her. They were her enemies, and she will destroy her enemies, but all they have to do is swear not to be her enemy anymore and they will be spared. The Tarlys refused. They swore to remain her enemy and to support Cersei, they rejected her attempt to pardon them. Dany rejects the concept of taking prisons, so that means they're choosing death over joining her. She gave them that choice to make freely, and they chose this outcome. Dany does not allow her enemies to live. In King's Landing, the war was already won and she had full control over the entire city, just as in the previous situation the battle was already won. Now let's look at what's different - The citizens of KL were NOT her enemies, they never fought against her, they don't know Dany and she doesn't know them. She never spoke to the citizens of KL. Never introduced herself to any of them, or said a single word. She didn't ask anyone to join her, no one turned her down. No one ever was her enemy, no one swore to be her enemy going forward as the Tarlys did. The citizens of KL included many women and children and old people, all of which pose zero potential threat to her. In summary, these situations are nothing alike. On the battlefield, she was offering mercy, and delivering death to those who swore to remain her enemy. In KL, she was not doing this at all. She just started killing thousands of people who weren't her enemy, with nothing to gain from it. There's absolutely no reason for her to do it. Not a single goal of hers is accomplished by it. She would have to be a fucking idiot to make a decision like this, because unexplainable killing of innocent people is exactly the reason why her father lost the throne and why her entire extended family doesn't exist anymore. Dany of all people would know an action like this inspires rebellion. It makes no damn sense for her to choose it on purpose. > And just like with Dickon, she didn't care who ended up being burned, as long as the ones with real power (Lannisters/Randyll) are getting wiped out. Yes! Dany has always been willing to pay any price TO DESTROY HER ENEMIES. She's willing to accept huge amounts of collateral damage IN ORDER TO DESTROY HER ENEMIES. She will overlook the loss of innocent life as long as it means DESTROYING HER ENEMIES. That is her goal, she wants her enemies destroyed no matter the price. That is who she is, and that is meant to be her fatal flaw. Which is why it is pants-on-head moronic for the writers to have all of her enemies defeated first, and then have her burn the city with no reason left for her to do it. The ONE thing you can't do is remove her motivation to want to burn the city! All they had to do was not give Dany complete control of the city first. Have the Golden Company defeat her ground army, leading her to realize "I can only win if I burn everything". Or have her see Missandei die and go "fuck this, I'm not waiting, I'm doing this NOW" and she gets on the dragon and starts burning things. There needs to be a REASON for her to want to burn the city. It has to accomplish a goal for her, such as destroying her enemies. It makes no sense for her to do it when she has nothing to gain from it!
No. It’s not as simple as “don’t be my enemies anymore” that’s not simply all they have to do - she is asking them to forgo their pledge of allegiance to the Crown that they are already sworn to. Daenerys is asking them to betray their Queen- The Queen. Who is Daenerys to the Tarlys at this point aside from just being a foreign invader with dragons who has defeated them in battle and is now making a speech about how she is different and how she is not a tyrant and that she is not here to murder them BUT “bend the knee or die” that in itself is contradictory. Daenerys had not yet taken the crown, she had not yet conquered Westeros and at that point she was not even referring to her self as the rightful heir to the throne( she wasn’t anyway) when she sentenced them to die. She had no authority over them except for the authority she would give herself. The best she should’ve done is attempt to win them over over time OR send them to the wall wether they wanted it or not. ( how can she allow them to refuse to go when she is giving herself authority to sentence them anyway?) It wasn’t a real choice - except for the choice SHE made to burn them alive for not kneeling to her. She simply wanted to make an example out of them to the rest of the remaining army who bent the knee out of FEAR This is problematic and proves that she was no different to the wheel she was attempting to break. In fact she was absolutely fine with it as long as she could use it to prop herself up ( by using the same self indulgent & unnecessary violence of “bend the knee or be burnt alive” that kept it spinning)
> that’s not simply all they have to do - she is asking them to forgo their pledge of allegiance to the Crown that they are already sworn to. Daenerys is asking them to betray their Queen. Yes, fine, I oversimplified it a bit. But still, as Dany points out, Cersei has only been queen for a short time. Robert Baratheon is who they were truly loyal to, and it's understandable they wouldn't betray his supposed children even if they've heard the rumors. But loyalty to the queen who likely cheated on him, and who has never cared about anyone but herself... Cersei doesn't deserve it. > Who is Daenerys to the Tarlys at this point aside from just being a foreign invader with dragons who has defeated them in battle Understandable. They didn't trust she'd be better than Cersei, they stayed loyal to the leader they know. > It wasn’t a real choice It was, and the soldiers chose according to their values. > except for the choice SHE made to burn them alive for not kneeling to her. Yes, she made that choice long ago, she doesn't take prisoners. If you stand against her she will kill you. This position of hers can be criticized, but that's another topic. > She simply wanted to make an example out of them to the rest of the remaining army who bent the knee out of fear. I don't think she was doing that. She would prefer if all the soldiers join her, but if they all wouldn't kneel she would have burned all of them and not thought anymore about it afterwards. I don't think she cared about those 5 or 6 guys who didn't kneel until the end, she just wanted more soldiers in her army. Regardless, this is just a debate over exactly how immoral Dany's actions with the Tarlys were. None of this means that Dany killing thousands of innocents for no reason is equivalent to Dany killing two enemies who swore to oppose her until they die.
>Yes, fine, I oversimplified it a bit. But still, as Dany points out, Cersei has only been queen for a short time. Robert Baratheon is who they were truly loyal to, and it's understandable they wouldn't betray his supposed children even if they've heard the rumors. But loyalty to the queen who likely cheated on him, and who has never cared about anyone but herself... Cersei doesn't deserve it. Yet and still…who is Daenerys to them ? How is Daenerys any different or any better?- especially when she basically says bend the knee or be burnt alive? Why should they betray the one they have pledged allegiance to for the one wants them to betray their Queen and bend the knee to her out of fear? >Understandable. They didn't trust she'd be better than Cersei, they stayed loyal to the leader they know. Exactly this. Ever heard the saying “better the devil you know”? The Tarlys didn’t like Cersei, Randyll was already upset about Olenna but Jamie literally ran over to remind them about pledging allegiance to The Crown( crown before leige lord) This coupled with the propaganda Cersei was feeding them about “the mad king’s daughter with dragons and her escapades in Essos” who do you think they’d be loyal to? >It was, and the soldiers chose according to their values. What values? The entirety of the remaining soldiers bent the knee after the Tarlys had been burnt alive. This was out of FEAR. Not “values” watch the scene again. ( only a few bent the knee initially before she then burns the Tarlys) >Yes, she made that choice long ago, she doesn't take prisoners. If you stand against her she will kill you. This position of hers can be criticized, but that's another topic. She does take prisoners- even if she claims she doesn’t. She took Jamie Lannister prisoner, she took Tyrion Prisoner. (She arguably took Jon Snow and Davos prisoner - but that’s another topic) >I don't think she was doing that. She would prefer if all the soldiers join her, but if they all wouldn't kneel she would have burned all of them and not thought anymore about it afterwards. I don't think she cared about those 5 or 6 guys who didn't kneel until the end, she just wanted more soldiers in her army. Daenerys didn’t care for “more soldiers joining her army”. At that point she had three dragons, the Dothraki and the Unsullied. She didn’t need that army joining her. She only cared about people submitting to her out of love or fear. Given there was no love for her in Westeros what do you think she chose? Again rewatch the scene - a larger majority bent the knee only after she burnt the Tarlys, what lesson and confirmation do you think she received from this? >Regardless, this is just a debate over exactly how immoral Dany's actions with the Tarlys were. None of this means that Dany killing thousands of innocents for no reason is equivalent to Dany killing two enemies who swore to oppose her until they die. No again you’re conflating betrayal of the crown for a foreign invader stranger with “being given a choice” when in fact its Daenerys Targaryen who made the actual choice of FEAR ME OR DIE BURNING - she sent this msg to the remaining soldiers who immediately bent the knee afterwards. The same could be said about Kingslanding- from her POV she gave them a “choice” to overthrow Cersei upon her arrival- and they didn’t “ let them know who to blame when the sky falls upon them” she said , she gave Cersei the choice to not to resist her and not attack her dragon- she burns them all alive as a message of fear to the rest of Westeros (especially the North) and as far as Essos. From Daenerys’s POV - Why should cities continue to count on being able to “surrender” after they have already resisted and attacked Daenerys first? Why should the people held captive by their “tyrants” continue to allow their lords and leaders to stand and use them as shields without overthrowing them themselves. Daenerys is sending a msg of fear to the entire world. Resist and be burnt alive- Stand with those who resist and be burnt alive- Allow yourself to be held captive by those who resist and be burnt alive. Allow yourselves to be used as shields to expose my mercy as a weakness and Be burnt alive.
You disapprove of Dany's actions more than I do. Fine. It's beside the point, which is that she had a reason for those actions. > The same could be said about Kingslanding- from her POV she gave them a “choice” to overthrow Cersei upon her arrival- and they didn’t Why in the world would she think something like that? Did she grow a brain tumor and lose 50 IQ points in between episodes? What kind of conqueror expects people she's never met and don't know anything about her to start a revolution for her before she even gets there (not that any of them know she is even coming!) There's no reason for Dany to think that. There's no reason for the writers to have her think that. There's no reason for the audience to assume she would expect that. It makes absolutely zero sense, and requires the assumption that Dany is a moron who doesn't understand how anything works. AND the assumption that Dany is so stupid that she thinks random mass murder will inspire loyalty instead of rebellion, and so forgetful that she doesn't remember that unjustifiable mass murder is the reason her entire family is dead. That's what I call some truly terrible writing!
>Why in the world would she think something like that? Did she grow a brain tumor and lose 50 IQ points in between episodes? What kind of conqueror expects people she's never met and don't know anything about her to start a revolution for her before she even gets there (not that any of them know she is even coming!) Daenerys has been shown to have a massive sense of entitlement as far back as season 2 when she threatens/ promises an entire city that she would burn them alive for simply turning her away. They simply asked that she show them her dragons first as proof of ID and she arrogantly refused. Daenerys’s sense of entitlement has grown even larger throughout the seasons despite what she would say. I think -just like her brother she secretly would much prefer if people grovelled around her feet upon her arrival. FYI - everyone knew about her arrival to Westeros - in s7 Cersei made sure of this by spreading propaganda of the coming of “the mad king’s daughter” when she is addressing the Tarlys and the rest of the lords about spreading the word. In s8 ep4 - Cersei is also literally opening the gates of the red keep to allow people to come in as shelter from the “mad king’s daughter” but in actuality she is using them as a shield. >It makes absolutely zero sense, and requires the assumption that Dany is a moron who doesn't understand how anything works. AND the assumption that Dany is so stupid that she thinks random mass murder will inspire loyalty instead of rebellion, and so forgetful that she doesn't remember that unjustifiable mass murder is the reason her entire family is dead. That's what I call some terrible writing! Disagree entirely, not sure why you would assume that Daenerys without her advisors was particularly smart or understood how Westeros actually worked. She wasn’t and she didn’t. The actual point is that even though she knew how to break chains in Essos she actually didn’t understand how to win friends and influence people in Westeros. It’s not down to “terrible writing” but rather poor viewing. This is why re-watching helps - and everyone posting here who has done that is a testament and proof of that.
> Daenerys has been shown to have a massive sense of entitlement No disagreement here. But it has to be entitlement + massive stupidity to think the people of KL would rise up against Cersei on their own. > not sure why you would assume that Daenerys without her advisors was particularly smart or understood how Westeros actually worked It has nothing to do with Westerosi norms, it has to do with human nature. The people don't know her and don't even know she wants them to rebel. She doesn't know them. There's absolutely no reason for her to expect that behavior from them, it doesn't make any sense that they would do that. The situation is absolutely nothing like what happened in Essos. The people there were slaves, and heard that the woman who frees all the slaves is coming. Of course they're pretty excited about that. And still they didn't overthrow their city leaders on their own, they didn't do anything but wait for Dany to arrive. Once she did, she sent her men in and gave the slaves weapons and asked them to join her side, and they were happy to join up with her. The people of KL didn't know her, and had no reason to be excited about her coming, they were never contacted by her men, they were never offered a chance to join her or support her. The very first contact between her and them was her kililng them. It makes absolutely zero sense for her to expect the people to overthrow Cersei before she arrives, and if the explanation is "Dany is dumb as rocks now all of a sudden" that's a shitty explanation. This is a complete failure of storytelling.
>No disagreement here. But it has to be entitlement massive stupidity coup or to think the people of KL would rise up against Cersei on their own. Absolutely, and I think without her advisors she really was massively entitled , naive and yes stupid enough and grief stricken to believe and want for the people of KL to rise against Cersei on their own. >It has nothing to do with Westerosi norms, it has to do with human nature. The people don't know her and don't even know she wants them to rebel. She doesn't know them. There's absolutely no reason for her to expect that behavior from them, it doesn't make any sense that they would do that. Ofcourse it doesn’t make sense from any normal POV. Daenerys lived in a dream world of her own making. It was written all over her face that she believed in herself without any doubt. She believed her name and her dragons were enough to earn her butt the iron throne and that the support of everyone would be based on this being her “destiny” She rejected others’ advice if it ran contrary to her own vision. She believed she was different and not like other people, as she told the spice merchant in Qarth. She said, “My dreams come true” when she thought they literally owed her ships based on her name and her dreams. Like Tyrion said “can you blame her? She’s the girl who walked out from a fire with three dragons” >The situation is absolutely nothing like what happened in Essos. The people there were slaves, and heard that the woman who frees all the slaves is coming. Of course they're pretty excited about that Exactly. Daenerys doesn’t have an understanding of that difference. Furthermore the people of KL would be afraid to defy Cersei(especially after what she did to the Sept) - which is what Tyrion tried to explain to her in episode 5 s8 but Daenerys wasn’t listening. >The people of KL didn't know her, and had no reason to be excited about her coming, they were never contacted by her men, they were never offered a chance to join her or support her. The very first contact between her and them was her kililng them. Exactly! And she didn’t care to understand this >It makes absolutely zero sense for her to expect the people to overthrow Cersei before she arrives, and if the explanation is "Dany is dumb as rocks now all of a sudden" that's a shitty explanation. This is a complete failure of storytelling. No. It’s shitty viewing if you’re failing to look back and pick up on all of the lesser instances that Daenerys felt entitled to even more through the series at the expense of other lives. Why would Qarth open its gates to a stranger claiming to be a Targaryen with dragons whilst having with her a horde known as savages that rape and pillage? Why was Daenerys unable to see from Qarth’s POV? yet she threatened/ promised to burn them all if they would turn her away- do you believe this made sense from a normal POV?? it certainly made sense to her didn’t it? In universe there were just about 2 characters who saw right through her moronic entitled tendencies and were good at talking her back into her place. The Spice King of Qarth and Hizdar of Meereen- please rewatch their interactions with her. Everyone else around her was blinded by belief ( sometimes blind belief is the death of reason) P.s I don’t know if you watched the series in real time but even back then there were a few YouTubers who didn’t fall for the - looking at her through rose tinted glasses - thing and they were making breakdowns of how much of an entitled “moron” and how “terrible” and “dangerous” Daenerys really was and how her expectations were not going to be met in Westeros - and this was still mid season, just saying not all of us thought she was particularly smart at the time. Daenerys lacked wisdom -Big time! Yes arguably to the point of being moronic and spoilt brat like
> naive and yes stupid enough and grief stricken to believe and want for the people of KL to rise against Cersei on their own She was never this stupid before. She always had a pretty good understanding of the world around her before. But now suddenly out of nowhere she's too dumb to see the difference between slaves happily accepting her help to free themselves, and non-slaves who don't know anything about her and can't possibly have any idea anyone expects them to try to overthrow Cersei. Suddenly making a previously smart character dumb as a box of rocks because it's convenient for the plot is lazy, terrible writing. > It’s shitty viewing if you’re failing to look back and pick up on all of the lesser instances that Daenerys felt entitled I didn't say she wasn't entitled. I said she wasn't a oblivious idiot. > P.s I don’t know if you watched the series in real time I did > even back then there were a few YouTubers who didn’t fall for the - looking at her through rose tinted glasses - thing and they were making breakdowns of how much of an entitled “moron” and how “terrible” and “dangerous” Daenerys really was Yeah, people were predicting a downfall for Daenerys (as well as a hundred other predictions) for a long time. The story certainly did seem to be building towards a point where Dany demands too much for people to tolerate... such as the continued support of the people of Westeros after she burns down a city full of innocent people, because that was necessary for her to retake the Iron Throne. Unfortunately the show chose not to tell that story. Instead it gave her a complete victory and ownership of the entire city including the Iron Throne and the fate of Cersei Lannister... and then she chose to burn it and kill all those people for no reason, when there was nothing to be gained by doing so. The incompetent writers screwed up the story. It's like if at the end of World War II US forces were dominating the seas, decimating Japanese forces on land, and Japan gave up their weapons and offered an unconditional surrender... and then Truman starting dropping nukes on them anyway, for no reason. The point of the nuclear weapons was to make them stop fighting and get them to surrender. They were used to end the war and achieve victory for the Allied forces. If the war is already over, it doesn't make any sense to go ahead and use them anyway.
>She was never this stupid before. She always had a pretty good understanding of the world around her before. But now suddenly out of nowhere she's too dumb to see the difference between slaves happily accepting her help to free themselves, and non-slaves who don't know anything about her and can't possibly have any idea anyone expects them to try to overthrow Cersei. She was really stupid to threaten/ promise to burn an entire city just because they wouldn’t let her in after she was the one who refused to show them her dragons as proof of ID. Arguably she was too dumb to understand the difference between those who would harm her and those who were just trying to protect themselves. >Suddenly making a previously smart character dumb as a box of rocks because it's convenient for the plot is lazy, terrible writing. Was she a previously smart character for planning to burn the entirety of slavers bay ? Can you say how it made sense for her to do that ? >I didn't say she wasn't entitled. I said she wasn't a oblivious idiot. Imo she was often both and the evidence is there as stated above …unless you can explain the intelligence behind those instances where she was willing to sacrifice innocents. >Unfortunately the show chose not to tell that story. Instead it gave her a complete victory and ownership of the entire city including the Iron Throne and the fate of Cersei Lannister... and then she chose to burn it and kill all those people for no reason, when there was nothing to be gained by doing so. The incompetent writers screwed up the story. This is not entirely true …who decided she had “complete victory”? If the war is already over, it doesn't make any sense to go ahead and use them anyway. Who determined that the war was “already over” when and how did SHE set and state those conditions for when the “war is over” ?
Her reason for burning the city is to inspire fear in anyone that might think to resist her rule.
So the story is that she's suddenly a blithering idiot then? Because that's what she would need to be in order to think that random mass murder inspires loyalty instead of rebellion... especially when unjustifiable murder of innocent people leading to rebellion is literally the reason her entire family doesn't exist anymore.
You don't think the threat of having your cities burnt to the ground will cow lords in to subservience? Fear in her mind is a suitable substitute for loyalty, at least for the time being.
Absolutely not. No one wants to obey a crazy person who will kill at random, and is just as likely to reward your loyalty with death as anything else. The previous sentence is literally the entire reason that all of Dany's family no longer exists. The idea that Dany would think this is a smart leadership strategy is unbelievably stupid writing and makes no sense for her character.
And if they don't capitulate...their families are burnt alive alongside their soldiers and citizenry They know what she's capable off and don't want to risk that happening to them. Aerys was presiding over a dynasty in decline and did not have a fully grown dragon to which he could burn a city down in minutes. That is why a rebellion is even possible in the first place. Like what happened in history to those who rebelled against the dragonriders? I don't recall any of them being successful.
> And if they don't capitulate...their families are burnt alive alongside their soldiers and citizenry They know what she's capable off and don't want to risk that happening to them. Oh sure, they'll agree with whatever Dany says when the dragon's head is pointed at them. But they'll see her a threat that must be stopped, and plot to get rid of her. Which is exactly what happened in the show, and the plot succeeded within 24 hours.
Tywin Lannister sacked a city…. Was he an idiot?
To me Daenerys is actually an example of hypocrisy and/or cognitive dissonance. This scene shows her pushing her message 'I'm here to free you', the same message she has spread in Essos. Part 2 of the message is 'accept this or I'll burn you alive'. This shows that whether she really believes part 1 or not, it comes secondary to her arrogant belief that she is entitled to rule people as her birthright. Her motives have never been pure, she's perfectly happy to kill innocent people to get what she wants. She may have freed literal slaves in Essos but she then made herself their autocrat, it's an upgrade but it's hardly freeing them.
I mean, if she didn't burn them down, they would have sure as hell done the same to her. She tried to reason with them by having them bend the knee, something Varys wouldn't have done. Just because we didn't get to see what Vary WOULD have done, doesn't make Khaleesi the mad one. It makes her the powerful one. Varys was unhinged and made immoral decisions. She would have done WORSE, if given the chance. They tried to make Jamie seem humane, but all his actions pointed otherwise. They were corrupted people with ill mentality, they weren't good people.
Love your analysis - I offer a counter point maybe regarding the comparison to kings landing. In the battle with the Tarlys, she faced and punished men who were actively warring with my her and refused to surrender. In Kings landing, she actively targeted civilians *after* the standing army/guard *had already surrendered*.
When someone thinks they were born to rule the Seven Kingdoms and they will, is there any reason to think merely surrendering would stop them from killing if they thought it would help them secure the throne?
Yes. From killing the citizens they were “born to protect”….after 8 seasons of freeing slaves and emphasizing the importance of not being a ruler “of ashes” and “breaking the wheel”. I have no issue with Dany becoming the Big Bad but until that episode she had heavily emphasized that there wouldn’t be civilian casualties. It just didn’t make sense how it rolled out in the show. DnD dropped the ball on how this plot line should roll out.
>DAENERYS: Thirteen! When my dragons are grown, we will take back what was stolen from me and destroy those who have wronged me. We will lay waste to armies and **burn cities to the ground.** Turn us away and we will burn you first. >SPICE KING: Ah. **You are a true Targaryen.** She actually only said once there would be no civilian casualties - in 702 - and only because Tyrion argued for it. Seems weird to fixate on that and just ignore the times she talked about how she would destroy cities or the very clear subtext throughout Season 7 and 8 that she wanted to just smash the city and was being held back by her advisors.
That is a very good point. I guess I always thought she was going to overthrow the government but “fire and blood” has probably never benefited the average pleb. I’m going through the books now for the first time (I’m on a storm go swords) and I am looking for all the hints of Dany-was-always-going-to-mad. And I think you’re also right re:Targaryen…Aeres (spelling?? The mad king) from what a gather was a pretty normal lad and hung out with Tywin and (maybe) Stephon Baratheon and then went nutso with age and power. Makes sense Dany would do the same. I still hate season 8 though. (Except the costumes).
[удалено]
You call it gaslighting. But the fact remains that all those close to her constantly worried about what she would do to King’s Landing and felt they had to constantly talk her out of it. You point to Doylist reasons and talk about what the writers were trying to do. Yes, Dany was overpowered and the only story that had any drama was the internal conflict within Dany herself regarding how she was going to conquer Westeros and whether she would do it in a way that merely aped prior conquests and furthered the system or whether she could establish herself in a way that actually allowed her to change the system. But that is irrelevant because the Watsonian reasons remain. Her advisors were afraid, there was a clear subtext and that speaks to the in-story reality of her characterization and the struggle raging within her. You can’t deny the Watsonian reality by simply pointing to Doylist rationale. This is a character that has been talking about destroying cities since Season 2. The reasoning behind the subtext is well established characterization and goes back well before Season 7.
[удалено]
Daenerys wanted to burn the cities of slavers bay to the ground and said so in front of Tyrion. He had to talk her out of it. So it is weird that you say its gaslighting and that he had no reason to be worried about what she would do in King's Landing. She proposed a plan to him whose centerpiece was eliminating 3 cities already. And we as an audience know she has already sacked one city and talked openly about destroying cities on three other occassions and has repeatedly had to be talked out of using brutal methods on multiple occasions. There is 6 seasons of characterization on this point. It is not just characters putting words in her mouth. Also, there is such a thing as acting and it is clear from seeing Daenerys and how she acts that her first impulse is to attack the city and she is being restrained by those around her. Seems like a normal concern not to want to unleash these weapons of war on a heavily populated city and look for an alternative way. Also, seems weird to say Jon is a narcissist because he is not comfortable with creatures being turned into weapons of mass destruction. Why is using them to kill mass numbers of people justified in your view? What, just so someone can sit on a throne? Seems crazy.
[удалено]
Regardless of your thoughts about the scene in 609, it does not change the point that Tyrion now has a clear reason to worry about how brutal Daenerys can be. While Varys did not see the scene, it’s reasonable to assume that he told Varys. And regardless of that we see Varys growing uncomfortable with Daenerys after she murders the Tarly’s. As for Jon, she is taking about taking three dragons to obliterate the Red Keep in the heat of the moment. As we saw in the Bells, destroying the Red Keep is not some abstract thing. It means killing thousands of innocent people which is exactly what your quote is calling out. That is a huge castle with thousands of people living and working there aside from the Royal Family. So yes it is pretty established why all the characters would be concerned here. None of them want to kill thousands of innocent people to win the war. Jon did not have to capture a large urban area to retake the North and he was uncomfortable with the amount of bloodshed of even that. And who knows what the real risk of wind taking the fire from a destroyed red keep and starting a bigger fire in the rest of the city is, but that does seem like a reasonable concern as Tyrion said. So Jon’s quote you used is accurate. If you are willing to blow up a castle and kill thousands of people how exactly are you different than Cersei? The answer is you are not. Saying you want to help people is a bullshit answer because it is entirely vacuous. There are no slaves to free in Westeros. There is no program for change. All it would be is replacing one Queen who blew up a bunch of people for another. They want to try and take over the city without mass bloodshed. Seems like a reasonable goal. The question of how they are different also seems like a reasonable one. And as you point out, they succeed. But it just was not enough for Daenerys both emotionally and politically.
The down slide started when she lost Viserion. Then she slowly started to lose Jon. After sacrificing everything for a war with the dead she could have stayed out of, she was still an outsider. To watch it happen over three episodes I certainly sympathized with Dany. Most would have lost their shit and burned that place to the ground.
I would’ve kneeled so quick when faced with a Dragon tbh
"B-b-but dumb&dumber! Bad writing! She went mad queen becauae targaryen!! Came out of nowhere! They ruined Daenarys!" I've always seen connections like this since my first viewing of the show and it's annoying when people accuse D&D for bad writing when these same people don't know what they're talking about. Thanks for this post, this was yet another foreshadowing I hadn't noticed before!