Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Also, probably takes a good while to heal from being stabbed repeatedly like Jon was.

 sebster wrote:

She didn't lose her husband because she saved the witch - Drogo was already poisoned. Trusting the witch was a mistake, but it didn't cause Drogo's death.

Drogo was wounded in a duel, he wanted to clean out his wound in a stream, Dany wanted him looked after by a professional healer, and Drogo unfortunately for him listened to his wife.
there was no evidence the wound was poisoned, the poultice used for the wound was tainted though, and intended to make the wound turn septic. Drogo was crippled by blood poisoning and further harmed by successive 'cures'.

 sebster wrote:

Once again, if they wanted to delay that for two more seasons it could easily be done by just keeping her from crossing the sea for two more seasons. They'd already delayed it five seasons, if that's all they wanted they could have simply had her dick around for another season one or two before crossing the sea.

People were getting impatient for the story to progress.

 sebster wrote:

Sansa was a spoilt child but she never actively sought to harm anyone - now she enjoys watching dogs eat a man alive due to the horrific things she has witnessed and undergone.

Yes, in one act of revenge, but she also aims to rule in the North with a sense of duty and responsibility. She is finding the balance and beginning to flourish as a result.

Agreed, Sansa earned the right to end Ramsay her way. To some extent she was merciful, he suffered but not for months on end.

 Orlanth wrote:
Drogo was wounded in a duel, he wanted to clean out his wound in a stream, Dany wanted him looked after by a professional healer, and Drogo unfortunately for him listened to his wife.
there was no evidence the wound was poisoned, the poultice used for the wound was tainted though, and intended to make the wound turn septic. Drogo was crippled by blood poisoning and further harmed by successive 'cures'.

Ah, fair enough. I'll have to go and rewatch it.

People were getting impatient for the story to progress.

Which was fair enough, Dany stuffing about in various cities unconnected to other events was pretty tiresome. But it doesn't contradict what I'm saying. The claim was made that the only reason Dany didn't just attack King's Landing with ruthless force and wipe Cersei out was the show needed two more seasons, so it invented her reluctance to attack King's Landing and the subsequent setbacks. But if the show was feeling pressured to advance the story, why advance the story only to delay it again?

I disagree. It's politically convenient to wait to take King's Landing.

Right now, Cersei is loathed by everyone - highborn and lowborn alike. She's undermining her own powerbase at a great rate of knots.

Dany remains a foreign invader. Far better to rally as many Westerosi to her banner a possible first, then take King's Landing and depose Cersei as peacefully as possible. Show you're here to reclaim a birthright, but don't want others to suffer for it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I disagree. It's politically convenient to wait to take King's Landing.

Right now, Cersei is loathed by everyone - highborn and lowborn alike. She's undermining her own powerbase at a great rate of knots.

Dany remains a foreign invader. Far better to rally as many Westerosi to her banner a possible first, then take King's Landing and depose Cersei as peacefully as possible. Show you're here to reclaim a birthright, but don't want others to suffer for it.

Getting her over to Westros was important - drop one whole location and related actors and have the main characters being to interact.

At the start of the Season Dany had the complete support of a Great House of Westros, The Tyrells plus Dorne, so that was not an issue given that Cersei just had the Lainisters, and she had been disgraced by the Church which she blew up.

If she had struck then, before any experiments with Balisti were conceived it would have taken a few hours to destroy resistance in the captial with Dragons alone, never mind the huge force of other troops she had. Euron would likely have tried to join her or at least stuck to raiding.

The "smallfolk" simply don't care who rules them long term, you don't need to take over peacefully - you can be hugely violent and if you prove to be a decent ruler that's fine. History across the world tells us this - ie not tax everyone too much or brutlaise them and their families - all would be fine. Its niave to think there would be some kind of popular resistance to her when there wasn't against Cersei - most of the people would be more interested in peace, getting the harvest in, taking care of their familes - as is always the case. If she burns a few nobles - why would they care. They didn't when her ancestors did it the first time. Its only the nobility that hold the grudges in the main.

Then when the dead mass north of the wall she has the entire 6 Kingdoms plus her Essos resources to muster against it Up North Jon would need to bend the knee - but even someone has stupid as he is would have to have faced facts and done so IF as he always claimed the only thing that was important was fighting the dead.

We did not get that as the show had finally got her over to Westros (having shed the terrible feet dragging influence of GRM who seems to have no interest in progressing the story) but the above would have taken one episode, the war against the dead maybe two and its done. Certainly not 2 seasons. Now if they wanted to show the complicated aftermath - that could be interesting but its not the story that many viewers would be interested in. It makes it more exciting perhaps and if anything in a slightly disturbing way shows that when Dany is weak, bad thinkgs happen, Killing and burning stuff as she did throughout Essos is the only way forward. ct

ie:

Dany saves witch and others = Bad things happen to her husband and her
vs Dany burns witch = She becomes Mother of Dragons
Dany tries to rule city nicely and lock up dragons to protect people = Brutal resistance and her dragons angry with her, Slavers attack her city
Dany burns the main chiefs of the Dothraki = She becomes their new goddess
Dany slaughters resistance movement, burns the fleet and lets the dragons out = All is great - city at peace, enemies afraid,
Dany goes slowly and does not attack Kings Landing for fear of causing destruction = looses her fleet, her Tyrell/Dorne allies and a Dragon!

Pretty obvious pattern here,

Plus they had to crowbar in the the Dany/Jon plot for fan service so he can't be just some hidebound nobody with a paltry few men in the North - he has to be a creditable ally. Hence she has to loose most of hers. Same with Exposition Bran - need to give him a reasons for his tiresome existance....

Yes, Bran is incredibly tiresome and I really hope they boost his importance and relevance if he needs to stick around.

I found it a little silly that anyone was overly concerned with how the people would react to Dany violently taking the Red Keep when there had been zero fuss after the equivalent to a mass firebombing of the Vatican. I mean, sure, you can argue people don't know who did that, but "the people" seem remarkably unphased by it.

 LunarSol wrote:
I found it a little silly that anyone was overly concerned with how the people would react to Dany violently taking the Red Keep when there had been zero fuss after the equivalent to a mass firebombing of the Vatican. I mean, sure, you can argue people don't know who did that, but "the people" seem remarkably unphased by it.

I did find that amusing as well - I guess the "people" just get on with it after all its not like they would have known or cared about most people who died in there and the faith carries on it seems - although its not been that clear if Cersei ever bothered to appoint a new priesthood? If she didn't Trion def should have got Dany to do so and set up her own "pope" - worked in history......

The trouble with Bran is that if the character is handled logically he can uncover just about anything, and can turn into a piece of furniture who doles out intel.

Cersei however if benefitting from new plot writers. GRRM wrote her up as Chaotic stupid and very often shot herself in the foot by her machinations. She has outpaced her book persona and is getting genuinely smart. while as vicious and evil as ever she is plotting with guile now, handling the Iron Bank well, and limiting the threat Dany is to her politically. Though she also has Jaime and Euron to credit for that, she is working with them rather than against them most of the time.

Now Jaime is heading north, and that is part of his redemption story arc. as the story progresses he is becoming a more and more likeable and honourable character. He is also proving he isn't stupid, though in hid case unlike his sisters GRRM was already heading in that direction. Book Varys left Cersei in sole charge through selective assassination because she could be replied upon to feth up.

I wonder if we will be able to choose our own ending?

 Orlanth wrote:

 sebster wrote:

She didn't lose her husband because she saved the witch - Drogo was already poisoned. Trusting the witch was a mistake, but it didn't cause Drogo's death.

Drogo was wounded in a duel, he wanted to clean out his wound in a stream, Dany wanted him looked after by a professional healer, and Drogo unfortunately for him listened to his wife.
there was no evidence the wound was poisoned, the poultice used for the wound was tainted though, and intended to make the wound turn septic. Drogo was crippled by blood poisoning and further harmed by successive 'cures'.

Wow I got a completely different impression from that.

I thought he was on his way out anyway (from septicemia or similar), then the witch brought him back (to life) but into some kind of vegetative state. So technically he was still 'alive', but not in a meaningful way (in a nasty, Twilight Zone twist or Wishmaster kind of way

Some time since I have seen it though so may be completely wrong!

I'd say it's "a little from column A, a little from column B."

I'm not sure on the whole burning thing.


The last Targeryan they knew has this lovely habit of burning people, what would think if the next one they saw introduced herself by burning a city to ash.

 welshhoppo wrote:
I'm not sure on the whole burning thing.

The last Targeryan they knew has this lovely habit of burning people, what would think if the next one they saw introduced herself by burning a city to ash.

Cersei blew up the "pope" in "St Pauls" . Why would Dany need to burn the city to ash - it would be like Merrem - you give the city an ultimation - surrender or burn, same as she did with the Lanister soliders - most would surrender after she burned the Red Keep a bit - job done. She knows it works.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I'm not sure on the whole burning thing.

The last Targeryan they knew has this lovely habit of burning people, what would think if the next one they saw introduced herself by burning a city to ash.

Cersei blew up the "pope" in "St Pauls" . Why would Dany need to burn the city to ash - it would be like Merrem - you give the city an ultimation - surrender or burn, same as she did with the Lanister soliders - most would surrender after she burned the Red Keep a bit - job done. She knows it works.

Air attack badly damaging red keep would soon impact morale as seeing the cities strongest defense point crumbling in dragon fire.

 AndrewC wrote:
But they don't go over the limits of reality (Cant believe I just wrote that). A wight with no legs cant walk, so can a dragon with no wings fly.

Well, I mean they do. No muscles = no movement

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
But they don't go over the limits of reality (Cant believe I just wrote that). A wight with no legs cant walk, so can a dragon with no wings fly.

Well, I mean they do. No muscles = no movement

Umm most wrights seems to have some muscle left. There a tad decayed but not walking skeletons quite yet.

 LunarSol wrote:
I found it a little silly that anyone was overly concerned with how the people would react to Dany violently taking the Red Keep when there had been zero fuss after the equivalent to a mass firebombing of the Vatican. I mean, sure, you can argue people don't know who did that, but "the people" seem remarkably unphased by it.

It wasn't about an idea that somehow the people would be unruly if Dany took the city by force. It's that Dany, through strong advice from Tyrion, didn't want to be another ruler who used absolute force to grab power. They were trying to break the wheel of endless violence and conflict.

Not because they fear what the low people might do if they took the city by force, but because they were trying to care for the low people and not kill them if they didn't have to.

The plan hasn't worked so far, obviously. Dany has burned through allies and the only success against the Lannister force came when she did use the absolute force of the Dothraki and her dragons. King's Landing is as secure as it was when she landed. But that's how stories work, characters form ideals and convictions, see them tested, and sometimes abandon those ideals, and other times stick to them either to triumph or not.

 sebster wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I found it a little silly that anyone was overly concerned with how the people would react to Dany violently taking the Red Keep when there had been zero fuss after the equivalent to a mass firebombing of the Vatican. I mean, sure, you can argue people don't know who did that, but "the people" seem remarkably unphased by it.

It wasn't about an idea that somehow the people would be unruly if Dany took the city by force. It's that Dany, through strong advice from Tyrion, didn't want to be another ruler who used absolute force to grab power. They were trying to break the wheel of endless violence and conflict.

Not because they fear what the low people might do if they took the city by force, but because they were trying to care for the low people and not kill them if they didn't have to.

The plan hasn't worked so far, obviously. Dany has burned through allies and the only success against the Lannister force came when she did use the absolute force of the Dothraki and her dragons. King's Landing is as secure as it was when she landed. But that's how stories work, characters form ideals and convictions, see them tested, and sometimes abandon those ideals, and other times stick to them either to triumph or not.

But she used it on a military target, not a civilian populace. Battles were going to occur, the plan was never to avoid them, the emphasis was making sure they didn't occur in the cities.

 djones520 wrote:
But she used it on a military target, not a civilian populace. Battles were going to occur, the plan was never to avoid them, the emphasis was making sure they didn't occur in the cities.

It wasn't about avoiding all battles in cities. The first plan involved capturing Casterley Rock, which was expected to a very difficult siege. Even in Tyrion's plan it was understood that sieges and civilians deaths would happen. Instead it was about minimising that carnage, about doing things differently & proving that Dany wouldn't just burn things with her dragons at the first step, making her different from her tyrant ancestors.

Then when Dany did release her two most potent weapons, the dothraki and one of her dragons, the battle was far from triumphant. Instead there was a strong emphasis during the battle and in the aftermath of the use of such overwhelming force. The battle was shown largely from the view of Jaime and Bron on the receiving end, and much of the rest was seen from the POV of Tyrion, passively watching. And in the fighting they focused on the raw power involved, men were shown not just burned but turned to ash, and as the Lannister broke they were shown being run down by Dothrakia, causing Jaime to comment afterwards that the Dothraki were killing his men as if it was sport. And of course in the aftermath Dany gave the Tarly men the choice to either submit or be burned to death, and she didn't flinch when their choice caused her to burn them to death.

I agree that taking on that army in the field is still more restrained than taking it on in a city, and the Dany has still refrained from attacking King's Landing and destroying the Red Keep with her dragons. But even with that in mind, her attack showed she was moving past Tyrion's plans for a 'clever' strategy, and will instead use more direct force. It's about finding that balance, you don't hold back so much that you're ineffective, but you also don't use so much force that you're a tyrant.

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
But she used it on a military target, not a civilian populace. Battles were going to occur, the plan was never to avoid them, the emphasis was making sure they didn't occur in the cities.

It wasn't about avoiding all battles in cities. The first plan involved capturing Casterley Rock, which was expected to a very difficult siege. Even in Tyrion's plan it was understood that sieges and civilians deaths would happen. Instead it was about minimising that carnage, about doing things differently & proving that Dany wouldn't just burn things with her dragons at the first step, making her different from her tyrant ancestors.

Then when Dany did release her two most potent weapons, the dothraki and one of her dragons, the battle was far from triumphant. Instead there was a strong emphasis during the battle and in the aftermath of the use of such overwhelming force. The battle was shown largely from the view of Jaime and Bron on the receiving end, and much of the rest was seen from the POV of Tyrion, passively watching. And in the fighting they focused on the raw power involved, men were shown not just burned but turned to ash, and as the Lannister broke they were shown being run down by Dothrakia, causing Jaime to comment afterwards that the Dothraki were killing his men as if it was sport. And of course in the aftermath Dany gave the Tarly men the choice to either submit or be burned to death, and she didn't flinch when their choice caused her to burn them to death.

I agree that taking on that army in the field is still more restrained than taking it on in a city, and the Dany has still refrained from attacking King's Landing and destroying the Red Keep with her dragons. But even with that in mind, her attack showed she was moving past Tyrion's plans for a 'clever' strategy, and will instead use more direct force. It's about finding that balance, you don't hold back so much that you're ineffective, but you also don't use so much force that you're a tyrant.

Ah but you are also missing the point that Euron made - the "small folk" really don't care unless it directly effects them - and the nobles are not much different except because they own land and have larger ambitions anything new is more likely to effect them or their plans. Tyrants can be quite popular with the "smallfolk" if they don't interfere with them and just stick to the capital - Both Caliguia and Nero were popular with the people just not the upper class who were directly effected and often suffered their extravagant and brutal whims.

Tyrion may not know this but Varis should.

Except for the "Mad King" the prior Targayrian rule does not seem to have been more or less regarded than any other king - despite them arriving in a gale of fire and blood.

Again the problem with Westros plan was it completely ignored everything she had been cruelly taught in Essos - weakness means you and yours suffer. That's what the show has been demonstrating to the viewer throughout its run - especially with Dany.

Casterley Rock was just stupid - even with the secret passage - Dragons means sieges are a waste of time and resources - she has shown at Meerem that you don't need to burn everything to win, just demonstrate your overwhelming power and everyone bar fanatics will capitulate. I don't see the Lanister military as fanatics - their Queen may be - but the others are just men defending their homeland.

Dany offered (as would any ruler) clemency for those who swapped sides - ironically the only two men in the entire army who would not break their oaths had already done so once - so that made no sense! Two foolish men burnt, the rest did not and likely went home spreading the word that she 1. Was a force of nature, 2. She will let you live if you serve her.

Although the latter is a bit vague as I am not sure that the Dothraki have given up slavery.......

Casterly Rock was not a city, it was a castle, like Winterfell and Storms End. Lannisport was the city.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Ah but you are also missing the point that Euron made - the "small folk" really don't care unless it directly effects them - and the nobles are not much different except because they own land and have larger ambitions anything new is more likely to effect them or their plans. Tyrants can be quite popular with the "smallfolk" if they don't interfere with them and just stick to the capital - Both Caliguia and Nero were popular with the people just not the upper class who were directly effected and often suffered their extravagant and brutal whims.

But you're missing the point that people do things not just to avoid retaliation, but because they are the right thing to do. The point to Dany avoiding open slaughter isn't because she's scared of peasants being angry at her, its because she doesn't want to rule through tyranny.

Except for the "Mad King" the prior Targayrian rule does not seem to have been more or less regarded than any other king - despite them arriving in a gale of fire and blood.

There were quite a lot of very bloody wars through the few hundred years of Targaryen rule. The 'wheel' mentioned a few times during the last season was about the constant grinding of wars, one leading to the next, grinding down the nation and its people. The point being that if Dany was to break the wheel, it would need to start with something very different to what rulers had done before her.

Again the problem with Westros plan was it completely ignored everything she had been cruelly taught in Essos - weakness means you and yours suffer.

But you continue to ignore half the story. Sure, hold back too much and being weak will cause suffering as you are defeated by those who don't hold back at all, but at the same time characters who've been ruthless have caused their own suffering. I just don't know how you could watch GoT and see Stannis defeated utterly, waiting for his execution, and not realise what the show was telling you about his decision to burn his own daughter at the stake. I do not know how you could watch Cersei lose each of her children and her father, and think the shows most ruthless character is going just fine. When Ramsey realises his own dogs are about to turn on him, I just do not know how you could think the problem is he wasn't ruthless enough. Joffrey stopping chance of peace by cutting off Ned's head, leading to the need to marry in to the Tyrell's, leading to Joffrey's death?

Casterley Rock was just stupid - even with the secret passage - Dragons means sieges are a waste of time and resources - she has shown at Meerem that you don't need to burn everything to win, just demonstrate your overwhelming power and everyone bar fanatics will capitulate. I don't see the Lanister military as fanatics - their Queen may be - but the others are just men defending their homeland.

That's not how things have played with dragons in the Game of Thrones history. The Targaryen conquest saw some armies surrender, but also had lots of armies slaughtered by dragons. The ones that did yield, notably the Vale and the North, did so after dragons had massacred large armies to the South.

You might argue that isn't how things would 'really' happen and people would 'really' surrender, but the closest comparison we have is air superiority, which has proven quite ineffective at producing mass surrender.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
Casterly Rock was not a city, it was a castle, like Winterfell and Storms End. Lannisport was the city.

Casterly Rock is connected to Lannisport, just as the Red Keep is connected to King's Landing.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
But they don't go over the limits of reality (Cant believe I just wrote that). A wight with no legs cant walk, so can a dragon with no wings fly.

Well, I mean they do. No muscles = no movement

Umm most wrights seems to have some muscle left. There a tad decayed but not walking skeletons quite yet.

I was thinking more along the lines of the zombies they reanimated. That same magic would be used on the Dragon. It appears the magic of the wights is able to fill the holes for missing tissue here.

As far as wights being over the limits of reality, they produce no body heat and they live in what is basically the arctic. Kinda crazy.

But you continue to ignore half the story. Sure, hold back too much and being weak will cause suffering as you are defeated by those who don't hold back at all, but at the same time characters who've been ruthless have caused their own suffering. I just don't know how you could watch GoT and see Stannis defeated utterly, waiting for his execution, and not realise what the show was telling you about his decision to burn his own daughter at the stake. I do not know how you could watch Cersei lose each of her children and her father, and think the shows most ruthless character is going just fine. When Ramsey realises his own dogs are about to turn on him, I just do not know how you could think the problem is he wasn't ruthless enough. Joffrey stopping chance of peace by cutting off Ned's head, leading to the need to marry in to the Tyrell's, leading to Joffrey's death?

Nope I am looking at Dany's story and stating that when she is weak she suffers, when she is strong she and those she loves prosper - are there any examples of the opposite?

Importantly I didn't say Ruthless I said Weakness - very different things.

As I said before good things happen to bad people and vice versa - in fact GOT is notorious for the latter more than the former.

Treat your friends well and destroy those enemies that will not become friends is an ongoing message of the show.

“No friend ever served me, and no enemy ever wronged me, whom I have not repaid in full.”

―Lucius Cornelius Sulla

Of the other characters you discuss.

Joffrey was a cowardly and a deviant bully and was neither strong nor ruthless, he indulged his own twisted desires too much and that was the weakness that led to the need to marry into the Tyrell's - which was a good marriage - again it was his lack of control over his needs (weakness) not his strength that led to his death.

Ramsey played with his enemies - that was his weakness but he didn't loose and die because of "weakness" towards his enemies, he died because the Vale turned up, he had underestimated Sansa. If they hadn't he would be ruling the North and likely fighting the dead to try and survive.

Cersei is driven by her many problems - I would definitely agree with your previous statement that she is a much more interesting and realistic character than the book version. For much of her life she was at the mercy of others and even in the show - she has been reactive for the most part. She is ruthless to a large degree but I would not for the most part call her strong - although this season now she is truly Queen she was growing into the role. Her strength this season was also about her being able to restrain herself a bit - ie go and talk to the Alliance.

Stannis was driven by power and the chip on his shoulder about not getting to be king. He was manipulated by a witch and prophecy - just she is trying to do with Dany and others now. His act of sacrifice was simply pure desperation not strength or being ruthless.

There were quite a lot of very bloody wars through the few hundred years of Targaryen rule. The 'wheel' mentioned a few times during the last season was about the constant grinding of wars, one leading to the next, grinding down the nation and its people. The point being that if Dany was to break the wheel, it would need to start with something very different to what rulers had done before her.

Civil wars mostly and no different to non Targayrian rulers. And Dany (or the writers) has no idea what this alternative way is? Democracy is not something we have seen in their world and that does not lead to peace whatever some people dream about. I do worry that we will have some nonsense about an elected ruler by the end of the show.

That's not how things have played with dragons in the Game of Thrones history. The Targaryen conquest saw some armies surrender, but also had lots of armies slaughtered by dragons. The ones that did yield, notably the Vale and the North, did so after dragons had massacred large armies to the South.

Its exactly what the show demonstrated happened at Meerem?

As far as history - ie the books - IIRC its only Dorne that resist Dragonfire with any success. Remember that the continent has been at war for a long time, virtually all the armies are battered, almost all the leaders are dead or weary, Winter is coming. Why fight someone who is apparently no worse than any other ruler, has Dragons etc

But you're missing the point that people do things not just to avoid retaliation, but because they are the right thing to do. The point to Dany avoiding open slaughter isn't because she's scared of peasants being angry at her, its because she doesn't want to rule through tyranny

And she is finding out that it usually ends badly as Jon and countless others have done.

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
But she used it on a military target, not a civilian populace. Battles were going to occur, the plan was never to avoid them, the emphasis was making sure they didn't occur in the cities.

It wasn't about avoiding all battles in cities. The first plan involved capturing Casterley Rock, which was expected to a very difficult siege. Even in Tyrion's plan it was understood that sieges and civilians deaths would happen. Instead it was about minimising that carnage, about doing things differently & proving that Dany wouldn't just burn things with her dragons at the first step, making her different from her tyrant ancestors.

Then when Dany did release her two most potent weapons, the dothraki and one of her dragons, the battle was far from triumphant. Instead there was a strong emphasis during the battle and in the aftermath of the use of such overwhelming force. The battle was shown largely from the view of Jaime and Bron on the receiving end, and much of the rest was seen from the POV of Tyrion, passively watching. And in the fighting they focused on the raw power involved, men were shown not just burned but turned to ash, and as the Lannister broke they were shown being run down by Dothrakia, causing Jaime to comment afterwards that the Dothraki were killing his men as if it was sport. And of course in the aftermath Dany gave the Tarly men the choice to either submit or be burned to death, and she didn't flinch when their choice caused her to burn them to death.

I agree that taking on that army in the field is still more restrained than taking it on in a city, and the Dany has still refrained from attacking King's Landing and destroying the Red Keep with her dragons. But even with that in mind, her attack showed she was moving past Tyrion's plans for a 'clever' strategy, and will instead use more direct force. It's about finding that balance, you don't hold back so much that you're ineffective, but you also don't use so much force that you're a tyrant.

I think there were also a few scenes of (literal) friendly fire with some of the Dothraki being burned alongside the Lannister soldiers.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
But she used it on a military target, not a civilian populace. Battles were going to occur, the plan was never to avoid them, the emphasis was making sure they didn't occur in the cities.

It wasn't about avoiding all battles in cities. The first plan involved capturing Casterley Rock, which was expected to a very difficult siege. Even in Tyrion's plan it was understood that sieges and civilians deaths would happen. Instead it was about minimising that carnage, about doing things differently & proving that Dany wouldn't just burn things with her dragons at the first step, making her different from her tyrant ancestors.

Then when Dany did release her two most potent weapons, the dothraki and one of her dragons, the battle was far from triumphant. Instead there was a strong emphasis during the battle and in the aftermath of the use of such overwhelming force. The battle was shown largely from the view of Jaime and Bron on the receiving end, and much of the rest was seen from the POV of Tyrion, passively watching. And in the fighting they focused on the raw power involved, men were shown not just burned but turned to ash, and as the Lannister broke they were shown being run down by Dothrakia, causing Jaime to comment afterwards that the Dothraki were killing his men as if it was sport. And of course in the aftermath Dany gave the Tarly men the choice to either submit or be burned to death, and she didn't flinch when their choice caused her to burn them to death.

I agree that taking on that army in the field is still more restrained than taking it on in a city, and the Dany has still refrained from attacking King's Landing and destroying the Red Keep with her dragons. But even with that in mind, her attack showed she was moving past Tyrion's plans for a 'clever' strategy, and will instead use more direct force. It's about finding that balance, you don't hold back so much that you're ineffective, but you also don't use so much force that you're a tyrant.

I think there were also a few scenes of (literal) friendly fire with some of the Dothraki being burned alongside the Lannister soldiers.

I suspect anyone in that world, especially the Dothraki would say "Its war....... it happens."

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
But she used it on a military target, not a civilian populace. Battles were going to occur, the plan was never to avoid them, the emphasis was making sure they didn't occur in the cities.

It wasn't about avoiding all battles in cities. The first plan involved capturing Casterley Rock, which was expected to a very difficult siege. Even in Tyrion's plan it was understood that sieges and civilians deaths would happen. Instead it was about minimising that carnage, about doing things differently & proving that Dany wouldn't just burn things with her dragons at the first step, making her different from her tyrant ancestors.

Then when Dany did release her two most potent weapons, the dothraki and one of her dragons, the battle was far from triumphant. Instead there was a strong emphasis during the battle and in the aftermath of the use of such overwhelming force. The battle was shown largely from the view of Jaime and Bron on the receiving end, and much of the rest was seen from the POV of Tyrion, passively watching. And in the fighting they focused on the raw power involved, men were shown not just burned but turned to ash, and as the Lannister broke they were shown being run down by Dothrakia, causing Jaime to comment afterwards that the Dothraki were killing his men as if it was sport. And of course in the aftermath Dany gave the Tarly men the choice to either submit or be burned to death, and she didn't flinch when their choice caused her to burn them to death.

I agree that taking on that army in the field is still more restrained than taking it on in a city, and the Dany has still refrained from attacking King's Landing and destroying the Red Keep with her dragons. But even with that in mind, her attack showed she was moving past Tyrion's plans for a 'clever' strategy, and will instead use more direct force. It's about finding that balance, you don't hold back so much that you're ineffective, but you also don't use so much force that you're a tyrant.

I think there were also a few scenes of (literal) friendly fire with some of the Dothraki being burned alongside the Lannister soldiers.

I suspect anyone in that world, especially the Dothraki would say "Its war....... it happens."

Worth a few losses for thr sheer shock and awe air power of a dragon close air support strike.

There like a A10 of westeros.

Let us a moment to remember another fine character we won't have going into season 8;

The awesome Wig of House Targaryen, it sat quietly on Dany's head not matching her eyebrows and distracting with its queitly assured acting prowess

As long as Dany doesn't sit on the Iron Throne, I'll be happy.


All hail Davos Seaworth, King of the Seven Kingdoms and the First Men!

 Mr Morden wrote:
Nope I am looking at Dany's story and stating that when she is weak she suffers, when she is strong she and those she loves prosper - are there any examples of the opposite?

Your question is still bad, as it narrows the terms to only instances of Dany being ruthless. But Dany's first instinct is to be kind, and so they're won't be examples of her being ruthless and then getting blowback, instead we see instances of her initial kindness producing either benefits or losses. She offers the Unsullied freedom, and in return they choose to be loyal, free soldiers. Then Dany marched on Yunkai not because it helped capture the Iron Throne, but because she wanted to free the slaves there, and this gained her their loyalty as well. Meereen then revolted upon her arrival, without her losing a single soldier in the initial capture of the city.

Obviously there's been plenty of setbacks, times she has been too lenient, such as the master's revolt in Yunkai or the quagmire in Meereen. But that's how stories work, a character has a principle, a first instinct, and through the story that principle is tested, and the character adapts their principle, or stands firm and triumphs, or stands firm and fails.

Importantly I didn't say Ruthless I said Weakness - very different things.

They're opposite things, two extremes of a single spectrum. I'm not sure if you bungled that sentence or you're really not following what I'm saying hear.

Treat your friends well and destroy those enemies that will not become friends is an ongoing message of the show.

That's more like life advice, it isn't how drama works.

Joffrey was a cowardly and a deviant bully and was neither strong nor ruthless, he indulged his own twisted desires too much and that was the weakness that led to the need to marry into the Tyrell's - which was a good marriage - again it was his lack of control over his needs (weakness) not his strength that led to his death.

That's just word play. One character does a ruthless thing and it works, you call it ruthless and say it fits your theory, someone else does a ruthless thing and it fails and you call it weakness and remove it from your theory.

Ramsey played with his enemies - that was his weakness but he didn't loose and die because of "weakness" towards his enemies, he died because the Vale turned up, he had underestimated Sansa. If they hadn't he would be ruling the North and likely fighting the dead to try and survive.

Ramsey playing with his enemy's wasn't a weakness, he never suffered from it. Ramsey lost because he ended up with too many enemies, and no friends interested in helping him. That's an result of being a ruthless sociopath.

Cersei is driven by her many problems - I would definitely agree with your previous statement that she is a much more interesting and realistic character than the book version. For much of her life she was at the mercy of others and even in the show - she has been reactive for the most part. She is ruthless to a large degree but I would not for the most part call her strong - although this season now she is truly Queen she was growing into the role. Her strength this season was also about her being able to restrain herself a bit - ie go and talk to the Alliance.

End of the day Cersei is the flipside to Dany. They both define themselves by their children (though only one by their literal children). Both have their belief in their destiny to be queen to be their driving force.

The difference is that Dany's first instinct is kindness, while Cersei's is ruthlessness. This is largely why you are wrong in thinking the show is just about how being kind gets you and yours hurt - because despite coming from opposite approaches both Dany and Cersei have grown vastly in power in influence.

Stannis was driven by power and the chip on his shoulder about not getting to be king. He was manipulated by a witch and prophecy - just she is trying to do with Dany and others now. His act of sacrifice was simply pure desperation not strength or being ruthless.

This is wordplay again. You call it ruthlessness if it worked, but if burning your own child at the stake doesn't work you call it desperation.

Civil wars mostly and no different to non Targayrian rulers.

Exactly, a constant wheel of violence. One that Dany know dreams of breaking.

And Dany (or the writers) has no idea what this alternative way is? Democracy is not something we have seen in their world and that does not lead to peace whatever some people dream about. I do worry that we will have some nonsense about an elected ruler by the end of the show.

Huh? Two versions of sorts of democracy are explicitly mentioned to Dany as methods of rule to replace her when she's gone. That's not even subtext, it was actual text directly spoken.

That said, I hope they don't actually got that route. It's too obvious, too on the nose.

Its exactly what the show demonstrated happened at Meerem?

Dany used dragonfire to kill loads, before the rest surrendered? So not the 'everyone bar fanatics will capitulate' that you claimed.

As far as history - ie the books - IIRC its only Dorne that resist Dragonfire with any success.