Ending the problem

bwick
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2017 10:14 pm

Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:32 am

Dany flies into the meeting on her Dragon. In front of her stands all her enemies from King's Landing in one neat package. Why were they not incinerated?

User avatar
Jack Bauer 24
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:05 pm

Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:59 am

They need southern armies to help fight the army of the dead

User avatar
BrienneBabe
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Wed Aug 30, 2017 9:31 pm

and remember how Jon told Dany that if all she did was melt towns and castles, she'd just be 'more of the same'

bwick
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2017 10:14 pm

Sat Sep 02, 2017 3:41 am

So she needs allies like Cerci, WOW!

User avatar
QueenofThrones
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:43 pm
Location: New York

Sat Sep 02, 2017 2:07 pm

If Dany did this, she would be showing herself to be capable of the vilest sort of treachery, as bad as Walder Frey or Cersei at the Sept of Baelor. This was a parlay under flag of truce. It would be like if when Ramsey and Jon met before the BotB, Jon just killed Ramsey. If people violate truce like that, then there can't be any sort of peace with them - since you can never trust them.

Would it be worth it to have a name as stained as Walder Freys'? If all Dany cared about was defeating the army of the dead, I'd say... maybe. However she also wants to rule Westeros afterwards - to unite the kingdoms. She can't do that if she can't obey the most basic rules of the society she wants to rule.

Note that the "treachery" with regard to the slavers (stealing Unsullied) was different - Dany's goal was not to rule those people - she had no interest in ruling over Slavers, or obeying the rules of their society. Her goal was to free those slaves and destroy the society. This is not the case in WEsteros.

User avatar
evenwind
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:07 pm

Sat Sep 02, 2017 2:49 pm

QueenofThrones wrote:
Sat Sep 02, 2017 2:07 pm
If Dany did this, she would be showing herself to be capable of the vilest sort of treachery, as bad as Walder Frey or Cersei at the Sept of Baelor. This was a parlay under flag of truce. It would be like if when Ramsey and Jon met before the BotB, Jon just killed Ramsey. If people violate truce like that, then there can't be any sort of peace with them - since you can never trust them.
All true. But, of course, Dany already did this during the parley at the siege of Meereen. She let the Great Masters think that they were there to get her surrender, told them they were mistaken and then had 2 of the 3 of them executed. I don't think it it mattered whether she wanted to rule but whether she can be trusted.

User avatar
QueenofThrones
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:43 pm
Location: New York

Sat Sep 02, 2017 6:22 pm

Like I said before, she had no interest in ruling over slaver scum. Also these were invaders who wanted to reinstate slavery - not mereneese. She has every interest in keeping the people free and being their leader.

In Westeros at this point she seems to still want to rule over the aristocracy. So she had to follow rules of society.

User avatar
Not Littlefinger
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:24 pm
Location: Ohio

Sat Sep 02, 2017 9:50 pm

evenwind wrote:
Sat Sep 02, 2017 2:49 pm
QueenofThrones wrote:
Sat Sep 02, 2017 2:07 pm
If Dany did this, she would be showing herself to be capable of the vilest sort of treachery, as bad as Walder Frey or Cersei at the Sept of Baelor. This was a parlay under flag of truce. It would be like if when Ramsey and Jon met before the BotB, Jon just killed Ramsey. If people violate truce like that, then there can't be any sort of peace with them - since you can never trust them.
All true. But, of course, Dany already did this during the parley at the siege of Meereen. She let the Great Masters think that they were there to get her surrender, told them they were mistaken and then had 2 of the 3 of them executed. I don't think it it mattered whether she wanted to rule but whether she can be trusted.
Yeah, Dany shouldn't have done that, but it was an entirely different situation from her angle: they didn't have any military capabilities that she needed, she was inexperienced, and she didn't see any moral redemption with the slavers (owning slaves made them irredeemable, while southern Westerosi armies aren't inherently good or evil, and she doesn't need to "pass judgement" on them.) Plus, its unlikely that anyone in Westeros that isn't on Team Dany knows about that incident.

User avatar
evenwind
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:07 pm

Sun Sep 03, 2017 10:46 am

QueenofThrones wrote:
Sat Sep 02, 2017 6:22 pm
Like I said before, she had no interest in ruling over slaver scum. Also these were invaders who wanted to reinstate slavery - not mereneese. She has every interest in keeping the people free and being their leader.

In Westeros at this point she seems to still want to rule over the aristocracy. So she had to follow rules of society.
Parley and the "parley rules" exist so that opposing leaders can talk face to face in relative safety. They might spend the time setting up a truce or a surrender or simply trash talking to try to unsettle their enemy. Or anything else. The do it to gain advantage with minimum risk. Leaders are well aware that even the winning side loses valuable troops and materiel during a battle. It pays their commander to see if he can gain his objectives while minimizing the cost. Whatever contempt or anger one leader may hold for the other (or the other's way of life) is secondary. The dislike was why they were fighting, not why they were parleying. Parley works because it can (potentially) benefit both sides.

At the time of Dany's parley, the Great Masters met with her because thought they had the upper hand. They assumed that Dany would surrender to end the bombardment and prevent any further Meereenese deaths. That's why they were there. Dany turned it around - which was fine. But then she killed 2 of them. That made her untrustworthy. She shouldn't get a free pass because they were "bad people". I'm sure that the Crusaders and the Saracens considered each other bad people but they parleyed. Or the North and the South in the American Civil War but they parleyed and managed to end it. What if Meereen wasn't the last battle she had to fight in the Slaver Cities? Who would have been willing to parley with her to end the next battle? Even somebody as morally bankrupt as Ramsey understood the parley rules when he met with Jon before the Battle of the Bastards. Dany made a moral mistake and luckily didn't have to pay for it.

User avatar
QueenofThrones
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:43 pm
Location: New York

Sun Sep 03, 2017 1:26 pm

Maybe, though given the slavers had already treacherously broken a brokered peace agreement (made under honored rules of parley) I don't think that this was undeserved treachery. And certainly not a "moral mistake".

It's like Grey Worm and Missy said. There is no trust or negotiation to be had when one group considers the other less than human.

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests