Game Of Thrones -- Book Spoiler Free Thread

The Riverlands has no one in charge and was raped and was pillaged of supplies for years. Sending for supplies in Essos runs into the problem of can they afford a significant amount and still have enough ships to transport it. Plus there's the issue of will rulers in Essos just refuse to help because of how much damage she did to the slave trade. As well as having to manage to avoid their ships getting ambushed and sunk or stolen by Euron.

I would suggest the Tyrell lands but, oh- wait.

The Tyrell lands that were despoiled by Randyll Tarly who betrayed Olenna Tyrell in favor of Cersei. So again not her fault. And there's no indication from the show that the attack apparently hurt anyone. That is just fan speculation and so on.

Not her fault. Also not her fault that Dany just burned everything they could have used to feed said army of hers marching North. Even if Sansa had accounted for them somehow, the addition wouldn't have hurt anything. And if she did, I'm sure she'd be showing A) she's a good leader who cares about her armies to secure them food and B) would make an excellent impression on Sansa who is trying to be the same.

If Jon were the one saying all this, literally no one would complaint about shit.

Edited by InkDagger on Apr 16th 2019 at 4:53:16 AM

Did Dany burn crops or fields or salt the earth or some such stuff...all she did was unleash the dragons on an army in a field, that based on what we see wasn't farmland. So how did she burn "Everything they could have used". C'mon let's not exaggerate.

And I happen to like Sansa. I do agree and take her side some times. So this isn't bias against her character. I actually do think she was right to argue and correct Jon for giving lands to the Umbers and others, and not punishing those families who betrayed their baby brother to Ramsay. And as we see when that Ned Umber kid became a halloween prank by the Walkers, Jon's mercy was All for Nothing anyway. Sansa was right in that scene even if again she was being insubordinate in public and she should have advised against him in private.

Look, in Season 6, when Tyrion was in charge of Meereen, he told his plan to make a peace deal with the slavers with Missandei and Grey Worm in private, and they opposed it bitterly, but publicly they agreed and kept an united front. So if that was correct for them to do it, then it's not okay for Sansa to mouth off and not have people be called off. It smacks of white privilege, where POC characters are shown having professional conduct in a honorable light and a white girl can do whatever she wants and the show aside from one scene in Season 7 goes out of its way to glorify that.

While I myself am usually quick to catch stuff as you mentioned above and validate the concern of POC characters being treated poorly in-favor of white characters doing the same; I want to make sure I'm validating that, these are different contexts. I don't think we should be seeing the rest of the Northern leaders as Meereen's slavers. People have plenty times over raised concern in front of their leaders in both Winterfel (Lady Lyanna is the most obvious to do this consistently) and even at Castle Black. Winterfell is far more of an open discussion between allies to raise their issues.

The Slavers in Meereen were never allies nor were they to be treated as such. Hence the united front. Since everyone in Winterfell is supposed to be an ally and they genuinely treat the meetings with the Lords differently, I see no fault in Sansa saying as she does.

And, yes, Dany did burn the resources from the Tyrells. That train was explicitly carrying grain and food supplies for Jamie to take back to the Lannister Army. Dany goes out of her way to burn everything in the wagon train when she had every opportunity to capture it. The fight was a steamroll no matter what, why burn it?

Because Dany doesn't think when she uses her damn dragons.

Edited by InkDagger on Apr 16th 2019 at 5:18:00 AM

She thought plenty when she used the dragons to liberate Astapor. A plan she did. On her own. Without the say-so of Barristan and Jorah (and she warned them then and there that nobody backtalks her in public). And that went off without a hitch. Even for the sake of argument, if Dany made a mistake, then that doesn't mean "she doesn't think". She acted in a way that she thought was right given the situation she had. This is exactly the excessive BS that irritates Dany fans from Game of Thrones, rather than see her as a nuanced character, she's painted as this idiot by fans.

And again there's no supporting dialogue in any episode after that about the attack on food costing them. Tyrion and no one brings that up. Nor does Jaime or anyone. Maybe a later episode will bring that up who knows. But based on what we have, it's not been mentioned so far.

And again, Dany's first instinct was to attack King's Landing with dragons but Tyrion and Jon told her not to, and the attack on the wagon trail was based on their council. Maybe she should have burned and torched King's Landing right away. Is that something that would please you?

Maybe Dany shouldn't breathe since some people never acknowledge she does anything right and clearly fans have issues with her.

No, going after the Wagon Train was the right move. But she should have captured it rather that destroyed it. And she clearly was capable of it since the battle ends with soldiers lined up, a speech, and then torching two of the opposition.

Edited by InkDagger on Apr 16th 2019 at 5:34:35 AM

Destroying enemy food supplies is a valid move in warfare and especially a siege. That food was going to King's Landing. And I watched enough "Thanos is Wrong" and "Malthus sucks" videos post-IW to know that food supply in the macro sense isn't down to a case of some 20-30 wagons as making the grand scale difference. The Lannister and Tarly's didn't raid all the food and crops off the Reach, just the major stores and it was all going to the capital. The major wagon that escaped was the one with the gold which Jaime and the Tarlys sent ahead first. And for all we know, Dany probably thought she was burning the wagons with all the gold in it, and that was her mission directive, burn all their resources. So even there the situation isn't that simple as you are making it out. And again why blame Dany when it was Randyll Tarly responsible for that? The Lannisters wouldn't have taken over the Reach had Randyll not turned. That food wouldn't have gone anywhere had Randyll not done what he did.

Because Tarley was never an ally. He turned. He made choices in his interest that countered the heroes. Am I supposed to also throw fault at Cersei for... being a villainous bitch and screwing everyone out? I kind of expect that of her all things considered and screwing things further for her enemies is her job at this point in the narrative.

It's not Dany's job to make things harder.

Tarly was a bannerman sworn to Olenna. Olenna supported Dany so that meant Tarly supported Daenerys too at least on paper. Him backstabbing Olenna and Daenerys is exactly comparable to the Freys and Boltons betraying the Starks at the Red Wedding.

Honestly, the entire crop of Highgarden couldn't possibly be carried off in the what, maybe twelve wagons that were burned? Her troops ate something on the way north. And it's not like Dany knows nothing of logistics. She marched two armies across a desert and sailed them across a sea without taking any real losses. And whatever fish and stores provided by Casterly Rock and the true Iron Fleet are hers too

Actually, Jamie specifically mentions that he cleared out Casterly Rock's stores. Dany got nothing from that.

So the food in those wagons included stuff from Casterly Rock most likely.

It's almost like the Lannisters were the ones who cleared out more food stocks than Daenerys when you break things down.

No, those wagons were coming from Highgarden. Most likely Casterly Rocks foods were given to the Renegade Iron Fleet. And King's Landing

Edited by blkwhtrbbt on Apr 16th 2019 at 8:21:06 AM

I wouldn't really say its the same. They were sworn to the Tyrells, not Olenna. It'd be like the Boltons and Freys switching sides because Catelyn is the only Stark left and she wants them to fight for Stannis.

Edited by doineedaname on Apr 16th 2019 at 9:22:38 AM

They're distant family, not traditional enemies like the Boltons. If anything, it's like the Tyrells goading the Gardeners into extinction so they could Ninja Loot their castle

You're right. Because the Freys and Boltons attacked Robb Stark and not Dany. Because as we know usual rules and paralls don't apply when it comes to Dany. Against her, the tiniest slivers of hair are split. Randyll Tarly made it clear that Olenna Tyrell was his legitimate feudal overlord in S7 before throwing in his lot with Cersei. End of discussion.

Finally watched the episode. Overall mediocre to good. Theon and Yara was good but a little anti-climatic.

I am however very intrigued by Sansa just making a common sense observation (and Daenerys making a veiled threat to kill her in response) being seen as such a vile act. It's a strange Double Standard that everybody in the show (and outside of it) goes "we don't have time for politics, the dead are marching!" except when Daenerys is involved. Then we can take our sweet time from the dead to make sure she's the Queen of all there is. When Sam observed she'd never give her crown to protect the North he's pretty much bang on the money, and I think this is honestly the authorial intent.

It's like the whole "We don't have time for politics, the dead are marching!" only counts for the North. Everybody else is exempt and free to politick all around.

Robert Baratheon didn't want the crown either, and he didn't make for a very good king, so now we are supposed to come around and say "only those who don't want the crown are good kings". Wisecrack Edition pointed out in their What Went Wrong that Game of Thrones is dangerously close to becoming an Indecisive Deconstruction, i.e. defaulting back to the classic tropes it took apart in earlier seasons. I thought that was fine when the show was moving out of books and needed to default to some traditional structure to get to the end of the show while they still have the actors and sets in place to finish a story with but I hope the series doesn't end with that moral. Because again it's going against what the show made clear at the start.

Sam Tarly is in a very emotional space, and not thinking clearly, that's why Bran told him to break the news to Jon since Bran knows exactly what's in his mind and what this will do. Sam isn't thinking clearly there so I don't think that's "authorial intent" (and that's moot until the last episode anyway).

And honestly why is the North entitled to independence when it was Southerners like Stannis, Davos, Melisandre, the Vale, Daenerys and others who came to their aid, not to mention that their last King Robb actually spent all his time ruling in the Riverlands and counted Riverlander lords as his vassals. Convenient isn't it, the North gets independence while the South spills blood, theirs and others, to defend it.

The matter at hand isn't some Cincinnatus "only those who reject power are fit to wield it", it is the very simple comparison that Daenerys almost always comes across (truthfully or not) as more concerned with her own Queenly prerrogative than the fact there's an army of the undead marching southwards. There's all this talk of "we don't have time for politics!"...except when it comes to Daenerys wanting everybody they should bow, apparently. If the concern everybody has is that we need to drop politics and focus on survival, it is absolutely fascinating how Daenerys gets a pass for never, at no point, dropping politics.

The entire show, in a way, hammers on that character flaw (i.e her raging ego) of Daenerys without end, so it legitimately surprises me people are still seemingly unaccostumed to it. It has been her crippling character flaw since somewhere along season 2.

The North is entitled to independence because the South (which here means the Iron Throne) has been drifting further and further from them for centuries. They have different religions, different traditions and have been treated like a nuisance at best. Wildlings? Let the North deal with it, ain't our problem. Just in the last few decades (as far as the historiography is concerned) A southern prince kidnapped, raped and murdered a Stark girl and a Southern King wiped out half the Stark family. Then came Robert Baratheon who didn't really do anything wrong per see but the North seems to be treated with the same arm's length as before. And then Ned got his head looped off by a Southern King for daring to go there and try to fix their political mess and that's where the powder keg that had been brewing for several decades finally went off. From a Northern perspective, every time they march South they get treated like absolute shit (see: literally the last three generations of House Stark), even in the many times they try to help the South deal with their own messes (i.e Robert's Rebellion, Greyjoy Rebellion and literally the entire event of the show since season 1) they either walk away with a pat on the back or actively get screwed over by Southerners. So maybe they should just say fuck it and stick to the North. And they're fully entitled to.

The Riverlands comparison doesn't even track, as they chose to join the North out of their own volition (and for much the same reasons as the North) and absolutely loved King Robb.

The only way I can see anybody justifying "The North cannot secede!" is via a (actually pretty ugly) Might Makes Right Despotic argument of sorts where they have no right to secede because dragons, so fuck all their complaints. You can't even spin a legalist argument for the North, as the legalism of the situation has long been chucked through a window (i.e The North elected Jon Snow, which is already a gigantic breach of protocol because Sansa is A) ahead of him in the line of succession B) legitimate, which he is not. C) not a member of the Night's Watch as Jon could be legally considered).

Daenerys put aside her ambitions and return to Westeros especially at a golden moment (Joffrey's death), when she had the ships she needed (in Season 4 before the harpies torched it), to end slavery. That to me is the end of all "Daenerys only cares about power and ambition" thing. Unless of course you think the rights and grudges of a bunch of Northern feudal lords means more than slaves freed from bondage. And again, it's not a bad thing to want power and ambition.

In S7, in "Beyond the Wall", Dany came to the rescue of Jon and his cohort before he bent the knee. And Jon then submitted out of his own volition without her asking for it, and to her surprise and hesitation. It's within her rights to demand that if Jon bent the knee to her, everyone else fall in line, and not be rude to her in person especially since she tried to be nice to Sansa at first, smiling at her and saying the homeland is nice and so on.

She doesn't raise that issue once publicly in this episode, merely venting at Jon in private about Sansa being obnoxious to her, which again she has a right to.

In Season 4 it was a Southern army and rulers that helped the North deal with the Wildlings while the Northern leaders didn't send additional troops and supplies, even if Jon wrote letters all through S5 asking for additional troops including to the Umbers who later complained about Wildling refugees when he did jack-all to help the watch. So I don't buy for one second this new headcannon you are putting out that the North is some struggling pariah state. They are looked down upon to some extent, but the North is xenophobic too, towards Wildlings, each other and so on.

Because as we know usual rules and paralls don't apply when it comes to Dany. Against her, the tiniest slivers of hair are split. Randyll Tarly made it clear that Olenna Tyrell was his legitimate feudal overlord in S7 before throwing in his lot with Cersei. End of discussion.

The same episode also said he accepted Cersei as his rightful ruler. Them applying to her is exactly why I don't find it particularly bad. No one in-universe has any reason to doubt the Dothraki as being the single most monstrous group around and a massive blight on Dany's image and that of anyone who would side with her.

I'd complain about the rules of the setting not applying to everything going on with Cersei but that's been talked to death and I'd rather just ignore her continued existence in the plot.

Nobody who serves alongside the Lannisters after what they did to the Riverlands has any right to complain about the Dothraki.

Not to mention the seven kingdoms have been a single realm for several hundred years. That's social and economic co-dependence you can't really just... let go of. Why do you think Brexit is so controversial?

Honestly, the Dothraki are just bandits. The Lannisters? Perpetuated deliberate genocide.

Edited by blkwhtrbbt on Apr 16th 2019 at 10:34:09 AM