Daenerys 'Stormborn' Targaryen: The Breaker Of Chains, Mother Of Dragons Etc

[Pete Martell]

I don't like either of them, but as he's Dany's main talk-to and Dany was obviously supposed to be attracted to him because he's dashing and daring and so on. Instead he just seems like one of those husbands in a TV movie who splits 20 minutes in when the wife learns he's sleeping with his secretary.

[Fen]

Good point. So far, Dany has meted out to people exactly the deaths they were planning for her. Stannis, otoh, is just burning people alive because Melisandre thinks it might get them some magic.

 

Kraznys was planning to burn Dany alive?  The elites of Astapor wanted to see her slaughtered by Unsullied?

 

Stannis offered the Wildlings who attacked Castle Black - and, by extension - Westeros - citizenship and land if they chose to serve him.  Dany told her Dothraki that their enemies would die screaming.  Two very different approaches.  When Varys was giving his political views, all I could think was that clearly Tyrion wasn't the only one who had been drinking heavily throughout the sea voyage.  

 

I suppose, though, that Varys even backed the Mad King, who was clearly not a model of leadership by the end of his reign.  His opinions are pretty shaky, for me.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Fen

[portfino]

I thought Daario 1.0 was bad but Vanilla Daario makes me understand that the first one's smarminess was essential to the storyline working. This is either a true romance or a poisonous one, trying to play it down the middle is worse.

[Rocket]

Peter the Great tried the reasonable approach recommended above on a town that had rejected the government policies in a area he was marching the army though. The town took it as weakness and killed some government men. Peter then took the whole population of the town and hung them from scaffolds mounted on rafts and sent the rafts down river so the entire area could see. That action ended the partial rebellion of the area as clearly the message was if I have to kill everyone I will. Peter learned from that and examples of week actions by other rulers that ruthless massive actions was the only thing that the people of that time feared and respected. Catherine the Great was the same. These are rulers who took no pleasure from these actions just knew that in those times partial fair and just measures were took as weakness not as reasonable actions. Back then gorilla or terrorist actions were attempted sometimes to go effect. Sooner or later the authorities would solve the problem of not knowing who is a member of the enemy and who is an innocent civilian and kill them all. Saddam Husain is an example of how this approach can work in the modern day in his remaining in power despite rebellions against him. Of course you have to have a big enough army and enough loyal followers for the brutal suppression to work otherwise you get Syria, although the government there still might win in the end. 

 

As an example of his willingness to do anything a common person would do if he commanded Peter applied the hot coals and used the whip and other torture tools when questioning the members of a later revolt. Peter learned wood working and many common crafts, worked as a normal labor man in Dutch Shipyards to learn how to build ships, acted as a private on the mortar squads in the dangerous trench work attacking walls, was the first into burning buildings on St Petersburgs fire teams. He transformed his country from a 3 rate backward country into a major power during his life time and Catherine finished the job of making Russia a modern for the time country. Both had a want to be nice and treat the people well personality, but both were as ruthless as they needed to be when necessary. 

 

Yep Danny has the ego that you need to be a great leader, and some good instincts, but she is immature and has not had the advice that our spider and dwarf can provide. 

[Hecate7]

Kraznys was planning to burn Dany alive?  The elites of Astapor wanted to see her slaughtered by Unsullied?

 

Kraznys was bargaining for Drogon. What do you THINK he was going to do with him? Turn him on Dany, if not that day, eventually. The trick rested on the fact that Drogon was still Dany's no matter who she might have sold him to--Drogon doesn't know from gold or armies. He knows who his mother is.

 

As for the elites of Astapor, yes, they'd have sent the unsullied against her faster than you could blink, once she didn't have those precious dragons. Everyone wants those dragons to use on their enemies.

 

Xaro Xoan Daxos and Doreah are merely suffering the exact fate they planned for Dany. Xaro was going to walk her into that empty vault and lock her in. Doreah killed the other handmaidens and let the soldiers in to slaughter all the Dothraki following Danaerys, so really she got off pretty lightly being allowed to starve with Daxos, instead of perhaps hanging and quartering or being burned alive.

[Fen]

Kraznys was bargaining for Drogon. What do you THINK he was going to do with him? Turn him on Dany, if not that day, eventually......As for the elites of Astapor, yes, they'd have sent the unsullied against her faster than you could blink

 

But we were never given any indication that this was likely.  Kraznys was crass and disrespectful, but we were never offered any suggestion that he planned to turn Drogon on Daenerys.  Likewise with the elites.  They would probably be glad to see the back of her, but there was no nod at all to the viewers that they planned to kill her.

[fantique]

Question: Is Varys insane? In what world is Dany gentler than Stannis?

 

So far she is equally as brutal. She's burned people alive and crucified them, she never asked for repentance or offered mercy. She merely killed them, and without even a second thought. And it's not like she has a gentle hand at diplomacy either, as seen tonight and many times before. "They can live in my new world or die in their old one." Yeah that's the very picture of a gentle monarch, eh spider?

 

She's more beloved by the smallfolk, by with I mean the slaves she freed. But I don't think that would be the case in Westeros, especially if she brings her army of freed men over to take the Westerosi's land and resources. Her approval rating will tank if she seeks to settle that many new people in lands belonging to others. 

But Varys doesn't know all these details does he? The spies he uses are little children, right? Like that kid who brought the message for Jorah? What do you think he feels about the woman who came in and made sure he and his family/friends are not treated like chattel. Of course he's going to report on how kind she is to the underdog. If Varys only heard about the crucified masters and the stuff in Astapor and Yunkai, it's all a very daring tale of justice vs oppression. Also, I think he's doing a sales pitch for Tyrion. Dany is simply the best option for him because he needs someone to mould into the ruler he wants. Stannis and the rest are already set in their ways.

 

If they did actually get her to meet up with Varys and Tyrion, then it'd be great. But somehow, I don't see that happening. I know there are some spoiler pics out there suggesting it will, but my guess is that they're misleading in some way.

Oh come on. How is Tyrion sitting on a platform, a place of honour, next to her and Hizdar a misdirect? Unless you're telling me this is a photoshop prank. That's ridiculous. Those photos are not suggesting anything, they're stating what is in the can. 

 

Yep Danny has the ego that you need to be a great leader, and some good instincts, but she is immature and has not had the advice that our spider and dwarf can provide. 

I was under the impression that the takeaway from GOT is that a leader needs self awareness, not ego. She has good survival instincts but she is not in the mindset of a ruler, she's in the mindset of the leader of a group of rebellious teens. She doesn't even take responsibility for conquering Meereen? That's just ridiculous. Believing in yourself and being deluded are not the same thing. No, I don't think Dany is deluded but I do think that she wants to be everyone's friend and not see herself as tyrant/conqueror. The problem is, what can you call someone who marches up to a foreign land, changes the order of things, topples the power structure and forces its inhabitants to concede to their rules? Regardless of whether their rules are morally good, it's a hostile takeover. She has her value judgement and doesn't look at the practical side. It's weird because she did so well at adapting to the Dothraki (who had slaves and used rape as a reward for a fight well fought) but now that she's queen in Meereen, she doesn't have that empathy/adaptability that allowed her to survive and flourish as part of Drogo's khalassar. It feels like regression.

The other thing is, as seen in Yunkai, just strolling in and saying "be free" is not even a short term solution. What is her plan for Meereen after she goes to Westeros? Are those people her trial and error? Am I supposed to support that kind of stance? Will she bring the freed slaves who followed her army to Meereen over to Westeros? That's going to ruffle some feathers. They called Talisa a "foreign bitch" even when she was Robb's queen. Westeros doesn't come across as a place full of xenophiles. 

Edited April 14, 2015 by SilverStormm
Tagged spoiler pic info.

[Danny Franks]

Oh come on. How is Tyrion sitting on a platform, a place of honour, next to her and Hizdar a misdirect? Unless you're telling me this is a photoshop prank. That's ridiculous. Those photos are not suggesting anything, they're stating what is in the can. 

 

Easy. Tyrion could be a slave that Hizdar has bought, and fills a role as some sort of court amusement, which is why he's attending this event with his master. Not a million miles away from the books. Or they could be taking a break in shooting, and Peter Dinklage has wandered over to chat to Emilia and the guy playing Hizdar, having filmed a different scene on the same set (again, not a million miles away from the books). If Tyrion meets Dany as Tyrion and becomes her adviser? I'd be pleased because it would make both characters more relevant than book 5 made them. If it doesn't happen, I maintain that I would not be surprised.

 

Behind the scenes set photos can mean a lot, or they can mean nothing at all.

Edited April 14, 2015 by SilverStormm
Tagged spoiler pic discussion

[Maximum Taco]

But Varys doesn't know all these details does he? The spies he uses are little children, right? Like that kid who brought the message for Jorah? What do you think he feels about the woman who came in and made sure he and his family/friends are not treated like chattel. Of course he's going to report on how kind she is to the underdog. If Varys only heard about the crucified masters and the stuff in Astapor and Yunkai, it's all a very daring tale of justice vs oppression. Also, I think he's doing a sales pitch for Tyrion. Dany is simply the best option for him because he needs someone to mould into the ruler he wants. Stannis and the rest are already set in their ways.

 

Fair enough I suppose. Varys could be giving Tyrion the sell job.

 

I'm positive he probably knows most or all of the details though. Varys doesn't exclusively use small children as his spies, remember Jorah and Roz have worked for him in the past. Varys is a very capable person who I'm sure had more than one set of eyes on the Dragon Queen, especially since she's his chosen rular. And Dany has not exactly been discreet about her "justice." I'm sure he knows in great detail about the atrocities she's committed.

 

And I mean atrocities, it's not cool to visit terrible inhumane fates on people, even bad people.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Maximum Taco

[Lady S.]

Maybe I'm an inhumane asshole, but I really can't bring myself to believe too much in a "no one deserves treatment like that" PoV when we're talking about people with no respect for others' humanity. If someone were to flay or geld Ramsay Snow I wouldn't be too bothered, and if Stannis had burned the cannibal Styr his screams would not be as distressing. I think her crucifixions were a political no-no since she actually expected the surviving masters to accept her rule, and I know eye-for-an-eye justice is objectively morally wrong, but I still don't think it makes Dany a monster. And burning people alive is kind of a dragon conqueror thing, not something only the mad Targs did. Until she starts doing it purely for shits and giggles against minor/imagined enemies I don't see her as her father's daughter. The Mad King would have never given Jorah the chance to leave town alive, for example.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Lady S.

[Constantinople]

Fair enough I suppose. Varys could be giving Tyrion the sell job.

 

I'm positive he probably knows most or all of the details though. Varys doesn't exclusively use small children as his spies, remember Jorah and Roz have worked for him in the past. Varys is a very capable person who I'm sure had more than one set of eyes on the Dragon Queen, especially since she's his chosen rular. And Dany has not exactly been discreet about her "justice." I'm sure he knows in great detail about the atrocities she's committed.

 

And I mean atrocities, it's not cool to visit terrible inhumane fates on people, even bad people.

Varys may be smoothing over the rough edges, but I agree he must have a pretty good idea about what happened in Astapor as well as the crucifixions.

That may be all the more reason why Varys wants Tyrion to advise Daenerys, to help keep her from making stupid mistakes.

Not sure how Daenerys will react to the Kingslayer's younger brother, but that's for another day. 

 

Maybe I'm an inhumane asshole, but I really can't bring myself to believe too much in a "no one deserves treatment like that" when we're talking about people with no respect for others' humanity. If someone were to flay or geld Ramsay Snow I wouldn't be too bothered, and if Stannis had burned the cannibal Styr his screams would not be as distressing.

Stannis didn't burn Styr, he burned the man who unleashed Styr on poor Olly's mom and dad.

 

The Mad King given Jorah the chance to leave town alive, for example.

Wasn't the Mad King already dead?

When Balon Greyjoy rebelled against King Robert, Jorah was part of Robert's forces to re-take the Iron Islands for the Seven Kingdoms.

[Lady S.]

Sorry, edited the post so that sentence makes sense. I don't think Jorah ever had much directly to do with the Mad King, being way out there on Bear island and probably never visiting King's Landing until arriving as part of Ned's army during the Sack of King's Landing.

[Hecate7]

But we were never given any indication that this was likely.  Kraznys was crass and disrespectful, but we were never offered any suggestion that he planned to turn Drogon on Daenerys.  Likewise with the elites.  They would probably be glad to see the back of her, but there was no nod at all to the viewers that they planned to kill her.

Why else would he buy a dragon? either to use it himself, or to sell it to someone else who would use it. On whom would he use it? Most likely Danaerys, since he's comfortable in the power structure he lives with.

[LanceM]

Maybe I'm an inhumane asshole, but I really can't bring myself to believe too much in a "no one deserves treatment like that" when we're talking about people with no respect for others' humanity. If someone were to flay or geld Ramsay Snow I wouldn't be too bothered, and if Stannis had burned the cannibal Styr his screams would not be as distressing. I think her crucifixions were a political no-no since she actually expected the surviving masters to accept her rule, and I know eye-for-an-eye justice is objectively morally wrong, but I still don't think it makes Dany a monster. And burning people alive is kind of a dragon conqueror thing, not something only the mad Targs did. Until she starts doing it purely for shits and giggles against minor/imagined enemies I don't see her as her father's daughter. The Mad King would have never given Jorah the chance to leave town alive, for example.

 

I agree. I also don't think many of the Lords of Westeros would bat an eye over some of the stuff Dany has done. Barristan certainly didn't and he was under no obligation to stay with Dany at the time of Astapor as he hadn't sworn his sword yet nor have we seen think too negatively about the crucified masters in Meereen.   . 

[Constantinople]

I agree. I also don't think many of the Lords of Westeros would bat an eye over some of the stuff Dany has done. Barristan certainly didn't and he was under no obligation to stay with Dany at the time of Astapor as he hadn't sworn his sword yet nor have we seen think too negatively about the crucified masters in Meereen.   . 

 

Barristan asked to join Daenerys's Queensguard at the end of Episode 1 in Season 3.  Nothing more was said of it, so I presume the next time we see Barristan and Daenerys, in Episode 3, he's sworn his sword and belongs to her Queensguard.  Daenerys torched Astapor in Episode 4.

 

Daenerys crucified the masters in Season 4 (I forget the episode).  Barristan advised against it, saying the masters were now her subjects just as much as the former slaves and that sometimes it was better to answer injustice with mercy.  Daenerys dialed bombastic up to 11 and replied that she would answer INJUSTICE WITH JUSTICE!

 

In any case Barristan is old school King/Queensguard where they obey even if they don't like it.  He's not one of those latte sipping, if it feels good, do it, modern Kingsguards like Jaime Lannister.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Constantinople

[Fen]

 

Why else would he buy a dragon? either to use it himself, or to sell it to someone else who would use it. On whom would he use it? Most likely Danaerys, since he's comfortable in the power structure he lives with.

 

For me, while it's not outside the realm of possibility that Kraznys might have wanted to kill Dany, the lack of any hints in that direction from the show suggests to me that it's not being presented as a real and immediate possibility, as does Kraznys following through with giving Dany the Unsullied as soon as he got his dragon.  Why kill her with an army at her beck and call, when he could have ended her moments earlier with no risk?

 

I think we might have to agree to disagree here.

 

 

[Lady S.]

He had no reason to kill "the dumb Westerosi whore" because she played it cool and made no hints she wanted to threaten his comfortable world order. She was the one who offered him a dragon, and that's not an offer anyone would turn down. You don't have to have definite plans on who to kill to want one of the world's only dragons. Also she had no reason to fear Drogon would ever obey orders from Kraznys with his mother standing right there since "a dragon is not a slave".

Edited April 16, 2015 by Lady S.

[Maximum Taco]

Why else would he buy a dragon? either to use it himself, or to sell it to someone else who would use it. On whom would he use it? Most likely Danaerys, since he's comfortable in the power structure he lives with.

 

Protection?

 

Prestige?

 

There are alot of reasons to own a dragon. It doesn't have to be to kill the person who sold it to you. By that logic everyone who buys unsullied wants to turn them against Astapor. Or everyone who buys a gun in this world wants to use it to kill the person who sold them the gun.

 

Dany also gave no indiction that she was threatening to his world order until she burned him alive. Up until that point she was a person who wanted to buy some unsullied, sail them over to Westeros and conquer that land. Why should he care about what she does in Westeros?

Edited April 16, 2015 by Maximum Taco

[Hecate7]

These are all good points. I still have suspicions that any character Danaerys has dealings with, has at least a 50/50 chance of either intending to kill her because of her anti-slavery activities and reputation which precedes her, or intending to kill her because someone from Westeros has paid them off, or intending to kill her for some other weird reason unrelated to politics per se. But those are only suspicions, I guess.

 

I am wondering if there is any way Danaerys could win back Rhaegal and Viserion, or if she's simply hurt them too much and/or they have forgotten her.

[Happy Harpy]

I am wondering if there is any way Danaerys could win back Rhaegal and Viserion, or if she's simply hurt them too much and/or they have forgotten her.

I do, too, because I wonder how far the writing will go about the parallel with "real" children, especially if you compare the chaining of the dragon to disciplining, rejection or abuse (imo, it can be interpreted as any of those levels, although personally I'd tend to go for somewhere near the second).

Children don't always get why they're disciplined, and rebel, but later, they do understand and don't resent their parents anymore.

And even when it wasn't fair, when big, hurtful mistakes were made (like punishing everybody for the misdemeanor of one) the children realize when they grow up that their parents are flawed, or meant well but failed, or simply were at loss, and they get more understanding -it helps when the parents admit their mistakes and ask forgiveness for them.

Finally, very often, rejected or abused children are unable to hate their parents and on the opposite, they seem to yearn for their affection/acceptance in spite of everything.

That's why imo, if the dragons are literally Danaerys' children, if blood is thicker than water in this case, there's a good possibility that the relationship can be mended. It would actually be, for me, the more interesting road to take, because it would make the parallel less shallow and make "Mother of Dragons" much more than a mere title.

Edited April 18, 2015 by Happy Harpy

[Danny Franks]

If she can't win the dragons back, then she kind of becomes even more inconsequential than she already has been, doesn't she? The one thing that makes her a threat is the fact that she has those dragons. Without them, she's just got a smallish but formidable army that is on the wrong continent. Not someone that anyone in Westeros, the continent that actually counts, should give a toss about.

[Constantinople]

Daenerys is far and away more dangerous to the GoT players in Westeros when she has dragons, but...

 

• So long as Daenerys is alive, any unmarried king or prospective king could marry her to further legitimize his claim.
  
  If Stannis weren't already married, it would make a lot of political sense for Stannis and Daenerys to wed.  Not that I think that would ever happen.  Stannis might consider it; I don't think Daenerys would (but Daenerys thinks that queens aren't politicians).
   
• There's always the risk that Daenerys could be invited back as being a better option than any of the other alternatives (such as how Charles II was restored after the "English" Civil War).  She'd still be worth killing to those who want to prevent that from occurring.

[lion10]

 

"I'm not a politician I'm a queen"

 

Daenerys said this in the latest episode and it struck me as kind of an arrogant thing to say.  I understand she was asserting her authority but at the same time it seemed like she was saying she saw no need to compromise because she was queen.  IT seems like a very Joffrey thing to say, not to say Daenerys is anything like Joffrey.  She'd make a good ruler, along with Stannis, Tommen, and John.  

 

 

Daenerys is far and away more dangerous to the GoT players in Westeros when she has dragons, but..

 

I actually don't think her dragons are the threat they've been made out to be to Westeros.  When Aegon the Conqueror invaded Westeros, his dragons were far larger than even Drogon and no one in Westeros even knew dragons existed, let alone how to fight them.  Westeros is exhausted from the War of the Five Kings but there are historical books that are filled with dragon biology and how to fight them.  Daenerys would have a much harder time than Aegon would.

[Lady S.]

If she can't win the dragons back, then she kind of becomes even more inconsequential than she already has been, doesn't she? The one thing that makes her a threat is the fact that she has those dragons. Without them, she's just got a smallish but formidable army that is on the wrong continent. Not someone that anyone in Westeros, the continent that actually counts, should give a toss about.

Couldn't the same be said for s1? When all she had was an army who hated open water and didn't truly show any inclination to cross it until after her-near assassination. Of course King Bob didn't know that exact state of things, but no one in Westeros knows she's no longer really the Mother of Dragons either. 

 

Wanted to share this from racefortheironthrone's ep recap:

This is most obvious in Meereen, where Daenerys and her Unsullied make a statement that the social order’s transformation cannot be undone in dramatic fashion, by bringing down the great statue of the Harpy off of the peak of the Great Pyramid, like one of Saddam’s statues being pulled down during the fall of Baghdad. And like in Iraq, Dany has found that nation-building isn’t going to be that easy as one of her Unsullied soldiers is murdered by a new insurgent group that calls itself the Sons of the Harpy. Yet however apt the Iraq metaphor might be, there’s another historical parallel lurking before the surface that harkens back to this weekend’s 150th anniversary of Appomattox and the end of the U.S Civil War. Dany’s conquering army of ex-slaves has undone the political, social, and economic order of Slavers’ Bay just like the United States Colored Troops in General Grant’s Union army, and in the aftermath of war, they too found a masked terrorist organization that would use violence to try to cow the freedmen into accepting as close as a return to the old regime as possible.

That’s the problem with historical analogies – you never know which one is right. Should Dany listen to Daario and Hizdahr, who argue that Dany should re-open the fighting pits of Meereen as a sign that she respects Meereenese culture and allow free men to risk their lives for glory voluntarily, such that her revolution offers both continuity and change? That would be the right path if the Iraq metaphor is the one operating here, but the history of Reconstruction would point out that trying to appease former slave masters only leads to continued injustice. Should Dany heed her ex-slave adviser who reminds her that there is not one Meereenese culture but two, one belonging to the freedmen trying to build a new society and the other belonging to embittered ex-masters looking to tear that down and who may succeed unless she embarks on a counter-insurgency campaign? The history of Reconstruction would tell her that aggressive pursuit of the Klan broke it for a generation, but the history of Iraq suggests that the result might be a bloody quagmire.

There's definitely Iraq connotations to be felt here, indeed the directer said he was thinking of the Saddam statue, but I don't think we can really take that as a true historical analogue any more than the game of thrones in Westeros could be compared to modern American/European politics. Dany is obviously not Lincoln, who was fighting more to save the union than to re-make society, but that's not how Southern Revivalists see "the war of Northern aggression", so I do think the Sons of the Harpy have a parallel with the Klan. There's only one former master willing to collaborate with Dany and who knows how sincere he is? He can say he objects to crucifying slave children but not that he recognizes a problem with slavery itself. Grey Worm and his new freedman friend would probably agree with Mirri Maz Duur that not killing someone isn't good enough because people need basic rights to really have a life. The freedman in the s4 finale may feel he has such a life now in indentured servitude, but from what we've seen in Slaver's Bay, his pre-chain breaking circumstances are probably very uncommon and most of the former slaves had much more unfortunate lives to endure before they met Dany.

The bloody quagmire part, for me, comes in the time needed to make a new world order and the fact that I'm not interested in seeing Dany devote the rest of her life to making a new world in Slaver's Bay. But she isn't in the wrong to want to do so. Maybe it's just because I spent the part of the hiatus watching all of Starz's Spartacus on Netflix, but I'm with Grey Worm and the other "Kill the Masters!" (it still bugs me to see that in English)-type freedmen. Except, unlike the Roman Empire, the slaves in Slaver's Bay actually made up the majority of the population, so it's hard to see anything worthwhile in their former civilization. And it means that, unlike the US in Iraq, Dany actually is a liberator just as much as she is a conqueror.

 

I actually don't think her dragons are the threat they've been made out to be to Westeros.  When Aegon the Conqueror invaded Westeros, his dragons were far larger than even Drogon and no one in Westeros even knew dragons existed, let alone how to fight them.  Westeros is exhausted from the War of the Five Kings but there are historical books that are filled with dragon biology and how to fight them.  Daenerys would have a much harder time than Aegon would.

Yeah, the nuclear weapons comparison, which I think Evil Santa started, is not a great one. At best they're airplanes with a hell of lot more artillery power. Aegon would have conquered Dorne if he actually did have the power to nuke the whole country. And I wonder if the reason poor Viserion and Rhaegal are chained up in the open is because Dany's afraid there are fools who'd try to kill them, I'm pretty sure they were caged as babies partly for their own safety.

Edited April 18, 2015 by Lady S.

[Ripley68]

Dragon's haven't been around in hundreds of years, no one is going to remember how to fight them.  From the people we've been introduced to, the list of people who may be able to figure it out are Jamie, Jon, Stannis, and Tyrion.  Not that other's aren't smart enough, they just wouldn't think that way (Varys comes to mind).  Tyrion will most likely be aligned with Dany, so he wouldn't do it, Jon might also be with her - or see the dragons as a way of defeating the walkers.  Jamie and Stannis would have the most motivation to figure out how to take out a dragon.

[Hecate7]

I wonder if the dragons missed her on purpose. Maybe they were angry and flaming, but maybe they were showing off their flames. They didn't seem to be aiming at her. Drogon's aim was deadly at a much younger age. I think she broke their hearts, and now they are angry, but maybe if she brings them a few sheep and pets them and takes off the chains, they'll forgive her. Meanwhile Drogon is out there--why isn't he coming home? What is going on with that?

[Fen]

I wonder if the dragons missed her on purpose. Maybe they were angry and flaming, but maybe they were showing off their flames. They didn't seem to be aiming at her. Drogon's aim was deadly at a much younger age. I think she broke their hearts, and now they are angry, but maybe if she brings them a few sheep and pets them and takes off the chains, they'll forgive her. Meanwhile Drogon is out there--why isn't he coming home? What is going on with that?

 

Would they ever trust her unconditionally again, though?  Would it be like when you're dealing with an animal who has been abused in the past, who will still be skittish and flinch in certain situations?

[Maximum Taco]

Dragon's haven't been around in hundreds of years, no one is going to remember how to fight them.  From the people we've been introduced to, the list of people who may be able to figure it out are Jamie, Jon, Stannis, and Tyrion.  Not that other's aren't smart enough, they just wouldn't think that way (Varys comes to mind).  Tyrion will most likely be aligned with Dany, so he wouldn't do it, Jon might also be with her - or see the dragons as a way of defeating the walkers.  Jamie and Stannis would have the most motivation to figure out how to take out a dragon.

 

Well as mentioned before Dorne resisted the conqueror and his dragons. So if they didn't know how to kill them, they atleast knew how to survive and resist them without being totally annihilated. It's most likely a very storied part of their history, and likely they could do it again, perhaps even better.

[lion10]

Dragon's haven't been around in hundreds of years, no one is going to remember how to fight them.  From the people we've been introduced to, the list of people who may be able to figure it out are Jamie, Jon, Stannis, and Tyrion.  Not that other's aren't smart enough, they just wouldn't think that way (Varys comes to mind).  Tyrion will most likely be aligned with Dany, so he wouldn't do it, Jon might also be with her - or see the dragons as a way of defeating the walkers.  Jamie and Stannis would have the most motivation to figure out how to take out a dragon.

 

But it's not just a matter of someone remembering how to fight them, it's about military and history books detailing how best to use dragons and their biology and how various dragons died during battles.  For example, as dragons get older their scales get harder and more resistant to fire, meaning younger dragons like Drogon, Viserion, and Rhaegal might be susceptible to wildfire.  There's books that detail how ballistae missiles were used to shred dragons' wings, grounding them and then men could finish them off when they couldn't fly.  There's the fact that once dragons get used to a certain person riding them, they're resistant to any other person, especially a non-Targaryen/Valyrian riding them, possibly meaning that Daenerys won't be able to switch back and forth between her three dragons.  And keep in mind Daenerys is hampering two of her dragons' growth by keeping them locked up in a dungeon.  Dragons grow larger when they have open sky above them.  

 

This isn't to say the dragons aren't impressive.  When used correctly such as the Field of Fire or Harrenhall, they can have devastating effects, causing massive casualties.  But they're not invincible and Aegon had several advantages (his dragons were much larger, no one in Westeros knowing what dragons were, people thinking the Targaryens with their strange appearance and mounts might be demigods, and Westeros being disunited) that Daenerys won't be able to replicate, except for maybe Westeros being disunited.

 

Some canon material that offers really good insight to dragons and the Targaryen family would be the story "The Princess and the Queen" which details the dynastic struggle between two branches of the Targaryen family known as "The Dance of the Dragons".

 

I've always seen Daenerys' struggles in Meereen being analogous to the Iraq War.  I like Daenerys overall and I think she'd make a good ruler of Westeros with some more experience but I think the show has really whitewashed her personality compared to the books.  Vengeance against the Starks, Baratheons, Lannisters, and Arryns is on her mind a lot and she calls them "the Usurper's (Robert's) dogs".

[Hecate7]

But it's not just a matter of someone remembering how to fight them, it's about military and history books detailing how best to use dragons and their biology and how various dragons died during battles.  For example, as dragons get older their scales get harder and more resistant to fire, meaning younger dragons like Drogon, Viserion, and Rhaegal might be susceptible to wildfire.  There's books that detail how ballistae missiles were used to shred dragons' wings, grounding them and then men could finish them off when they couldn't fly.  There's the fact that once dragons get used to a certain person riding them, they're resistant to any other person, especially a non-Targaryen/Valyrian riding them, possibly meaning that Daenerys won't be able to switch back and forth between her three dragons.  And keep in mind Daenerys is hampering two of her dragons' growth by keeping them locked up in a dungeon.  Dragons grow larger when they have open sky above them.  

 

This isn't to say the dragons aren't impressive.  When used correctly such as the Field of Fire or Harrenhall, they can have devastating effects, causing massive casualties.  But they're not invincible and Aegon had several advantages (his dragons were much larger, no one in Westeros knowing what dragons were, people thinking the Targaryens with their strange appearance and mounts might be demigods, and Westeros being disunited) that Daenerys won't be able to replicate, except for maybe Westeros being disunited.

 

Some canon material that offers really good insight to dragons and the Targaryen family would be the story "The Princess and the Queen" which details the dynastic struggle between two branches of the Targaryen family known as "The Dance of the Dragons".

 

I've always seen Daenerys' struggles in Meereen being analogous to the Iraq War.  I like Daenerys overall and I think she'd make a good ruler of Westeros with some more experience but I think the show has really whitewashed her personality compared to the books.  Vengeance against the Starks, Baratheons, Lannisters, and Arryns is on her mind a lot and she calls them "the Usurper's (Robert's) dogs".

 

Where are these books stored? Who owns them? Who has access? Who has seen or read any of these books, recently?

[lion10]

Where are these books stored? Who owns them? Who has access? Who has seen or read any of these books, recently?

 

They're military and history books so I'd assume the noble families would have them.  The maesters definitely do.

[Lady S.]

Jorah gave her books as a wedding present, guess none of them were about dragons. I really think Mr. "dragons can never be tamed, even by their mother, Khaleesi" Mormont was a big part of the problem there.

[Rocket]

I hate to use Iraq or Afghanistan as examples in some cases as both countries required a force of 500,000 plus to have a good chance at successful occupation. Yes we do have a lot of historical data now to know rough occupation numbers. 

But here Iraq not a bad example as Danny only has a small force of crack troops and she has two factions that hate each other. Still modern comparisons are rough as the population in a medieval world has different expectations and things modern populations would think are the right thing to do can be thought of as signs of weakness then. 

 

You got to have a huge ego and self awareness to be a great leader. Great leaders are a study in huge ego's, the not so great leaders also have big ego just not much more. 

[Rocket]

Oh on Dragons there probably are counters to them especially as the got smaller over time. The original bigger that Smag in the Hobbit ones that actually reduced people to ash instantly and melted castles would be very hard to get people to try to fight. Imagine tell someone if they fire the ballista they will be able to take down the dragon when they know they will be cremated no mater what happens is hard. The North for all it's fighting spirt and independence mind gave up to dragons. 

But nuclear weapons are hard to use if you want to occupy some place not just kill them all. I assume the same for Dragons, Dorne probably came up with cleaver ways to hide forces from dragons and hit the occupying troops hard and disappeared.  Also that was still a time of magic maybe Dorn has some magic counter to Dragons. 

[Ripley68]

Not sure this is right place, but since we're talking about dragons, the dragons in the past; were they controlled, or did they just love their dad/mom a lot?  What did they do with them when they weren't riding them?  How did they keep them controlled, or from running havoc? Were they like horses that only answered to their dad/mom?

[lion10]

Not sure this is right place, but since we're talking about dragons, the dragons in the past; were they controlled, or did they just love their dad/mom a lot?  What did they do with them when they weren't riding them?  How did they keep them controlled, or from running havoc? Were they like horses that only answered to their dad/mom?

 

That's the million dollar question that everyone in Westeros that knows of the dragons wants to answer.  

Some think that Valaryian blood is necessary to be able to control dragons but that seems to be disproved by the events in "The Princess and the Queen" where a girl from the Summer Isles successfully tames a dragon by feeding it sheep.

 Others think that getting familiar with dragons and straight up taming it like you would a dog would work.  And the Ironborn 

have recovered a dragon horn from the ruins of Valyria that they claim was used to tame dragons. But the men who blow on it die afterwards with their insides charred and it hasn't be used in the presence of the dragons.

.  So who knows?  Dany needs to figure it out before someone else does.  

 

And to the earlier discussion, my main point is that Dany's going to have a much tougher time invading Westeros than Aegon the Conqueror and his sister-wives Visenya and Rhaenys did.

[SilverShadow]

That's the million dollar question that everyone in Westeros that knows of the dragons wants to answer.  

Some think that Valaryian blood is necessary to be able to control dragons but that seems to be disproved by the events in "The Princess and the Queen" where a girl from the Summer Isles successfully tames a dragon by feeding it sheep.

 

 

I thought

In the story it was theorized that she had some Targ/Valaryian blood. There was a term 'Dragon Seed' or something. I could be mus-remembering.

[lion10]

I thought

In the story it was theorized that she had some Targ/Valaryian blood. There was a term 'Dragon Seed' or something. I could be mus-remembering.

She was kind of an anomaly IIRC. All the other riders were "Dragon Seeds" but she wasn't or at least wasn't known as such. She might have been half Summer Islander though.

[Lady S.]

That's the million dollar question that everyone in Westeros that knows of the dragons wants to answer.  

Some think that Valaryian blood is necessary to be able to control dragons but that seems to be disproved by the events in "The Princess and the Queen" where a girl from the Summer Isles successfully tames a dragon by feeding it sheep.

 

Nettles' parentage was never clarified, she definitely wasn't from the Summer Isles, and dark skin doesn't mean she couldn't have had dragonblood.

Dany's son by Drogo would have had his skin tone, at least according to the House of the Undying, so I think full Valyrian looks are only guaranteed in incestuous unions between two people with Valyrian looks.

But there's nothing to say Valyrian blood only matters when the typical looks come with it, or that anyone without "the blood of the dragon" can never bond with dragons. Personally, I think Valyrian blood gives an affinity with dragons, and that it's extremely rare but not impossible for someone else to be born with that potential. The first Valyrian dragonriders probably had some magic to bond dragons to their families which may still be in effect in their descendants' blood, otherwise they're just a superhuman race with innate power. Likewise, warging seems to be a blood of the First Men thing with Bran and the wildlings as our only skinchangers, but we don't know that no other peoples of this world could have ever that ability. Maybe the blood trait for wargs is just much, much less common in other races.

 

Ripley68, here you go. There's also the recently published World of Ice & Fire book, the premise of which is that it's written as a maesters' history text of Westeros and Essos. 

And this one is also relevant to Dany's current sl

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVWQ9uZ4rRU

Edited April 21, 2015 by SilverStormm
Tagged book info spec

[lion10]

I hope George R. Martin goes into what made the Valaryians special.

Originally they were just shepherds living near dragons right? How did they manage to tame them?

[Maximum Taco]

I hope George R. Martin goes into what made the Valaryians special.

Originally they were just shepherds living near dragons right? How did they manage to tame them?

 

He never really does. Not even in A World of Ice and Fire, it's all written as speculation.

 

Apparently the Valyrians themselves

claim to be actual descendants of the dragons. So "blood of the dragon" is a literal saying.

[DigitalCount]

Daenerys said this in the latest episode and it struck me as kind of an arrogant thing to say. I understand she was asserting her authority but at the same time it seemed like she was saying she saw no need to compromise because she was queen. IT seems like a very Joffrey thing to say, not to say Daenerys is anything like Joffrey. She'd make a good ruler, along with Stannis, Tommen, and John.

This is interesting, because this last episode has me thinking. I remember when Daxos and Doreah were executed, a whole lot of people had a problem with Dany not even partially hearing Doreah out. Now, she's done much more since then, the foremost of which includes

- crucifying a bunch of slavers as well as some non-slavers

- roasting a guy for literal giggles (she makes a JOKE out of it!) and one assumes the other thing once her dragons finish digesting him

- using it as an object lesson to randoms because who needs to gather evidence

- taking one of those randoms (whose father was one of the crucified non-slavers) and throwing him in a dungeon

- allowing him the great unparalleled honor of sleeping with the woman who killed his family and ravaged his homeland at spearpoint

So based on, like, Sansa's entire story, am I supposed to consider Dany a black hat? I'm currently reading another series, The Dagger and the Coin, where one of the characters just gradually becomes Fantasy Hitler and you're like, wait, wasn't this one of the heroes? How is Hiz significantly different from Sansa?

[Jaded Sapphire]

I have to say I'm surprised by the lack of reaction to the burning here. I immediately lost all respect for Dany. A threat is one thing but to actually kill one of them without a clue as to his innocence or guilt was disgusting. Add the forced marriage (thanks for pointing out the Sansa comparison Digital Count, something about that scene bugged me that I couldn't quite put into words) and Dany sure seems like a tyrant to me. 

[FormerMod-a1]

I thought she had them all at the Dragon's den because no one was talking, telling her info she needed/wanted about those trying to hurt her and the unsullied.  So this was a message, yes even though I don't know if you're directly involved or not, but you're keeping quiet is just as bad.  Plus she needed to reinforce her authority and command/use of dragons.  I'm not saying it's a good thing, just a different thing.  I didn't think she was doing it for "shits and giggles".

[Hecate7]

You know, for being the most highly trained and disciplined fighting force on earth, and the most feared soldiers, the Unsullied are really getting their asses kicked.

[Maximum Taco]

You know, for being the most highly trained and disciplined fighting force on earth, and the most feared soldiers, the Unsullied are really getting their asses kicked.

 

They aren't designed for this kind of fighting. They're an army, not an enforcement patrol.

 

I posted this elsewhere, but I'll say it again. The Unsullied are designed to be deployed as a phalanx in open combat. They use spears and shields and support one another to face armies with great discipline and great numbers. In close quarters against guerrilla forces they are not all that useful. It's essentially the same problem the USA troops had with the Viet Cong. The much larger better trained force is being reduced by being forced to fight on a smaller scale without the help of their superior numbers.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Maximum Taco

[Constantinople]

Daenerys wants to abolish slavery and to insure it remains abolished.

 

Ramsay wants to cream his jeans.

 

So there is some difference between them.
 

This is interesting, because this last episode has me thinking. I remember when Daxos and Doreah were executed, a whole lot of people had a problem with Dany not even partially hearing Doreah out. Now, she's done much more since then, the foremost of which includes

- crucifying a bunch of slavers as well as some non-slavers
- roasting a guy for literal giggles (she makes a JOKE out of it!) and one assumes the other thing once her dragons finish digesting him
- using it as an object lesson to randoms because who needs to gather evidence
- taking one of those randoms (whose father was one of the crucified non-slavers) and throwing him in a dungeon
- allowing him the great unparalleled honor of sleeping with the woman who killed his family and ravaged his homeland at spearpoint

So based on, like, Sansa's entire story, am I supposed to consider Dany a black hat? I'm currently reading another series, The Dagger and the Coin, where one of the characters just gradually becomes Fantasy Hitler and you're like, wait, wasn't this one of the heroes? How is Hiz significantly different from Sansa?

 
Is that the sigil of House Bolton that I see?

[nksarmi]

I think people are being a tad too hard of Dany here.  Dany hates slavery and the masters who own them - this is a fundamental part of who she is, the mission she has taken in life.  She loved her husband but she saw how even the Dorthraki tradition of slavery could create so much hate that it cost her her husband and child.  She wants to abolish it so badly that she has a hard time seeing the masters as anything other than "the problem" - she can't see past their sins.

 

Dany has the opposite problem that most of the other contenders for the Iron Throne have - she can see the little people, but she can't see the value of the high lords.  While most of the people in King's Landing don't give a fig about the people in Flea's bottom - Dany will want to make the high lords live there while giving the peasants run of the castles.  While she might call that justice - I doubt even with her three dragons, she can approach things that way and win.

 

Dany needs to begin a journey where she can find value in the masters and/or high lords and learn that some of them can give good counsel.  I hope a marriage with Hiz will make her more receptive when she meets Tyrion because if she ever does go back to Westerous, he will be very important to her.

[DigitalCount]

I think people are being a tad too hard of Dany here. Dany hates slavery and the masters who own them - this is a fundamental part of who she is, the mission she has taken in life. She loved her husband but she saw how even the Dorthraki tradition of slavery could create so much hate that it cost her her husband and child. She wants to abolish it so badly that she has a hard time seeing the masters as anything other than "the problem" - she can't see past their sins.

Dany has the opposite problem that most of the other contenders for the Iron Throne have - she can see the little people, but she can't see the value of the high lords. While most of the people in King's Landing don't give a fig about the people in Flea's bottom - Dany will want to make the high lords live there while giving the peasants run of the castles. While she might call that justice - I doubt even with her three dragons, she can approach things that way and win.

Dany needs to begin a journey where she can find value in the masters and/or high lords and learn that some of them can give good counsel. I hope a marriage with Hiz will make her more receptive when she meets Tyrion because if she ever does go back to Westerous, he will be very important to her.

That's all well and good when it doesn't involve killing innocent people. It's not an act of war when you crucify people because you were personally insulted by barbarians. There goes the moral high ground. And it's hard to ignore the fact that Dany is forcing Hizdahr to marry her after killing his father and sacking his city, and feeding people to her dragons as a posturing threat, which is all stuff Sansa has suffered at the hands of her suitors.

We unequivocally and enthusiastically call Ramsay a villain. Same with Good King Joffrey. I really am starting to think that we're getting baited and switched here.

[nksarmi]

That's all well and good when it doesn't involve killing innocent people. It's not an act of war when you crucify people because you were personally insulted by barbarians. There goes the moral high ground. And it's hard to ignore the fact that Dany is forcing Hizdahr to marry her after killing his father and sacking his city, and feeding people to her dragons as a posturing threat, which is all stuff Sansa has suffered at the hands of her suitors.

We unequivocally and enthusiastically call Ramsay a villain. Same with Good King Joffrey. I really am starting to think that we're getting baited and switched here.

I just don't think that is what the writers are going for with Dany.  Remember these "innocent" people are the same ones who left crucified children at every mile marker on the way to their city.  While Hizdahr's father may have spoken out against such atrocities, clearly he was in the minority.  Furthermore, at least some of these maesters are in fact behind the Harpy attacks.  So while Dany might not know who is guilty and innocent, she definitely knows there are some monsters among these people. 

 

There were kind slave owners in the South prior to the Civil War, but not many people can reconcile the ability to hold another person as a slave and still calling yourself a good person in this day and age.  Try to remember that you are counting slave owners as your innocents here when you make Dany the monster of this situation. 

 

On the other hand, while Theon is a traitor to Robb and what he did to those two farmer boys was horrible, Ramsey has gone above and beyond in torturing him.  Frankly, if Theon had been feed to Dire Wolves for what he did, I wouldn't have thought much about it.  But Ramsey has taken it to a whole other level and he does have a pension for abusing other people who are far more innocent than Theon or the maester's of Meeren.  Same with Geoffrey.  While his worst offense to the audience might have been the execution of Ned - that was probably his most justified of awful actions.  At least from Geoffrey's point of view, Ned was trying to undermine his reign and insight war against him.  That does make him an enemy.  Of course, Geoffrey was a fool to execute Ned, but perhaps he was still in his rights to do so.  No, Geoffrey is considered an evil, crazy bastard for all the other things he does that Dany hasn't come close to doing yet.