Daenerys Targaryen's Crucifixion Of 163 Meereenese Slave Masters Proves She's A Bad Queen
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 05. 2024
- Although Daenerys Targaryen's decision to crucify 163 Meereenese slave masters as punishment for their decision to crucify children in order to ward off her invasion seems incredibly simple on its face, the political complexities of this choice have huge implications for Meereen and Dany herself. In fact, her crucifixion of the Meereenese slave masters slyly proves that she's actually a bad queen instead of a mad one.
Content Of This Video:
00:00 Intro
00:48 A Simple Punishment For A Complex Crime
05:39 The Political Implications Of Mass Execution
10:49 The Vital Lesson Dany Didn't Learn
13:30 Conclusion
14:02 Outro - Zábava
I always felt that Dany is falling for her own myth. All the titles that are lavished on her as well as the ones she basically gave herself have given her this sense of being deified. She says she'll rule here before going to Westeros to claim her birthright...which made me realize what a silly girl she is. People with no understanding how to rule are dangerous to begin with but the fact that she has dragons makes her even more so.
A hitler self-actualizing as a hitler. Couldnt have said it better myself.
very much, exactly that, she fell for her own myth, viserys delusions, while recognised im to have been a fraud, she still belives in his words and dreams, over even her own!!! All she truely wants is helping and have a secure safe home, but her actions, what she is aming at are other peoples expectations for her, mother of slaves, true ruler of the 7 kingdoms what ever . . . she is compleatly in over her head with everything and without any true support, she is set u to fail right from the start
Many people seem to forget that Deanerys, much like everyone else in ASOIAF, is a deconstruction of her character type. She seems to embrace all the elements of her story that fall into the classic "royal family is overthrown but one member survives to return and reclaim the throne" narrative, but she fails to recognize the problems with this worldview. Her family was overthrown and slaughtered, but her father was a tyrant and the rebellion arguably justified. She has been hunted her whole life, because the nobles know there are still Targaryen loyalists out there, which could lead to more bloodshed. She seeks to conquer Westeros, but really knows nothing about the true political or cultural state of the country; she's essentially never been there. She crucifies the masters, but doesn't even bother to check which ones are actually guilty, because anyone who opposes her is a "bad guy". Also, the Spice King is right, just because she thinks it's her destiny to take the Iron Throne, doesn't mean she will actually succeed; she has no actual political or military experience. It's easy for her to show sympathy for the slaves, such sympathy costs her nothing, but when her own slave rebels, she has her burnt alive for rejecting her "mercy". Great video by the way, keep them coming.
i mean for killing her slave , i wasn't because the slave disobeyed her. she killed the witch because the witch heavily implied that she murdered Daenerys's son and left her husband permanently disability
@@MohammedAli-hl4mr arguably, they are in such state bc they hadn't listened to her advice. She might have known they wouldn't listen, but I think it is still on them.
@@adapienkowska2605 true but in thr show she was more than a little smug and self satisfied with herself and clearly happy that Daenerys's child was dead and husband was unresponsive.
@@MohammedAli-hl4mr still doesn't mean that if they had listened to her, the outcome would have been the same. Not being sad (or even being happy) that the slaver that destroyed your home got themselves into this state is not a crime in my book. Especially after Daenerys self-congratulatory talk about how she saved her.
@@adapienkowska2605 I haven't read the books but I've only seen the show. Daenerys didn't seem to understand the reality of war she had a developed country view of things rather than a developing country view of things and forget in her self righteousness over re-establishing her dynasty (in her opinion's valid claim to the iron throne) that war involved hurting innocent people who are mostly bystanders and non combatants. in the show she was horrified at what she was seeing and tried to save the women from getting raped in the most realistic way that she could. she may have been the Khaleesi but the Dothraki society is male oriented she can't just do whatever she wants her power comes solely from her husband.
"Local Woman who burned her slave alive for disobeying her decides that slavery is bad (sometimes)! More at Eleven!"
😂
Just in local women loots and burns city to the grounds after making business deal with the mayor of the city she claims she liberated the soldiers but reports suggests was on her way to buy them? and had told the mayor she would give one of her dragons as payment but when the time came instead she killed the mayor sacked the city millions are dead and now moves on to d othe same t othoer cities
she murdered her child
@@evermoredany Drogo was dead, Dany had to live to deliver the baby, so who exactly was going to be the life exchanged for Drogo's? There's also the fact that, as Hill's pointed out in her previous video, Targaryen still-births that come out reptilian are NOT uncommon at all. Who's to say that Rhaego was even alive to begin with, or would have survived long after birth. Then there's the fact that, by Dany's own admission, JORAH killed her son (if he wasn't already dead) by bringing Dany into the tent where Mirri was and violating her strict instructions not to enter.
@@theduxabides9274 we know that but Dany tends to deflect on accountability to things on people useful to her and that worship her a d deflecting blame to the more visible evil person
Dany really is speedrunning being a war criminal at age 14.
Not considering the context. Other conquerors in that world do worse.
Tywin put it perfectly when he spoke to Tomen "winning a war is not the same as ruling". A lesson Dany failed to learn and paid the price for
She overcame hardship. This caused people to identify with her. Once they start to view her in that light, some will bend over backwards to excuse her atrocities. It's a good litmus test to see if they'd be willing to take responsibility for their own questionable actions.
When I first watched Dany crucify the masters I thought they were the ones who killed the children. I didn't know until later that some were innocent. But seriously Dany is not a good ruler, I saw her becoming a villain after she refused to admit and learn from her mistakes.
@@Palepetal It's never ok to torture anyone to death over the course of a few days-weeks. If you do that, you become as much of a monster as they are. I felt like that's what the story was saying with Dany.
It's not like Dany was nailing them up there herself. She was detached from the human consequences of her actions, which is a point Ned Stark makes by doing executions himself.
Dany was more like Joffrey in that sense. Even when she executed people by dragon fire, it still wasn't really her swinging the sword herself. Her cruelty was repeatedly flagged very early on, but it got ignored, then fans acted shocked that she was a villain.
It is a story, and we are deliberately led by the author along a path that encourages us to become attached to daenerys. It is therefore an extremely poor litmus test to judge people by.
I was so hesitant to watch this just because so many people hold this up as an evil act just because "mUrDeR bAd" but this is actually a really good take and from a perspective I didn't even realize until now, with her letting them decide who she would kill. After listening I do agree though, and it would have been more just to just kill them all. I can understand why she wanted to at least try to be merciful, but if that was her intent she should have gotten her info from others. Maybe instead of letting the masters choose among themselves she could have interviewed the slaves owned by them and learned who was the worst and killed them.
Lol this is so dumb
The slaves would just have protected their masters out of fear for repercussions or the great unknown after their arrest.
All of this has me wondering about _Faegon._ He's a lot like Egg (King Aegon V) from the Dunk and Egg stories if you think about it. A _prince_ who knows what it is to live like a commoner and have a hard life and who generally seems like he'd be an advocate for the commonfolk and perhaps not too brutal as well. He seems, by all accounts, someone who might be a good King yet he is likely not the real Aegon VI but something like a Blackfyre imposter. In contrast, Dany is unquestionably a Targaryen who even has dragons yet she fits the way Varys describes Tommon to Kevan "Tommen has been taught that kingship is his right." and is quite brutal. I think George might be saying "She is technically the _rightful_ Queen but this _imposter_ would actually make for a better ruler than her." a sort of play on the common trope of a rightful heir rising, regaining the old Kingdom and ruling justly. She won't rule justly, I reckon, but the imposter would have and therein lies the irony. My pet theory anyway.
I think Fageaon is going to play an important role in her downfal (with both tyrion and euron) coming to westeros not only to find him already crowned king but also accepted and beloved by the people no one would care that he isn't a targaryen except her and her inability to see beyound what her brother taught her will lead to yet another war or even a second dance of the dragons as it was hinted in one of the wow sample chapters and the burning of kingslanding
You should check out Kelsey L. Hayes answers on the matter on Quora.
She has written a lot about this and believes Aegon VI is a Blackfyre or even Brightfyre bastard.
She believes he'll be adored once he gets to Westeros and Dany will get pissed big time because no one will like her.
I like the idea that it might never be revealed if Aegon is FAegon or not. Because at the end of the day, does it really matter if he turns out to be a better ruler or not? It also backs up the line "Power resides where men believe it resides. A shadow on the wall, yet shadows can kill. And ofttimes a very small man can cast a very large shadow."
@@Winter-Alpha-Omega Hills Alive would love Kelsey haha. Haven't been on Quora for a while, but she always raised great points
@@MissRedZelda To be fair, there's a chance he may prove a poor overall leader in a very different way from Dany. I remember George on more than one occasion pointing out that good men sometimes make bad Kings and it's also pointed out that Aegon V's love for the smallfolk also made him unpopular with his nobles which in a way led to _The Tragedy of Summerhall:_
_"Although the smallfolk loved Aegon for his reforms and granting of rights and protections, high lords felt their powers over peasantry was diminished and curtailed by these new reforms. Lacking the dragons controlled by early Targaryen kings, Aegon reluctantly compromised with the recalcitrant lords on several issues."_
This reminds me of a book I'm reading right now on the Al-Saud dynasty of Saudi Arabia and how the now passed King Abdulaziz and his sons have always had to play a very deft game of balancing everything out between the the different stakeholders in their realm. The tribes, the clergy, the urban notables such as prominent traditional merchant families, the modern technocrats & everyday Saudi citizens, their superpower allies like Britain & later the United States, and finally even the vast royal family itself. They always had to find a way give everyone of those groups just about enough of what they wanted without undermining any of the other groups too much and generally making them all realize they'd be worse off without the monarchy in place between them. Despite all the hate they get the Al-Saud have been quite masterful since King Abdulaziz at doing this which is why they've lasted and managed to unify as well as stabilize such a vast area even before the first oil well was dug; though things are changing now, arguably for the worse, under King Salman and his son.
Point being that George maybe telling us that Young Griff can't be like Aegon V. He has to balance things. We'd like for him to be all for team smallfolk and give the nobles the finger but that won't make for a very stable realm or rule and could result in revolts, rebellions and the destruction of his _reestablished_ dynasty. He'd be repeating a past monarch's mistakes. He has to learn to give the smallfolk a bit, the nobles a bit, the Faith a bit and so on and so forth. All of Westeros' stakeholders have to be kept just about happy enough and Griff is already showing perhaps _too egalitarian_ tendencies when he chooses Ser Rolly Duckfield to be the first member of his Kingsguard. A fair choice since Rolly is a skilled man and true but Jon Connington understandably doesn't approve as Griff should be reserving those seats for famous knights and the sons of Great Houses whose support they will need.
All that being said, I also think it's entirely possible the boy will learn and prove a shrewd leader. I somewhat suspect what D&D were doing with Jon in the show was generally a plotline meant for him. You know when Tormund raves about how he's a KING and it makes Dany jealous? Or when she feels threatened by his greater claim than hers? I think that while Jon is indeed Rhaegar's son in the books he's still probably a bastard and it's Griff, _Faegon_ or not, who will appear to have the better claim in Dany's eyes whilst being admired by everyone which will drive her mad. We shall see!
I would also point out how Dany's apparent belief that entire cultures or classes of people can be held responsible and brutally punished for the actions of their most abhorrent and disreputable members might play a role in her destruction of King's Landing. If the city slights her in some way in the books this hole in her logic could help explain how she so easily blames a whole city for the actions of a relative few within it.
However, her faults in logic make a lot of sense given her age. She's, what, 13 in the books at this point in time? And she was extremely sheltered prior to her marriage to Drogo before that, so a lot of this could also be a warning against child rulers or just inexperienced rulers in general have access to so much power.
Great video, as always!
I think she's 15 or 16 by the time of A Dance With Dragons. And being raised by Viseries while running for your life is not what I would call sheltered. I think it's more accurate to say that Dany was never taught how to rule. In A Game Of Thrones all she knew about her ancestors was what her brother told her, and it turns out he didn't know that much. So Dany has never had examples like Jaeherys I and Daeron the Good for good rulership, or Maegor the Cruel for bad rulership. I think she wants to be a good queen and is doing her best, but you are right, there are holes in her logic that I think a proper education would have fixed and she wouldn't be making so many bad decisions.
@@molliethomas2585 I appreciate the age check, it's been a long time since I read the books I just remember thinking how young she was throughout. And I didn't mean sheltered in terms of she had an idyllic childhood, far from it, but she had almost no knowledge of the real world or the people within it. She didn't spend time talking to commoners or haggling at market or even learning about economics or critical thinking. As you pointed out -- a complete lack of an education. I doubt Viserys thought she would need one.
The Masters rule by a kind of patrician committee. So they likely all assented to you know the kid crucifying. So it makes great deal of sense to punish them as a group. This isn't like Westeros where many individuals have their own autonomous zones to execute their own policies from or where there unquestioned unless the next higher up is present.
And that's so ironic considering she doesn't think Targaryens as a House or Dynasty should have been held responsible for the actions of Aerys, even though cruelty, tyranny, and madness was (and likely is) a consistent issue with the Targaryen Dynasty.
That belief stems from misplaced anger on the wrongs done to her earlier in her life she subconsciously blames all around her feeling they should pay for that has happened to her . Even though now she has dragons a city and power she had not faced that issue and hurt and anger until now where she has an says a dragon plants no trees is her release the okay herself to unleash that anger on all, to burn them all !
You’re really my favorite GoT analysis channel, so well spoken and with no unnecessary rambling, everything is justified and based in something. Great analysis as always.
At the time he wrote this, Martin was probably thinking about American efforts to change Iraqi and Afghan culture and society through top-down military force, bringing "democracy" to the Middle East, and we all know now how well that turned out. As with Dany in Slaver's bay, the goal was a noble one, but you can't achieve it just by overthrowing governments, killing a few prominent leaders, and trying to force your vision onto the people. Even in the example of abolishing slavery in the Southern US, it took over a century for the goal of freedom and equality to be even close to being realized.
Now, it's another question entirely how we should bring about these changes. How could Dany really "break the wheel" and create a more just society? She doesn't know and I think that, when she tries to do it with fire and blood, it will turn out badly. (Of course, it will make a lot more sense in the books than it did in the show, but as you've said the same pattern is already being set up.)
To piggy back into what you were saying, she wants change to happen dramatically in a short period when a lot of big changes she wants won't happen in her lifetime. It takes generations to break a cycle and to pivot the mindset and culture of a nation. Her actions show just how naive and simple her ideologies are. She is impatient, and doesn't take the lives of those she imposes herself on into account. While I'm on board with abolishing slavery and think it is a noble goal, she does very little in trying to establish a system that can thrive without her direct influence, and instead uses them lawn pawns on a chess board. They praise her and thank her because she's a better alternative than the oppressive life they had before. She eats it up like a benevolent God. These people have no idea what's possible WITHOUT Dany, and she doesn't offer them up that knowledge because she needs them.
The seeds for her tyranny are there, the show just rushed it out and had poor execution 😭
Bush wasn't even in power yet when he wrote this.
@@ihatejellybeans7375it seems like your entire argument is that dany is bad for not knowing how to create an entirely new system to replace the slavery that has been happening there for thousands of years. I think thats a really unfair argument.
Shes 15 or 16, i dont remember, and she has never been taught anything more than how to read and write so how would she know the right path without first stumbling and going down dead ends?
The fact that she is learning how to understand politics on the spot is impressive enough and that just makes it harder for her to find a solution to the cultural and economic problems of slavers bay.
You cant call a person who doesnt have the information they need stupid or bad for not knowing what they eventually will know. Knowledge comes either from teachers or experience. And sadly dany don’t have proper teachers of politics, economics, sociology etc etc
@thequeenb5803 My core criticism is that she wants to abolish a system in a nation and abandon it for her own personal goals. Realistically, she can abolish slavery and rule to ensure that her new law takes on and lasts long after her reign. While I understand she is young, naive, and is learning as she goes, Dany is learning to use brute force to enforce her will and to ABANDON those who need her. Leaving for Westeros ensures that slavery will return and possibly violence more brutal than before as punishment. The seeds of tyranny have been shown into her story, but the show rushed her arc, and it seemed insane that she blew up a city that surrendered. I trust if that's GRRM vision that it'll be written way better in the books. I also don't think Dany is "bad". I think she is categorically good as a person, but that doesn't mean she can't or hasn't done bad things. Not does her goodness man that she won't go on to do horrific things. Plenty of the characters in ASOIAF rest in a morally gray area, and I think Dany isn't any different. Her age and lack of political experience doesn't make her any less likely to become a villain.
I also want to point out that Dany hasn't always been a complete Saint in the story. Before she went to Astapor and Mereen I was questioning how she would grow as a person because of what she was going through and the decisions she made.
@thequeenb5803 I also never characterized her. You may have read another comment that called her "stupid" or "bad". Not me.
I found her main problem to be that she never sees herself as navigating the cultures and associated practices that she tries to subvert. They're either a problem to be crushed or a subject of reluctant compromise. She's not unintelligent, but projects her own idea of how things should be as the axiom for the world around her to accept and conform to, without much thought as to the time, shifts in culture, and integration of new practices and laws that would be required to establish any substantive change that would outlast her occupation.
Smoother integration became nigh impossible after the crucifixions and her subsequent actions, because she immediately reinforced the dichotomy between masters and slaves, instead of putting them all under a system of judgement that would apply to all of them, for lack of a better word, equally. It just emboldened some of the former slaves to defy previous conventions openly, increased resentment among many of the masters, and fomented the conditions of slaves that enjoyed more comfortable positions, that her actions took away, to network with the masters, likely in hopes of returning their status.
What should she have done different in your opinion? What actions should she have taken?
@@Mic-Mak Exactly? Like what could Daenerys have done differently than what she has done in ADWD? Slavery needed to end. And there was no way she was gonna get rid of this century long institution without shedding blood. Daenerys at her core is a revolutionary and there’s no way she could have made peace with the masters and free the slaves at the same time
@@samsamdhagane7825 I appreciate your reply to my comment, but I just want to clarify that when I asked my question to @sardonically-inclined7645, I am genuinely asking what they think Dany could have done differently. I am not being sarcastic, or trying to imply that there's nothing she could have done differently to be just. I just want OP to expand on his comment.
@@Mic-Mak Personally I think that a blanket pardon for slave masters that didn't participate in the crucifixion of the children would've helped. Then execute the ones who put forward the idea and exile the supporters, and keep the families as hostages. And then have each noble family provide a son and daughter of young age to Dany to join her court and retinue to be raised by her along side children of both commoners and slaves.
Then when the children are of age instate them as new officials and officers of Dany's kingdom. And all of the former slaveholders will have an investment in the kingdom and the next generation will start to lose their old prejudices.
@@JakeBaldwin1good idea. The problem however is that dany doesnt want to say in slavers bay indefinitely. Also it would be near impossible to know who did the crucifixions. I think so because to know she would have to ask the slavers and they could just lie and say the least powerfull of them was responsible. The proboem with asking the slaves is that they probobly werent in the room when the discussion was happeneing between the slavers. Or if some slaves did know thay might have lied so that dany kills those that want dany to kill.
Its all just unreliable in my opinion. The best course of action would have been for her to kill ALL the masters but dany is too gentle for that. That type of genility is sometimes really harmful as we see. Also even if she killed all the masters she woudnt kill the children and those choldren would probably grow up to be vengeful so sons of the harpy would still form in my opinion.
Its all just a shitshow and its complicated
This is interesting to think about cuz most people in Dany’s camp basically talk about how she would be better for the world than other leaders. Tyrion believes she would be much better for the world than Cersei, Missandei believes in her, Varys believes in her, Grey Worm believes in her. By the end of her conquering the 3 slaver cities and installing basically puppet regimes those regimes were no longer in power and slave markets were opening again. While I think she had good intentions because of course slavery is gross practice that strips people of the most basic human rights, she didn’t have good planning. She would have probably needed to stay in each city long enough to ensure she set up a power structure or some sort of economic structure that would no longer deeply incentivizes slavery. Not to say Dany is solely responsible for other peoples immoral choices to bring slavery back but if you want to be the ruler who changes the system you have to put in place a new system. It was very feel good to go along with the narrative that Dany is a savior coming in and changing the system with the power of dragons and her armies. However she kind of did what a lot of conquerers do. She shook up the power structure and then left the most vulnerable in a position to be exploited again.
Yeah, well the show colossally fucked this element up because while Dany does have supporters in the books, it is not at all presented like she's a hero that they all believe in, it's way more complex than that. Ironically yet another signal to me that she was probably a villain was that Tyrion was specifically seeking her out and he is A. wayyyy more villainous in the books than in the show and B. is seeking her out specifically because he kinda wants to burn Westeros to the ground. And that is the case for a lot of Dany's strongest supporters in the books, there's usually an angle to it that makes it a bit suss and almost no one treats her like a literal messiah in the way that they do in the show.
@@HillsAliveYT actually in the show all her supporters want to harm Westeros in some way the iron born the sand snakes Varys and Tyrion and ollena Dany is just a pawn in their own plans she’s not a person to them a means for their goals a symbol like rhaegar so when she deviates from their veiw well
Danny gave me heavy "bullied kid gets power" vibes. Got power and no idea what she is doing but she uses it to hurt those she thinks are a problem with no thought of long term consequences.
Well, she is a 16 year old in A Dance with Dragons, of course she won't have the forethought to think of the consequences of her actions. But she does learn from her mistakes, considering she doesn't continue to make them when she could've easily executed the upper class of Mareen instead choosing to make peace with them and Yungki.
@@coreyloucks4865 16 year old's lead armies and fight and die in wars in ASOIAF. Dany being a teenager doesn't give her carte blanche to butcher torture and genocide. Teenagers still know enough about the world to know that "burning alive a rape victim because my husband died of stupidity" is not okay. Also interesting how the "uwu dany did a fuckky wucky cause she's only a teenager" defence only comes out after someone else calls out dany's long list of brutal psychopathic insane atrocities. And never... idk just as a thought on its own. It's always an excuse. Always a defence. Because right up until the defence is needed, Dany is a brave hero flawed but doing good. Only when her costco grocery list of insane attrocities are mentioned does the motte and bailey of "well she was only 16 when she burned that innocent person alive" come out.
@@j.a.6310 Was crucifying slavers and potentially innocent ppl a horrible act? Sure. Was gelding children, forcing them to murder puppies they raised, slaughter babies at the breasts of mothers, and stripping them of humanity a justified act in order to form soldiers? It's probably not.
Is ordering the assassination of children a justified act? No, probably not.
Young women did not deserve to be hanged from trees, for sleeping with Lannister soldiers. Nor did luckless Western peasants deserve to be “paid back in kind” for the actions of Lannister soldiers in the Riverlands. All actions done under Rob Stark.
Stannis killed innocent people when he marched through the Kingswood, burning villages as he went. Had he taken Kings Landing by storm, thousands of innocent people would have died. Ned Stark was prepared to kill innocent people to make Stannis king. Tyrian has a singer killed who tries to bribe him or whatever. Not to mention he committed Kinslaying, one of the worst crimes in Westeros aside from possibly violating guest rights. He also participated in the rape of his own wife, an innocent farm girl. Killed Shaye. Arya stabs some stable boy and kills him.
The people mentioned above are all, to some degree, sympathetic. I’m not even mentioning the real monsters of the tale, like Tywin and his brother, Kevin, Ramsay Bolton, The Mountain and the Hound, etc. Cersei gets Margery arrested on lies just because she's getting too close to her son. She has her own husband killed, not that he was all that good of a husband.
The idea that Dany is the true villain because she's murdered some slavers in the act of freeing slaves and burned a witch that murdered her child is like saying the Night King is the true hero because he's bringing peace to the land by killing everyone and turning them to undead others. Dany takes the decisions that Queens take. The men in Westeros take the decisions that Kings and Lords take. That’s just the way it is. And, that mirrors the real world. You can’t wage even the most just wars (and Daenerys’ campaign in Slavers Bay certainly is a just war) without killing innocent people.
The thing that separates Dany from most of the others, such as Lannisters, the mountain, her father, and Ramsey, her actions liberate the oppressed. She does most things to help others where most everyone else aside for a small few do atrocious things mostly out of selfish desires. Ramsey kills because he enjoys it, Tywin kills to seat his house at the top and gain power, The mountain kills probably because he enjoys it, but we don't really get a clear picture of his intentions. The Mad king killed because he was mad. Even Ned killed for an arguably good purpose. The Starks have a history of bloodshed and not all of it innocent. King Theon Stark sailed to Essos, pillaging their cities, taking back the heads of those he killed and mounted them on pikes across the shoreline as a warning to anyone else who comes. Aegon annihilated entire houses. Do you think everyone in Harrenhall was guilty and cruel? Imagine how many innocent people died because Aegon believed conquering westeros was the right thing to do because of some dream he had about White Walkers. Hell, even the children of the forest are rumored to make blood sacrifices to their trees and green seers. And it's not confirmed, but it's definitely heavily hinted at that Bran gets fed human flesh and most likely Jojin by Cold Hands and Blood Raven. Bran himself has committed atrocities by Worging into Hordar, which even worgs consider a great evil. Bran's also eated human flesh when he's worged into Summer. Melisandre burns innocent people alive for the greater good. She murdered Renly just because he was against Stannis.
If we want to talk about the crimes committed by arguably good people, without holding them to the same degree of scrutiny as Dany for crucifying some slavers and burning a witch, then clearly there's a bias there. I'm not exactly a Stan of Dany, but I've read enough of George's books to know that no one is truly innocent. And the Dany the show presented was far too much of stretch from the books. Dany certainly isn't innocent, but to say that she'd just all of a sudden burn an entire city of innocent people and become Hilter isn't believable at all since not that many episodes earlier, she was sacrificing almost everything to save the world from the White Walkers.
I do think her story will end tragically because it is George R. R. Martin after all, and we all know there are no happy endings when you play the game of thrones, but I'll be all I have that Dany's fate will be tied to the Azor Ahai prophecy. She'll probably have to kill Young Grift who's most likely the paper dragon and a Blackfyre who will probably overthrow Cersei and win the hearts of the people. Then I can imagine Dany dying like Nisa Nisa in some sacrificing manner to defeat the night king because that's how the books have been building up with all the small hints and foreshadowing going on. Why else would George put so much on the prophecy just to toss it aside and have Dany burn a city full of innocent ppl? Most likely, innocent ppl will die when Dany faces off against Young Grift who'll have the heart of the people, but I doubt it'll be intentionally as portrayed in the tv show. Innocent ppl pay the most in war.
@@j.a.6310 To be honest, I was okay with Dany being a mad queen if done better than the show, at least until I watched David Lightbringers videos who really sheds light on her character from the books and of course, reading them all myself, including all of the side books and histories, it's clear that she's probably not going to be the mad queen, but most likely either Azor Ahai, or Nissa. The sword of the light or the forge to make it. Although, you could also argue that the dragons are the sword of the light and she was already the forge, but it's hard to say. David's theories are worth watching.
@@j.a.6310 To be honest, I'm more interested in all the Lovecraftian elements that lie underneath all of George's stories. The real villain of the series is most likely Euron Greyjoy and his plans to make some huge sacrifice to some Lovecraftian god in order to be a god himself. If I bet any money, it'd be on him securing one of Dany's dragons, sacrificing tons of innocent people, unleashing some horror and probably going mad. And I'm not sure how Victarian will come into play, whether he gets used by Euron and tossed aside, or sides with Dany and has some huge development to become more sympathetic. It's hard to say. I know there's probably going to be a fight between him and Euron seeing how Euron's already tried to kill him with the Horn and he's going to sacrifice their brother Damphair or whatever his nickname is. It's certainly building up to a tense moment between the two with Victarian planning on stealing Dany right from under Euron and who truly knows what Euron is after, I can only theorize since it's clear he's making some kind of sacrifice. I can imagine whatever it is, it'll end terribly for everyone. But one things for sure, the White walkers aren't the only horrors in the World of Ice and Fire.
I don't wholly disagree. She is definitely being positioned as a major baddie in the books. However, I struggle with some of these analyses because it leans too heavily into "she was evil all along".
I think a huge thing to remember about her character is that she (in the books) is a literal child who was abused and manipulated. She was never provided any genuine political education outside of Jorah's half hearted attempts to seem like a mentor, when he really just wanted to be with her.
So when you throw an abused child into the role of unilateral ruler, you're going to get someone who is very rigid in thinking about good/evil/punishment. When you throw in that she has no real guidance in terms of political education, you get a terrible recipe.
Not saying that this video is wrong. I just feel like it lacks in some spots. I think you could argue that she is both someone with no skill for leadership and someone with no knowledge of leadership. Her character is so dynamic in the fact that her decent into madness is not just the Targaryen curse, but also a living monument to the idea that our thought processes are ingrained as a child.
My pet theory is that she actually won't go "mad." My theory is that she ends up being someone whose moral compass was formed at 11 and who functions essentially at a child's level of understanding throughout her life. So behavior that seems mad on the surface is really just her inability to mature. She'll end up being like the opposite of Ned. He made all his choices from high morality, hers from low.
No I don't disagree with you and Dany is largely a tragic character because all she has ever experienced is abuse and exploitation, but unfortunately she visits that abuse and exploitation on other people a thousand fold. And I don't think Dany will go "mad" and I don't generally think that Targaryen madness is a thing in the way that people think it is, I think that she is a bad queen rather than a mad one because she doesn't know anything about politics, seeks absolute power, and unfortunately seems to learn the exact wrong lessons from her mistakes or doesn't recognize that she has made a mistake at all. But, you can recognize that a character is sympathetic while also recognizing that their actions are unfathomably destructive.
I think, it hits a great balance, of shining light to her flaws without villanising her. There is this thin line between victim blaming and aknowlaging something is an explanation, but no excuse. Same goes for seeing someones wrongs without reducing them to it. Dany is a flawed, extreamly tragic character that was set up to fail from the start, a fallen hero for she wanted to be one, and she could have been one if she had been delt better cards. In her heart of hearts she is a good person, but that does not change that with time, she fails worse and worse beyond the point of excusability until she loses that good core and intentions that drove her compleatly.
This focuses very much objectivly on what exactly she did wrong instead of plain calling her evil for evils sake.
I remember being taken aback by one scene in particular around this same point in the story. Daario is telling her that slavery should be fine as long as the person *willingly* sells themselves into slavery and Dany is just like "eh ok seems reasonable, slavery is technically legal again now".
Strong indicator that she will stray from even her strongest held beliefs, that she has killed hundreds for, on a whim if an argument is well-worded enough.
A possibility I don't think you mentioned is that the slave masters may have offered up slaves to be crucified
I find it absolutely viscerally gross that she sees and treats Slavers Bay as her practice for Westeros. Real people, real families, real homes, real economies, real lives, and she treats them all as dollies she can play with to practice being a Mommy - and it doesn't matter if she drops her baby doll on it's head because they not her babies they're just practice.
Her defenders will say that she cares about the people of Slavers Bay, that she wants them to be treated as people not objects, but the fact she sees the whole place as a stop off and a learning experience before her true destiny proves that she doesn't care, she doesn't see them as people, they're a bunch of forgettable NPCs in her story.
Facts like the second she got ships she left we don’t even know if repairs on the city were done only her place of living she left the running of the city to a sells sword who
She rejected 😂
I mean, it seems as if Daenerys in the books subconsciously acted like a Targaryen, and it terrified her as child she was, like when she felt guilty when she crucified the slavers, or the idea that she was the Mother Of Monsters as she guiltily calls her dragons, but at the end of ADWD she consciously chose to be a Targaryen.
She acted how she perceived them to be she needs to fine her own way
Not to mention that the worst Meerenese Masters would have likely put forth slaves instead of themselves for crucifixion.
I think most of those slavers probably "deserved" to die, because slavery is one of the greatest horrors imaginable, but i dont think it realy helped her rule of Meeren (and also, some of the nobles she had murdered were seemingly Part of a reformist if not outright abolitionist faction, that might have supported her more had she not alianated them by murdering their families)
She inflicts worse punishment than the crime. She is Tyrannical.
I would assume that they deserved it as well, but that's a great example of Dany's issue because she and therefore we have legitimately no idea who the fuck any of these people even were, and the only "verification" we have that these people were even slave masters is the incredibly untrustworthy word of slave masters who are doing whatever they can to avoid being killed in the moment.
@@HillsAliveYT They were slavemastres in a land were everyone is doing it so technically she has no right to kill them for that. She offers no alternative to the system they live in how are they supposed to make money of not that since the land is not good? If its not broke don't fix it its a horrible practice but since she cannot think of a way to make changes that don't involve murdering everyone she should not do anything at all. Also if I was a slave I would be askingg "okay cool the masters are dead now what"?
@@HillsAliveYT Only the enslaved could have been trusted with that task.
@@wolfsbanealphas617 not everyone in the slavers Bay society is involved in slavery. Most people are either slaves, or are to Poor to even afford to partake in the slavetrade, an even among the noble classes there are some to criticise slavery. Those that partake in it certainly are Exposed to antislavery viewpoints, namely through the plight of the people they enslave.
I feel like she wasn’t going to win either way, no matter what she did neither side was going to be happy. But she still could have made a more fair and lawful decision. She should have just investigated the masters to see who was truly responsible, give them a trial and then executed them. It would set a precedent for the laws in Meereen, punished the masters like the ex-slaves wanted and kept it fair for the masters whom are her wealthiest patrons and control the economy of Meereen as well. I definitely understand where she is coming from, I was as angry as she was, but as a ruler you can’t just pick one side of the people you rule.
Should have done some kind of Nürnberg trials for the masters, but I guess that would have taken up too much of her precious time
Rulers throughout history often can and do.
@@lisahuber9329 Good idea but the Nuremberg Trials where only possible because humanism established basic Human rights and the idea that War should have laws was established and a common idea, war crimes as we know them today don't exist in a feudalism society as we have it in the Books. Furthermore the basic idea that made the Nuremberg trials possible is the idea that starting a War in itself is a crime and that is a revolutionary idea of the twentieth Century. So the Society in Westeros and Essos are unfortunately not at that Point where something like a Nuremberg Trial is possible, which furthermore makes the Ending of the Show even more ridiculous.
@Ilargizuri Just like starting a war is not a crime in Westeros and Essos, slavery was not a crime in Essos either. Yet Daenerys decided that she has the authority to punish them for it. If she can decide that she has the right to punish them for something that was their right to do in their society, she could have also claimed the authority to put them on trial.
@@lisahuber9329 this is an insane take. people hate daenerys so much that they have taken up a stance that defends slavery to oppose her. please be serious.
I find it interesting how grrm constantly try’s to ensure Daenerys isn’t just a stereotypical Mary sue hero who’s perfect in every way, but ppl want her to be that so bad they ignore all his attempts. All the questionable things she does, and all the times she has shown she isn’t a good ruler are what make her a great character.
Exactlyyyyyy.
They complain when the female character is perfect but when dany is a good person who makes mistakes. A person that kills in revenge. A person who is actively learning how to rule and is stumbling on the way, they still complain.
Like the authors cant win either way😂
I personally don't think that Danny should be the one to make a call like it. I think slaves should decide themselves what kind of justice should be applied to their former owner.
Slight correction: No human owns another. They hold them in captivity by force and steal their labor. There are no slave owners, only slave holders.
@@ajae... you also cant own a pat, does not change that it is property damage if someone harms your furry friend . . .
yeah, but she made hat about herself.
@@arianewinter4266This is word salad.
She came out of a fire that should have killed her with three dragons. Of course she feels special! It's dangerous. It's why her ancestors were dangerous. When you think you are above the realms of petty men you start to lose perspective. You opinion becomes righteousness. Dany had a lot of good in her. Unfortunately, she also has a lot more hubris. Her failure to listen to others or consider she could be wrong, and her inability to accept that people have different cultures. She wants to help people, but becomes a tyrant who would burn a city out of spite and anger.
it is a bit more complex as in there is not really anyone around she could trust and listen to in the fist place and the ones she does listen to caused more harm then good as in viserys and prophecies . . . . you get the drift.
She belives in her own myth she had the worst caretaker and role model, the dragon bond does not help, her genetics are a mess. She lacks meaningful human conections due to people putting her on a pedestral or demonising her . . . . she got fucked over badly
People like to think that Mereen was a Revolution, not a Conquest. It wasn't the slave's choice to punish the slavers, it was a choice of an externar conqueror that has nothing to do with the mereneese culture and customs.
Can't we say the same about literally all Targaryen rulers? Is it relevant if a Targaryen king was a good ruler or not, when their power ultimately derives from conquest? Can we fairly say that all Targaryen kings were bad, but some were far worse than others?
@@Mic-Mak I mean, Kinda? Tracing parallels from real World, almost every sovereign State was established by conquest of a certain territory (be it by Colonization, Revolution Against Colonizers or Consolidation of military power inside a determined territory). The Targs would be some kind of suis generis colonization, while they would gain control of the 7 kingdoms by conquest (as any colonizer), but they integrated themselves (kinda) in the culture of the colonized.
Mereem was another story, imagine the Haitian Revolution where the slaves killed their French Masters and founded their own country. Ok, so now lets imagine that instead of a revolution Haiti, was "Liberated" by some idk. would be Japanese Emperor(ess) claimer with the power of XXI century bomber drones, and this Japanese "emperor(ess)" chose to make the French Slavers examples, murdering them on an extreme cruel (by todays standards) methods, by some arbytrary rule that they made up, that has nothing to do with Haitian culture, without consulting the former slaves, former slaves that won their freedom before the "liberation" or the regular worker and trader classes that did not own slaves nor has any overtly profited because of slavery (just your regular attorneys, traders, physicians and etc). (btw is implicit that those free mereneese that weren't slavers were rounded up with the slavers anyway where time came for punishment).
Relevant Edit: Yes, they all were "bad", all absolute monarchs are "bad", all "Democratic State" (Dictatorship of the Bourgeoise) are "bad". [ I don't like to put the words "good" and "bad" when you are talking about production mode or gvt style. As a Marxist I fight for a superation of the modes of production and government arrangement no judment about morality of one over the other, the "judgment" is about productivity and the overall work input necessary { we take into account the development of the productive forces in case by case analisys } of an average worker to live having the basics of human need covered.)]
TL:DR Marxists don't judge a mode of production in morality terms, but on material terms.
It was both. It was the wholesale replacement of a particularly nasty form of chattel slavery with Westerosi style fuedal monarchy.
true that, dany identified so much with her idea with the slaves she compleatly missed that
@@Mic-Mak which kings rule does not? and I would argue it matters a lot if one is a good ruler, no matter if elected through birthright or conquest cause that is the one thing that really effects their subjects. Ruleing is a social contract in a way, they act in your intrest, enforce laws for your protections and all and for that they are given power. if they fuck up, their country or whatever will be in unrest, people will suffer and people will rebelle
Martin has said in the past that Daenerys campaign in Essos has parallels with America's invasion of Iraq wich he hardly disapproves...
I think your point about Daenerys easily being duped by unscrupulous characters who will likely betray her is just another example of her and Sansa's arcs being in direct opposition. I could easily see Daenerys coming to Westeros and immediately falling for Littlefinger's lies, "I'm a self-made man from a lesser House descended from foreigners, the Starks and Tullys have wronged me, the Great Houses of Westeros have mocked and maligned me despite my wise council to them for years...." He could potentially even reveal to her what he did to the Starks and Tullys and his machinations causing the chaos in Westeros which did end up priming it perfectly for conquest and she would probably see him as a worthy ally rather than the cutthroat snake he is. Whereas Sansa, though also a young girl who was once powerless, has had nearly her entire family murdered, has had to maneuver politically to survive while at the same time being a political pawn herself, has been forced into marriage, and has been deeply traumatized by all that she's experienced, is in the act of becoming a political mastermind who would absolutely never be manipulated or fooled into aligning with or trusting someone who would end up betraying her. Even now as, in the books, she's being used by Littlefinger, she is well aware of not only of his true intentions and completely unswayed by his proclamations of love and affection for her, but she's actively plotting to her own advantage while moving through the motions she needs to in order to do so unnoticed. Daenerys has three dragons, an army, a panel of advisors, and the wealth she's accrued from pillaging Slaver's Bay thus far, and she is still being outmaneuvered. Sansa would never.
Sansa was never powerless and she got duped little finger the whole time. Dany has faced many smart men and overcame them tf u talking about?
If I were a slave (coming from someone that has an African-American ancestry) I wouldn’t really care if the slavers received this as a form of punishment. From what we see, these were cruel masters. Slavery is slavery but if the masters were kinder then I could see the punishment being lighter. It could be my bias but it’s hard to empathize with them as people. However, I understand where you’re coming from. Dany’s intentions were in the right place but I can see how it may worry/be a red flag for the people she wished to rule.
Well I don't have empathy for the slave masters either, but given how quickly Dany executed these people on the word of other slave masters, for all we know there were multiple slaves among those that she crucified simply because she did not even stop to check who she was killing and she let arguably the shittiest people in the city decide who was killed and who lived. Like, we all assume that these were really the slave masters in a position of power because that's what she assumes, but we have absolutely nothing to actually base that assumption on besides the fact that some slave masters said so.
@@HillsAliveYT Good point, it’s important for leaders to be diligent and not rush to make brash decisions. Some investigating should always be done before delivering punishment.
Except she didn’t execute slavers. She executed those slavers offered up to be executed. If you did the same in the slavery era south who do you think southerners would offer up? Slave masters or abolitionists among them? She’s an idiot. And your emotions on it would lead you to be deceived same as her.
The fact is that historically slavers only understand the language of violence. You can't reason with them in any other way and if you try to give them an inch they'll try to take ten miles. Slavers aren't ever going to willingly give up what they view as being rightfully theirs. They don't ever want the world to change in a way where they risk losing their stuff, because they know that the next logical step might mean them losing more of their stuff. And compromise with them leaves any ruler vulnerable to the slaver biding their time until they can mount an offensive against you. Fuck the slavers, they all should have died screaming.
@@IcedEarth426 In almost every country in the world slavery was peacefully abolished. And then said states went on to abolish slavery across the world. There hasn't been a case where slavery was abolished then came back
I personally see Daenerys as a Dragon. She is very beautiful, charismatic and inspiring, but she is ultimately an untamable, dangerous (Dragon)Fire. The Dance of The Dragons, a war caused partially because of Jahaery's male preference primegeneta law, lead to the death of the Dragons, and marked the beginning of the end for the Targaryen Dynasty. This time, a Targaryen girl miraculously becomes The Mother Of Dragons. Daenery's arc is about showing to the Westerosi who underestimated female Targaryens ( It's noticeable in Fire and Blood that Targaryen women weren't regognized for their vital role on establishing the Targaryen Dynasty) that a female Targaryen can be as inspiring and a serious threat to Westerors as male Targ. Female Targaryens are as much as formidable dragons as male Targaryens are.
Um, that is not what Dany's arc is at all. I mean I guess it can be taken that way...but I don't think that is what the author is doing with her arc.
now answer me that, why did anyone ever think a dragon would make for a good king?
Dragons are not social creatures, they do not need to be, they are apex predetors and things are pretty simple, something is either food, irrelevant or a treat and if threat can be burned, it gets burned, end of story . . . .
that really is not a good approach in politics and I am very much convinced that it is at least partialy her bond to drogon that makes dany that mercylessly impulsiv at times given just how much she is about empathy and wanting to help on the other hand. We know from skinchangers and wargs that there is an exchange between them going both ways, even if you do not skinchange them compleatly. There is no evidance robb ever entered Graywind I am aware of . . .she got a dragons problem solving stategy for sure
@@arianewinter4266 Nobody said that dragons make good rulers.
@@gregoryschweitzer1735 Actually the author wants as to take the Mother Of Dragons title, not as a badass title of a Social Justice Warrior as Dany idolisers view it, neither as a pyromaniac tyrant, but as an understanding of who she is.
People see her relatable experience of overcoming hardship, and completely ignore all of the subtext, themes, implications, and hints that Dany really is more like the mad king than not. Her “sudden” change in seasons 7 and 8 of the show makes sense if you closely look at her scenes and think about them like this video, comparing the implications and effects of her decisions.
You make a lot of good & often overlooked points, nice work
I love there’s actually a part in the show that plays out exactly like the scenario you mentioned with the slavers using this as an opportunity to get rid of people for political benefit.
I believe it was in Season 6, Tyrion, Missandei and Grey Worm meet with three Masters. They tell the masters that one of them must die for the crime of breaking their truce.
Two of the masters shove the third forward, claiming that he is not “one of them”. Grey Worm responds by slitting both of their throats and sparing the one that was thrown under the bus.
Maybe 15 year-olds just shouldn't be monarchs.
The fact that she wants to punish exactly as many people as she witnessed on her way there showcases that she's very subjective and self-grandiose in her decision-making. She doesn't know how many millions of people have suffered the same fate, she could round it up to infinity.
But because she herself saw that specific number of people she thinks it has significance, because she believes she's a force of nature, and the deity of wrath of the abused.
And she makes it all about herself in the process.
Doesn't matter, at least what she did means there will be a whole lot less child murder and slavery for fear that she might come back for whoever decides to try it next.
@@stuffynosepatrol Not really. Like mentioned in the video, the people who are clever and evil enough to even have risen to the top in such a society are much less affected than everyone else. Even the economic problems that arise from this are only really viscerally experienced by the poor or the newly created poor.
Also she shows to everyone how quick-tempered and subjective she is by such an act, which makes her easy to manipulate once you figure out her workings.
The problem isn't that she's punishing people, the problem is that she's doing it in a way that doesn't change society for the better, it's only a statement of "I am here now, and you will all follow my emotions"
I'm not saying her emotions for seeing this aren't valid, but a good ruler would have to find solutions beyond and above the initial reaction.
This all just as an extra point in addition to the ones in the video.
But I agree that at least as she's there or in recent memory they might avoid doing the worst of the worst.
@@glanni I feel like the people who are clever and evil enough to rise to the top of society are also clever and evil enough to see a bunch of their peers suffer and die and then decide "hmm, maybe I should try to avoid making the crazy dragon lady angry?". Just a thought.
Almost every single ruler in this franchise is quick tempered, what Dany did here is childs play. But either way, I'm pretty sure the long term benefits of basically scaring slavery out of the general population outweighs the short term consequences of the economy trying to balance itself out and her showing that she is an emotional leader.
@@stuffynosepatrol The problem (of the additional point i was trying to make in addition to the ethical criticism from the video) isn't exactly the fallout of that single action, but the fact that it shows (mainly us the audience but also you could argue everyone else) she's not a rational leader who has an idea how to get to the vision she holds about the future, but that she's a rash conqueror and robber who doesn't second-guess her destructive instincts, because to her emotions it makes sense, and frankly she wasn't raised and educated properly.
The only place where she really learnt was the Dothraki, but they're not revered rulers who make things function, they're bandits.
Regardless of what terrible culture you take, you can't just enter it, burn its very fundament to the ground, react emotionally to everything that has personal meaning to you without a long-term strategy or any weighing of the situation and its fallout, and then be surprised when everything blows up in your face.
And I really believe that this was a deliberate choice by GRRM.
It's always weird to look at Daenerys. I really had to review her actions after she met with Jon in the show. She goes on and on about all her good deeds/titles while Jon remains humble. She is the mother of dragons the breaker of chains yet she owned slaves n chained up her own children. She is the khaleesi of the Great grass sea wait you just said she broke chains yet the dorthraki culture is about slaves. She definitely is narcissistic
Dany is every bit as airheaded as viserys and her father she's just nice to some people sometimes
I think she thinks if she’s nice to people than they should obey her
@@wolfsbanealphas617 truly and arbiter of grace and peace
Feast/Dance is in large part a long contemplation on terrible rulers. Cersei is most obvious one but Jon and Dany are equally spectacular failures. GRRM is arguing pretty strongly against rule by hormonal teenagers.
That is a gross oversimplification.
Neither Jon or Dany are failures they are teenagers who were sabotaged by there followers and enemies.
@@AssasiCraftYogUscus Both Dany and Jon make poor decisions that scream of inexperience. They also don't know who to trust because they fundamentally don't understand how to operate politically. They are novices and they act like it.
@@aaronginsberg4993 Ok? First timers at anything are inexperienced and make mistakes. Being a novice isn't the same as being terrible. Jon and Dany are trying to solve bigger problems while many of the people around them are stuck in their traditions our personal wants. Neither of them blindly trust anyone either. Jon doesn't have a choice but to trust his men will do their jobs because there's no one else. Dany is in a similar spot.
@@AssasiCraftYogUscus Jon's so skeptical of Alys Karstark and Val, right? Takes time to think through his response to the Pink Letter? The mutineers are right. If the Lord Commander can hand Northern castles to the Wildlings and march armies on Winterfell to settle a personal dispute, the watch has no future. Jon dies "for the watch".
Dany ends a diplomatic meeting with the Qartheen ambassador by throwing fruit at him because Xaro is gay and isn't looking at her exposed breast.
Thing about atrocities is, afterwards one side has to draw a line and say
"Okey, new start.... From now!"
Otherwise you just get the war cry of
"Remember the atrocity committed against us! The one that totally excuses the atrocity we commit today! Charge!"
exactly, thats the one thing that is kinda outstanding about jon, his willingness to stop that cycle for the greater good . . . . but he got so much damned help in getting there while dany only every got manipilated and talked into bullshit . . .
I always thought that she should’ve had the unsullied talk with the slaves and find out who the worst Masters were for the crucifixion. Weed out the evil ones keep people that owned humans without abusing them.
Great video. I pretty much completely agree with this one. Her whole time in Meereen was a fiasco honestly.
Some very excellent points made in this video. I would like to add something that you didn't touch on: Hizdahr zo Loraq. He perfectly encapsulates several of the things you talked about.
At least in the show (can't remember if this particular exchange is in the books. It's been a while since I've read them, and I'm still on AGoT in my reread) Hizdahr tells Daenerys that his father was one of the masters that she crucified, but that he had spoken out against the crucifixion of the children, and against the mistreatment of the slaves in general. Maybe he was telling the truth, and maybe he wasn't. We have no way to know for sure, but it doesn't really make a difference, because Dany doesn't know, either, and at this point cannot find out for sure one way or the other. What we DO know is that Hizdahr is a member of the old ruling class of Mereen who has taken advantage of the upheaval caused by Daenerys to maneuver himself into a position of even greater power and influence than what he had before.
He has done this in several ways.
When Dany closed the fighting pits, he bought them at a reduced price, knowing that they wouldn't stay closed forever. He's already a very wealthy man, thank you very much, and has just laid the groundwork to acquire even more wealth the minute those pits open back up, which he successfully lobbies Daenerys to allow. His claim to her is that everyone fighting would volunteer for it. Again, maybe he's being truthful, and maybe not (according to the show, slaves are still being used), but either way he stands to make boatloads of cash.
Then there's the issue of the spiced locusts. He offers some to Daenerys at the fighting pits after they're married, while not taking any himself. Turns out they were poisoned. Now, is that a cut and dry case of he did it? No, not really. Maybe he doesn't like spiced locusts. But it is very suspicious. He could have been planning to poison her and take power for himself. He is supposedly a clever man, so if he was going to do it he probably could have come up with a way to off her without bringing suspicion on himself, but maybe that's what he was banking on. Either way, that whole scenario is questionable.
Finally, there's the whole Sons of the Harpy situation. Before consenting to marry him, Dany asks for 90 days without having to deal with their sh*t. He delivers. She doesn't question how he managed to pull that off, even though one of her advisors does, and absolutely suspects Hizdahr of being deeply involved with the (terrorist) organization. But not Dany. She just takes it at face value and marries Hizdahr. What's even more telling about this is that as soon as she's gone, Hizdahr sets himself up as the ruler of Mereen, and the Sons of the Harpy only resume their campaign against the new regime after he is arrested by Barristan Selmy under suspicion of attempting to poison Dany with the locusts (though at least Selmy has the good sense and wherewithal to hold off on any punishment for Hizdahr until he can get to the bottom of things and determine whether or not he's actually guilty). All things taken into consideration, I'd say it's almost a guarantee that Hizdahr is at the very least involved with the SotH, if not the mastermind behind the whole thing. He has the means, and he has the motive, both of which were at least in part handed to him by none other than Daenerys herself.
Hizdahr as a character in many ways really highlights how politically naive and ineffectual as a leader Daenerys truly is, as well as how easily manipulated she can be. Many of the problems she faced, which gave Hizdahr some of his biggest opportunities, could have been avoided if she had bothered to take some time to learn about the situation in Mereen, and had taken a more level-headed approach to dealing with things. Instead, she rolled into town with a "shoot first, and don't bother asking questions" attitude, which caused even bigger problems than the ones that she was already going to have to deal with. It also illustrates her incredible lack of forethought. She really thought she could just waltz in and change things, and everyone would be totally cool with what she did, or at least just accept it without resisting, but that's not how things work at all. She orders a bunch of masters to be crucified, and abolishes slavery, but beyond that she has no actual plan for how to help society in Mereen progress and move forward. "We're not doing that any more." Ok, so what are we doing? "Not that." Yes, and what should we do now? "Just shut up and do what I want." Ok, but what is that? "Die!" Her whole plan is to just intimidate, and she assumes that people will bend to her will just because that's what she wants.
It's very unlikely that Hizdahr would have been in the position to do what he did had she not crucified the masters. And whether or not he was behind the poisoning attempt, I think it's pretty clear that he was planning on betraying her as soon as his own position was secure enough to do so. He is at best a manipulative opportunist, and at worst the driving force behind those plotting her downfall. Daenerys is directly responsible for creating the circumstances that put him where he is, beginning with her decision to crucify 163 masters.
Wow that was long. Sorry about that! Also, Mhysa is a master.
So she negotiated with someone for something she had no reason to expect they could deliver? No, she knew at the very least that he held sway with The Sons of The Harpy. She just wasn't willing to ascribe membership or leadership of the group to him because why then would he pushing so hard to marry her? A move that ties him to her so well and in such a way that he immediately becomes witn one with the most to gain in the event of her demise. Something that's not going to escape the notice of her literal army of supporters he's making camp with. Due to all the things I just said Danaerys could get struck by lightning and Hizdahr could expect Barristan to want to have a violent chat with him. It's something that's possible but that Hizdahr would have to be very arrogant and shortsighted to think it would successfully pay off. Hence why she probably didn't question it much.
One of the men told her that his father opposed slavery and yet she still cruxified him.
Hizdar
collective pumishment is considered a war crime
Certainly a heavy topic for morning tea, but one of the most talked about parts of the books.
This eye for an eye act is highly flawed for all the reasons pointed out. Blood cannot always "pay for blood". And conquering the city and occupying is a lot more complex of a matter than most people give it credit for (Assuming Dany wants to establish a stable city).
Since so much of the books is about what "justice" is and what it means I've thought a bit about what I would have done in Dany's place.
How do you think would you have dealt with the masters of the city and the sack of the city in general, assuming you had more foresight than Dany?
LOL well it would have been a colossal pain in the ass, but I would have arrested the masters, put them on trial, and judged them based on the testimony of the slaves that they owned. Obviously a lot more shit would have to go into it, but I think that as a general idea would have been the most just way to actually handle these people and punish them for their crimes.
@@HillsAliveYT I agree with that take. I think one of the biggest flaws in Dany's system of punishment and then subsequent governance was not involving the freed peoples of the city enough in having a greater hand in both the establishment of a justice system and in the determinism of the society. Like its a very very difficult situation to approach because of the extremely horrible shit that had gone on in the city. But I think that bringing in the freed peoples and having their voices would be one of the only paths towards some semblance of justice.
On a personal level I feel like executions would have been warranted but doing away with torture in favor of trials and swift punishments would also have been a critical standard to get established.
I've never understood why people like Dany so much. I understood she'd be the Big Bad during season 3 of the TV show, so season 8 didn't shock me.
She's no better in the books.
I like the fact your going over that the punishment itself wasn’t wrong but how it was given out and to whom was the issue.
It prove she no different than from her brothers and father that have no regard for the law but their own whims. She is truly a valyrian and a targaryen who think themselves Gods. Also she hadn't she when she was wife of khal drago since she was willing to accept the brutal rape, pillage and enslavement of the horse people for the crown because it her "birthright" and was once a slave owner herself. Honestly robert, ned, Robb, and Stannis get alot of shit for being honorable and just by the fans while giving a pass to the Frey, Bolton, lannister, and targaryen.
Hi again!
I would love a video that Deconstructs Valyrians and their idealization in the asoiaf world and the influece their Empire have had on it; i think George is critizising the Roman empire and our lack of understanding of history, with Dany and how she does not even know how her ancestors sins have not just influenced her, but the rest of the world...
We also see this Valyrian exceptionalism in HOTD and knowing how it ends with them.. this may be their theme of hubris and never learning...
Sorry for the long comment!
have a wonderful day!
Why did they stop dying Emilia's eyebrows? That's my biggest issue with the TV series, her eyebrows don't match!
What if Faegon ended up teaming up with Jon against Dany because he found Jon to be easier to reason with? People keep saying that Faegon and Jon will become enemies but Jon is not belligerent towards anyone who can help him in the long game against the others (unless you are the Boltons and Lannisters, of course) and the alliance with the golden company seems beneficial for adding manpower against the white walkers.
In the books IF Jon gets resurrected he won’t be the same Jon we knew. He might be the one who is hard to reason with. The GC will be beneficial against the WW but dragons even more so.
She should have killed ALL the Slavers. To paraphrase Machiavelli, never leave a wounded enemy alive. The Slave Masters of Meereen cannot be a significant portion of the population as indicated by the text directly and by the economic nature of Slave Societies. Therefore killing all of them is very doable. Because the Slavers are by definition rich and conspicuous it wouldn’t be hard. It was common in many cultures to massacre the entire population of cities anyway after battle, so killing ~10% of the male population wouldn’t be a tall order.
She could’ve done it in a clean way
"Skahaz is Kandaq, Hizdahr Loraq. Your Radiance will forgive me, but only one who is not herself Ghiscari would not understand the difference. Oft have I heard that yours is the blood of Aegon the Conqueror, Jaehaerys the Wise, and Daeron the Dragon. The noble Hizdahr is of the blood of Mazdhan the Magnificent, Hazrak the Handsome, and Zharaq the Liberator."
Extreme Dany fans can be unhinged. I mentioned how the show erased her relationship with a woman in the books, and my friend refused to believe me. He insisted she's straight and i was just lying to piss him off. He didn't speak to me after we saw she died in season 8. he accused me of being happy. I actually teared up a bit when she died, even tho she wasn't my fav
I get where you coming from but I totally disagree. Some brutality is necessary on a revolution.
But it isn’t a revolution though. It is a simple solution to a way more complex problem. What Dany actually did was the same thing Hitler did when he took over Germany and look at what happened there.
@@blabla187 the Ghiscari created the slave trade.
@@jjh2456Except Hitler did it against innocent people. Dany did it against…. slavers.
You’re absolutely the best Ice and Fire channel on CZcams. Love your work
Everything Danaerys does comes back to the same thing as Ned Stark, as Theon Greyjoy, as Tywin Lannister, as Robb Stark. That is to say, there’s a context for the shit they pull.
And the same goes for Danaerys. She’s going in with a very immature sense of Justice.
“They killed 163 slave children, I’m going to kill 163 of them, that’ll show them!”
Which comes back to how Danaerys got dragons when she should have had therapy. She’s coming at this as a deeply wounded child lashing out at the world and putting a veneer of Justice on top to avoid thinking about it too deeply.
Like, yeah, those guys were in all likelihood bad people. They probably deserved to be punished, but for crimes they ACTUALLY committed, not because Danaerys was angry at the city in general.
It’s the same thing for when she kills Tarly sr and his brickfaced son. They don’t deserve that, she’s just pissy that Westeros doesn’t like her.
There’s a context there. Danaerys is a deeply wounded person with a narcissistic complex due to a history of abuse.
But there’s no excuse and, like you said, it’s really bad political action.
one of the best quotes about dany you got there " she got dragons when she needed therapy" that pretty much summerises everything about her . . . . well, she also needed education and genuin moral and emotional support, but the point stands!
But she said she wasn’t a politician but a queen ? What’s your response to that
@@wolfsbanealphas617 it’s a contradiction in terms. A queen is by necessity a politician.
@@wolfsbanealphas617 and, I mean, I why ppl see this as a badass quote, but I think it’s actually intended as an illustration of just how unprepared Danaerys is to rule.
“Queen” is a political position. Even in the UK, their head of state does political shit all the time.
By making the statement, Danaerys shows that she really doesn’t know what a queen is or what a queen does. She just wants to shiny hat, not the responsibility that goes with it.
@@misskate3815 yeah I agree with all your points personal season 8 showed if anything she only helped her self she called the long night jons war she refused to acknowledge another magical being when she herself survived fire 🔥 her narcissism refused to acknowledge she wasn’t the only special one
Fantastic analysis video as always. I love getting really thoughtful breakdowns on such overlooked elements of ASOIAF. I'd love to see someone like Littlefinger use Danny to consolidate even more power.
Yeah, and expect that it will happen and someone dangerous af will gain a lot of ground as a result of Dany's cluelessness regarding Westerosi politics. I suspect Euron, but there are unfortunately a lot of options there.
I wouldn't expect a massive Jojo's fan to be into ASOIAF, but it's a welcome surprise
@@HillsAliveYT I feel she is the women by his side she has a God complex. All he has to do is make sure she feels she is the one in charge. Her weakness I noticed in the show is she gets off having these men worsphip her "love" her. I remember how she changed her treatment of jon after they slept together she knew she had him it was a calculated action. She did the same to Drogo, like cersei she may think her greatest power is s between her legs but unlike her she has dragons which make you look the other way
It wasn't murder. They were political assassinations in preparation for an occupation. Shock and awe.
Slave holders don't deserve mercy, which is an ideal held both by today's standards and the standards of many in her era. Especially the enslaved. But in the end it wasn't her decision to make without any input from the enslaved people. She had no initial interest in how they intended to rule themselves. Daenarys's use of enslaved people's misery to build herself is more troubling than her supposed unfair treatment of slave holders. Would it have been acceptable for the enslaved people to select the 163 regardless of their personal motivations? To me, yes. Although I think they would have found limiting the number to be eliminated frustrating. That they weren't considered says more to me about her flawed rule than her not doing enough research to make astute decisions about who on the wheel she aligns herself with.
As a political science major I love to look at ASOIAF from that lense, but I've only been concerned with westerosi politics and cant remember ever touching Dany and the Meereen storyline, perhaps blindness due to Danys badassedness and relatability. Thank you for laying out this excellent take 🙏 love it
She seems to be a classic Messiah archetype, who is so convinced of the rightness of her own cause that she can justify anything she does, no matter how terrible. Like Robbespierre or Lenin before her, the fact that the regime she was overthrowing was bad didn't mean the actions she takes in replacing them aren't also bad.
Dany would say they were slavers I am not I am a liberator. My cause is just I am just they were not they chose their old world instead of my new one
Great video as usual. Thank you!
The main problem isn't the crucifixion but how naive Daenerys was in thinking that she could just upend slavery in a place called fucking Slaver's Bay in like a month, in a continent built around slavery where everyone including half of her army are slavemasters (Dothraki) and the other half are slaves that just followed her (Unsullied).
It gets even more ridiculous when you consider the fact that the Valyrians are the ones who established that system in the first place. Her own ancestors are directly responsible for the state of Essos.
The devil is always in the details. If one doesn’t pay attention to the details then the whole entire cause can go to shit. Dany never paid attention to the details and that was her problem.
@@hawkins347 the whole point of dany’s character is that shes undoing her family’s legacy? she wasnt raised by aerys and has never been truly taught the history of her family without bias or embellishment. that enables her to go against the grain. she’s compassionate and just were aerys was mad and cruel. the valyrians created slavery and she is abolishing it.
I never liked Dany in show or books. I never got why people liked her because she clearly believes in a caste system where she's at the top. Like she doesn't "slavery" but she wants to worshiped and obeyed with little question.
Yeah this is something I'm going to dive more into in the future, but this is the exact problem with Dany's "revolution". She says that she wants to radically change the societal structure of the world which is true, but she wants to change it from a caste system that has a multitude of levels to a caste system that has two, her on the top with absolute power and everyone else with none.
@@HillsAliveYT "The worst forms of evil are those that don't recognize themselves as evil."
I used to like her but now she is just a spoiled little kid who doesn't get that the world doesn't revolve around her. The more I read her chapters the more I'm appalled at her sense of entitlement and so called justice. If this is how she acts like to the slavers, killing them in brutal ways,
how will she act to the nobles and the people of Westeros?? She has a very black and white way of thinking. Also she acts more like a Dothraki Khal than a ruler. Yet she claims she wants to rule happy people?
@@HillsAliveYT Good content btw 👍
It's also been said that she has the weakest supporting cast, and unfortunately I think that's true. All the other POV characters have far more compelling supporting characters.
Thanks to your analysis I learned to be more observant when reading and watching programs, before I ignored the details, you are incredible and I love your content.
I hope I'm not being rude but I suggest you do an analysis of the relationship between Cersei and Tyrion, for me it was always one of the most Interesting points of the program, they have contempt for each other but they also trusted each other, they talked about their fears and sorrows , even Cersei showed her more sensitive side with him (something she didn't do with anyone). Just a little suggestion. Thanks for the video ❤️
Another banger video! I love your analysis of Dany and how villainous she truly is
Dany is a conqueror, not a ruler. That's why I like her. Everyone keeps morally dissecting her, but the thing is - everyone wants that omelet, but she was the only one willing to crack those eggs and give it to everyone. I don't really think that people are morally better than her for watching the wheel crush people day in and day out and not doing anything about it because they don't want to get their hands dirty.
She was not a good ruler. Not yet anyway. She did want Jon to rule with her and he probably would have tempered her a lot. But what we got instead was him losing it and killing her because she said "they don't get to choose" just for a handful of privileged assholes to laugh and say "they don't get to choose" when Sam Tarly suggested democracy. All of whom would be soldiers in the Night Kings army if not for Dany.
I love your videos and you have such a soothing voice
Will you be uploading any content on jaehaerys and his rule? I know you said something about it at one point and I'm anxiously hoping for it lol🙂
count me inn
Ah the poor Masters
All 15 of them out of 134
Should you reach your queen, give her a message from the slaves of Old Volantis." She touched the faded scar upon her wrinkled cheek, where her tears had been cut away. "Tell her we are waiting. Tell her to come soon." This is why I still defend Dany. In the grand scheme of things, if Daenerys ends up accidentally inspiring a world revolution that topples the horrible global slave system, then it was worth it, and the excesses probably wont be remembered as much in comparison.
Well I would really REALLY love it if she frees Volantis, but there is a lot of foreshadowing that whatever she does there will be even more destructive than what has happened in Slaver's Bay, and while I don't think that GoT is necessarily a great source of information for anything, the fact that they completely omitted pretty much all things Volantis-related makes me think that whatever will happen there in the books would have spoiled their "big twist" of Dany being the final boss villain.
@@HillsAliveYT My point is just that if Daenerys dies right now where she is in the story she would be remembered as one of the greatest transformative figures in Essosi history. I mentioned Volantis to point out just how far the ripples of her actions spread.
Excellent video, love the way you explained your thoughts on her actions. 👌
100% agree with everything. But another thing I thought would have come up is the reaction of other slave cities to Dany’s conquest of Meereen. She made her way through 3 cities in Ghiscar, and all 3 cities created powerful enemies to Dany. I wouldn’t be surprised if the other slave cities, kingdoms and civilisations surrounding Meereen, take up arms or something? The master of Yunkai said he had powerful allies who would see to destroy dany. I’m surprised that dany doesn’t get any retribution from across Essos. Like New Ghiscar, Volantis, Lys, Tyrosh, Myr, heck I’m surprised Qarth didn’t take the opportunity to destroy dany. It kind of seems like dany’s whole journey in Essos had absolutely no consequences or made no changes to the geopolitical climate of the entire continent of Essos. And geopolitics is something I find very interesting especially in a fictional world that is as fleshed out as Planetos.
Not sure if I agree about Dany going Mad Queen, but I think you're onto something with Dany not being able to differentiate or understand the complex political factions of Westeros which we the readers have become so familiar with. One thing I'd like to add to that is, Book Tyrion, Varys, and Jorah aren't good guys who are helping Dany because they believe that she'll build a better world. Tyrion is planning to use her for his personal vengeance, Varys will probably betray her for fAegon, and Jorah, as she herself realized, spent his whole time with heer trying to convince her to distrust everyone so she would be more reliant on him. The only Westerosi in her camp right now who I would trust to help her develop a clear view of the situation in Westeros is Barristan Selmy, and he's just one person. It's not a good combination.
First time I didn't immediately nod along while reading the title lol, killing slavers isnt bad as such (it's more all the non slave owning people of these cities whom Dany killed and tortured that makes her a shit queen and a shit in general) but once I watched it yeah, you make excellent points!
This thumbnail. Period! Let me out this doctors appointment and IMA go home and watch this over Pho. I love your content. I've got into fights explaining how this was the beginning of what would have been an inevitable decline for her if THIS is what she thought was right and just. Also, her freeing slaves.... While keeping them.... And thinking you're the good guy..... Delusional.
Yeah I find it very interesting that so many people argue that we shouldn't apply real-world modern morality to the books despite the fact that it was written by an author in the modern real world for an audience in the modern real world, but if you actually do apply a modern perspective to her actions, Dany did commit murder even if the people she killed deserved to die. Extrajudicial actions are still considered crimes even if there is a morally justifiable reasoning behind them, and not putting anyone on trial or investigating what actually happened when you want to be a HEAD OF STATE with ABSOLUTE POWER should terrify anyone regardless of what you think is right or wrong.
@@HillsAliveYT Yes!! This is why I'm always recommending your content! I love your perspectives!!
Daenerys reminds me a lot of Stannis. Both constantly whine about their entitlement, their fans often gloss over or justify their worst acts. And they both have the most annoying fanbase of any of the characters. I don’t know if GRRM did that on purpose but the similarities are striking.
. . . I would argue in satnises favor there, he is way less aflicted with blak and white thinking and willing to change his mind on someone, judging them by their actions isntead of their name of whatever. His respect for Jon, naming Davos his hand aknowlaging just what a gem he got there . . . . but that does not at all help him in the end when he falls to the "for the greater good" thinking . . . he fucks up so hard
Vengeance is not justice. Great video as always
careful, you're going to get called a slavery apologist
It’s justice to her because they will pay fir the life she was forced to live
@@wolfsbanealphas617 she has literaly no concept of justice
@@arianewinter4266 I know but I feel that is what she would say on the matter
Oh my God, this is a amazing Video. It puts my Problems with that Scene in perfect English Words (I mean I am a no9n-native Speaker, so that's not to surprising😅)
This Video made me realize that Dany would listen to Littlefinger, but without learning from him. She would put Littlefinger into a Position of Power and than she would never realize that he betrays her on a constant base, that he uses her and in the End destroys her. Lets think for a Second that Daenerys arrives in Westeros with 3 Dragons and a big Army. If Littlefinger isn't already with Sansa in the North, we can assume that he immediately takes Daenerys Side and will manipulate her. It would be a Littlefinger Move to destroy all of Kings Landing, because strategically that City has no meaning for Littlefinger at all. He is the Lord of Harrenhall, he is the Caretaker of Sweet Robin and therefore defacto Lord Protector of the Vale, not to mention that it seems that he buys a lot of Food because he wants to sell it to the Lords of Westeros in Winter, ... with Carefree-Conqueror Daenerys who doesn't make proper preparations for her Conquest, that will come into Play and we know that Littlefinger will use it.
I always thought that when Sansa leaves the Vale either she is on the run or because she follows Littlefingers Plan and leaves with Harry the Heir to win the North either from Stannis or from the Bolotons back. And then Littlefinger will be in that Group or on the hunt, but now I can see that there is an equal chance that Littlefinger could try to take advantage from Daenerys. Even when Tyrion is one of her Advisors at that time, we all know how often she listens to her Advisors.🤔 And when it comes to playing the Game of Thrones, Baelish is a lot more cunning than Tyrion. So if it comes to a Confrontation between Tyrion and Baelish, Baelish would win and if it comes to a "trial" for Varys I can see that Littlefinger would use that Opportunity to either not help Varys or giving Daenerys Reasons to burn Varys alive. And Varys is not as awful as Baelish, they are just two Players in the same Game and if Baelish is on Daenerys Side and Varys is on Aegons, I think Varys will lose.
I feel like most people forget she's only 16 in A Dance with Dragons and like every teenage girl at that age is prone to act emotionally.
I don't think this makes her or leads her to be a bad queen even though she's made some bad decisions like everyone in the series has. The fact that she doesn't make this same mistake twice in Mareen, when she's faced with the same decision of murdering the upper-class Harpies of Mareen, means she's growing and developing into a more empathetic character. She had plenty of opportunities to kill the upper class of Mareen (Harpies) and plenty of opportunities to exact punishment by killing their children which she holds as hostages (who live comfortably), which she's often pressured to do by the shaved pate, and yet she shows mercy on the upper class even though many of them are most likely Harpies who are actively working against her. She takes a drastically different approach in Mareen as she did with the other cities, because she realized her actions in the other cities had unintended consequences of falling into chaos so she decides to stay in Mareen to stabilize it instead of crossing the seas to Westeros to reclaim the throne which is her end goal and birth right. Meaning she's becoming less ruthless and a more empathic leader. More often than not, she does the humanitarian thing when it cost her. Like feeding the people of astapore that come to the gates of Mareen seeking help. Like staying in Mareen to stabilize the kingdom rather than going straight to Westeros to claim her birthright. Also, the fact that she learns from her mistakes and grows from them. She realizes what she did with the masters was too extreme and takes the opposite approach with the Harpies. (Obviously, that is a mistake that will be another opportunity to grow). She also laxes things within Mareen and decides to marry the (Whatever his name is) upper-class dude, to bring peace to Mareen, even though she neither loves him nor does she desire him, but she knows the marriage will bring peace to Maureen. She takes a rational approach to bring peace and make a truce between the upper class of Mareen along with Yungki, her enemy. The crucification was overkill, I agree. But at the same time, she's one of the few characters within A Song of Ice and Fire (Aside from Starks, Tyrion, and Eventually Jaimie, along with the Sept that Brianne meets on the road, Brianne herself, and a few other characters) who actually actively put the needs of others above their own. She stays in Mareen to stabilize the economy even though it's against her own best interest. She shows compassion towards those who suffer while most other characters cause suffering.
If we compare her to other Targaryens, it's easy to see that she's one of the better of their line. Like Aegon the Conqueror, she's capable of showing compassion and ruthlessness. Aegon not only brought law and peace in Westeros but he also completely Anilihiates entire houses that stood against him, like Harenhall, burning their entire line in one blazing fire. Dany is neither weak/meek like Aegon's first son, nor is she overly cruel and merciless like Aegon's second son. She makes mistakes as all rulers do, but she learns from them. She's one part of the Azor Ahai prophecy which I believe Jon is the other half. Whether her role is to be the fire in which the sword of light is plunged within or to be the sword itself, I don't know, but to me, it's clear that her role is going to be critical against the others. Now, I think she could become a "Mad Queen" if she decides to pursue the iron throne over her duty to the people, which was kinda shown in the tower of the undying and I think its something she'll realize before she needs to cast it aside to fight the others. But ultimately, I feel like George showed us both Aenys I and Maegor I to define both extremes and display that Dany fits neither extreme. She's neither her father, nor is she either of her brothers. She doesn't put her own needs above others, or else she wouldn't have married the Harpy highborn and instead gone with the man she desires, Dario. So to me, it's clear she's not the foil, but that still doesn't mean her story won't end tragically. It's A Song of Ice and Fire after all, there are no happy endings.
. . . how is making the worst choices possible for a ruler not make her a bad ruler. Her age is an explanation, no excuse! It does not nessecerly make her a bad person or mean she can never learn but at that moment devoid of any moral judgment she plain and objectivly acts as a bad queen.
That she does not repeat that error in meereen up till know does not change, that the damage is already done. pointing out her age does not help at all, be that as it is does not change that her impulsive traumatised kid brain decissions already negativl effected all the lifes she touched for thats the thing with ruling, you are sesponable for so much more then just your own life. If that is fair to her, that she has to carry all that responsability is and entirely different argument and what ever one decides there . . . she has showen herself to be a bad ruler
@@arianewinter4266 Who's lives has she made worse off? The slaves who she freed? Or the Slavers she's killed? Do slavers not deserve death? Sure their crucifixion was a bit overkill, but she's fighting a war against slavery essentially. Do you honestly think the slaves she freed who follow her now are better off in bondage? Do you think Joffrey would make a better king? Or her father? Or Lysa Aeron? Littlefinger? Ramsey Bolton or Roose Bolton?
She hasn't done any worse than any other ruler in A Song of Ice and Fire. (Maybe aside from Ned, or his sons, or probably Stannis and Robert is debatable. Tyrion perhaps. And of course some of the older kings and Lords like Aegon the Conqeoror, Jaeharys the Great Conciliator, Theon Stark, Creagon Stark, and a few others. For what she's been given and the choices she has to choose from, I doubt anyone could do any better. Especially since she basically has to choose between bad or worse. Her decisions were as good as any could make in her position. If you see something, wrong, do you not try to fix it? Is freeing slaves not worth the price of dead slavers? What would you do if you were in her shoes?
The Brooklyn nine nine reference made me want to watch this even more
I mean she is like 14?
Of course what she should have done is leave justice to the hands of those formally enslaved. Something along the lines of:
"You've oppressed these people once, now they will be the judge of your merit"
Masters who were particularly cruel might be turned in and could receive a fair punishment, while those who have people to vouch for their morals could likely receive lighter penalties.
While this isn't a perfect solution, it would make her appear as someone who allows her subjects to participate in the attainment of justice and would probably make her look less like an impulsive totalitarian in her reputation
And yet S8 haters will claim "Her madness came out of nowhere. there were never any signs before"
S8 haters are just toxic dany fans lol
THIS VID WAS EXCELLENT
My yardstick for judging these situations is:
1: Who would John Brown fight for in this conflict?
2: Who would my neighbor with the Stars and Bars on his garage try to defend and justify?
The Mongols established peace by setting examples with pyramids of severed heads and the Romans with crucifixion, neither were as justified as this scenario. There is no making this conflict nuanced, some sins can only be expunged by fire and blood.
Throughout the Meereen storyline we see Dany regretting her hot tempered responses to the slavers, learning from it and making efforts to act politically from this point on. It is a brutal world and leaders in that world act brutally, but it is not more terrible than any other characters actions.
When dealing with slavers it is best not to take half measures. As any half measure is viewed as a full scale assault on their “way of life” and will likely result in terrorism and violence. As it pretty clearly has.
Her actions were horrific but thinking on it as a book, as this being fiction, I enjoyed it a lot.
Dany didn't do enough, shoulda killed all of them. The ENSLAVED people, god
No one say that Daenerys capable of being ruthless, more when she did that this before, and thank you to round the number of people that Daenerys kill, I have been working in a science fiction/fantasy loosely based on George RR Martin, George Lucas and Frank Herbert work, and I did something something similar to slavers but with explosive chips, but they die in their own accord, they couldn't enter the city without blowing up or escape the city, by foot or flying in a ship without exploding, they were condemn to roam the desert seeking kindness that they weren't willing to give to their slaves, most of them die.
Thank you for putting this out!!
Fan fic idea: Dany makes astropor her base for awhile.
~ That terrible world had/has no shortage of questionable people...I dare say most of the characters are incredibly flawed! From the very beginning with Ned killing that man of the KW to most likely the last chapters. ~
Was Aegon I a bad king? No one remembers him as such. Jaehaerys I was a bad king? I'm sure during his reign he executed more than 200 people? Is he remembered as Jaehaerys the cruel?
Best ASOIAF channel!!
did you what lindsay elis take on it? it's about 20% of her got video. I think she just whatched the show.
her argument is that the growing violence we were supposed to see as foreshadowing was actually legitimate violence. As a com/red I agree that legit violence is in many times needed, but I also feel the need to point that most of legit violence nowdays arent legit, even if it's perceived to be by the people in power(like police violence or wars)
And even with I have a better opinion about than grrm it's important to remember just how much vietnam and later desert storm, so knowing his vision about violence it's clear that the act is to be viewed as evil, evenif I would kill more nobleman than dany did(but again, I'm not dany, a noble herself with an illegit claim to the throne, illegite not just cause faegon is legit, but all claim to kinghood are illegit, the last targeryan and the last high sparrow and all that.) And even legit violence is violence, it corrupts the one doing the violence and gives the family of victims legit reason to attack you with violence. no wheel broken here.
However, while I see clearly in the books how she is becoming evil, in the show she was always framed as good, dungeons and dragons tried to have their cake and eat it too.
I really dont like how they used the "first they came for the..." poem in the show, but she was in a path of growing violence indeed
I dont know if I ever said to you(I know I said to another asoif youtuber that I also like) But you are one of the best asoif youtubers and you are breathing fresh air into the community.
of course preston's original theories are great, but you bring an unique view to it.
I just went on a rambling about "female gaze" but it sounded too gendered to me and also probally the reason your takes sound so fresh and lucid.
Again, you are one of the best asoif youtubers, right now I would even dare to say that you are the best, cause you are doing fresh content today.
Btw, I didnt found the link to your patreon
Yeah I saw Lindsay Ellis' video about GoT and unsurprisingly I didn't agree with her take on Dany although I think she made fantastic content and had some good POVs on a lot of stuff in general. I think the show did a mediocre job of what they needed to in order to clarify Dany's descent into tyranny, but a distinction that exists both in the books and the show is that Dany simply has no fucking clue who she's killing almost every time she kills somebody. In watching the show we assume that she's doing the right thing because the narrative rarely pushes back on her perspective, but she is still showing up in a bunch of different places and immediately violently slaughtering people who she BELIEVES are bad but that she and we really know nothing about. It feels different when she gets to Westeros because we do know about these characters, but in retrospect nearly every person she killed was an almost entirely unknown party, so to presume that Dany was batting 100 and only ever killed bad guys because she assumed they were bad is a flawed way of looking at her character that GoT at least did incorporate into the story somewhat.
And thanks so much! It's awesome that anyone actually enjoys my unnecessarily detailed analyses, and I actually do not have a Patreon at present so you're not missing out on anything!
I think Daenerys is a good example of a person who is able to do both good and bad and often makes the wrong decisions. And her power means that her bad decisions often hurt and kill a lot of innocent people.
Here come the twitter stans pretending to care about slavery again while ignoring the fact that dany burned Mirri
and she has a ex-slaver as an ally ffs
I always hated Dany. I knew she was a terrible leader when Drogo died.