Game of Thrones

[Coin Biter]

The argument that Randyll Tarly "deserved to die because he was an ass" is a strange one

If he was an ass, his final scene wasn't evidence of it. By James Faulkner's performance, by the lines that he was asked to speak, and by his principled objection to refuse the offer of the Black on the basis that he did not acknowledge Dany's legitimacy as Queen, we were clearly being invited to admire him, if not necessarily to agree with his stand. Hell, he tried to save his son's life.

The point being that it is wholly reasonable to be opposed to Dany's rule, because she is a stranger to Westeros, and because the forces backing her consist of father-murdering advisers, treacherous spymasters, slaughtering bandits, and monstrous beasts.

Now as to whether Dany was right to execute him and his son, on a pragmatic basis, I'd say that's arguable. Beheading is a lot less likely to evoke memories of her insane father than burning alive through dragonfire, though.

[brettc1]

The argument that Randyll Tarly "deserved to die because he was an ass" is a strange one

If he was an ass, his final scene wasn't evidence of it. By James Faulkner's performance, by the lines that he was asked to speak, and by his principled objection to refuse the offer of the Black on the basis that he did not acknowledge Dany's legitimacy as Queen, we were clearly being invited to admire him, if not necessarily to agree with his stand. Hell, he tried to save his son's life.

The point being that it is wholly reasonable to be opposed to Dany's rule, because she is a stranger to Westeros, and because the forces backing her consist of father-murdering advisers, treacherous spymasters, slaughtering bandits, and monstrous beasts.

Now as to whether Dany was right to execute him and his son, on a pragmatic basis, I'd say that's arguable. Beheading is a lot less likely to evoke memories of her insane father than burning alive through dragonfire, though.

[Coin Biter]

As I said, Cersei is not legitimate queen by any standard of lawful succession. She is not a Baratheon. Mothers can't inherit crowns from their sons. She seized power through force, nothing more.

Daenerys is the only surviving child of the last legitimate king of Westeros, and therefore (with Jon's parentage still a secret) is the legitimate ruler by law. The fact that her father was insane may have justified removing him from the throne, but his children were not insane and Rhaegar (if he hadn't died at the Trident) or Rhaegar's son Aegon should then have succeeded to the throne. Instead they were murdered.

Lawfully, based on what's known right now, Dany is queen and Olenna was right to recognize that. The use of the Dothraki is only necessary because people like Randyll Tarly choose to fight for a known usurper.

Actually, I'd say that no-one has a legitimate claim. The Targarayen dynasty was created by right of conquest. Arguably, it was ended by right of conquest. If Dany wins, it will be by right of conquest, not because people will be falling over to recognise the legitimacy of the true Queen cos she was descended from her mad Dad

Tarly's arguments against the legitimacy of Dany's claims are not proven to be incorrect by his death. Legitimacy of succession in practice bows to facts. Can the monarch persuade sufficient number of people to back him/her? Is there a blood relationship? What other factors are there? And finally, and crucially, are they successful in the war ? And when they are successful in the war, are they successful in building a stable regime afterwards?

Since the flag of actual medieval history has been waved a lot in this thread, let's think of an example of disputed succession.

Henry I was King of England and Duke of Normandy. Actually, his claims to both of those titles were dubious. He was the fourth son of William the Conqueror, whose own claim (and he did make a claim, recognised by the Pope) was certainly questionable as well. Henry seized the English throne after his brother William Rufus' death, and he seized the duchy of Normandy from another brother of his, Robert Curthose. Was the Anglo-Norman aristocracy right to recognise his rule, or should they have opposed him?

Henry I had a host of illegitimate children, but no surviving legitimate male heirs. To deal with this problem, he got the Anglo-Norman barons to swear an oath to recognise his daughter Matilda as heir and any legitimate heirs she might have. However, when Henry died, the succession was disputed. Matilda (who had been brought up mostly in Germany) and her husband Geoffrey of Anjou weren't popular with the Anglo-Norman aristocracy. Henry's nephew, Stephen of Blois, was able to successfully seize the throne. Was the majority of the Anglo-Norman aristocracy right to recognise this, despite their oath to Henry?

The situation led to a grim civil war called the Anarchy, where Matilda and her supporters (including Henry I's illegitimate son, Robert FitzRoy, Earl of Gloucester, who supposedly as a man of great talent had also been thought of as a potential successor to Henry I), fought against King Stephen and his supporters, with varying success. Members of the Anglo-Norman aristocracy fought on both sides. Which do you think were the traitors?

Eventually, Stephen and Matilda came to a negotiated peace, in which he agreed to recognise her son Henry II as his heir, and died of natural causes the next year.

My point is this: the lawfulness of a claim to the throne in both actual medieval history and GRRM's work is contingent on the circumstances in which the relevant aristocrat found themselves. You could honourably have fought both for and against Stephen and Matilda.

There was nothing wrong or dishonourable in Tarly's stand.

[JBatmanFan05]

“Joffrey, when your enemies defy you, you must serve them steel and fire. When they go to their knees, however, you must help them back to their feet. Elsewise no man will ever bend the knee to you. And any man who must say ‘I am the king’ is no true king at all.”
Tywin Lannister
- A Storm of Swords

Such a great quote in the sense that it shows the delicate balance the book and show struck with Tywin's character.

Actually, I'd say that no-one has a legitimate claim. The Targarayen dynasty was created by right of conquest. Arguably, it was ended by right of conquest. If Dany wins, it will be by right of conquest

I agree with this. If Dany truly believes her claim is legitimate irrespective of conquest, then she is mistaken. But it might be that she understands that no one really has perfect claim, but short of that, she has good (if, then) basis for claim. I think the approx phrase "a good claim" shows up a lot in books and show.

[XPac]

Yes, I am saying there is a difference between cutting off a persons head and setting them on fire. If I were given the choice of having my head cut off in one clean stroke or feeling the flesh roast off my bones and screaming while my eyes melted and my tongue burst in my mouth... well, that's no choice at all, is it?

My point on the Dothraki is largely that I can understand Tarly not wanting to bend the knee to someone who rules these guys. Lets face it, if Daenerys weren't keeping them in check they would be doing exactly what they have always done for a thousand years.

There's another reason for not burning the Tarly's to death which is merely practical. Now everyone who stands against the Dragon Queen knows you fight to the death. If you have a shred of honor, you don't let yourself be taken alive, because if they won't bend the knee their deaths will be horrific.

Again, fear is a double edged sword. Yes, an honorable person might choose to fight to the death. But a less honorable person might choose not to fight at all. Cersi planned on using sell swords, but I'll wager most sell swords would have the same mentality as Braun did as far as NOT wanting to fight dragons.

Tyrion believed that in large part the people fighting for Cersi did so out of fear rather than belief in the person they're fighting for. But if they have more fear of Dany than Cersi, they won't fight at all.

[brettc1]

Again, fear is a double edged sword. Yes, an honorable person might choose to fight to the death. But a less honorable person might choose not to fight at all. Cersi planned on using sell swords, but I'll wager most sell swords would have the same mentality as Braun did as far as NOT wanting to fight dragons.

Tyrion believed that in large part the people fighting for Cersi did so out of fear rather than belief in the person they're fighting for. But if they have more fear of Dany than Cersi, they won't fight at all.

Not openly, perhaps. But that will not ensure her safe rule. Conquering a place and ruling it are NOT the same thing, and Daenerys should know that better than most after what happened in Meereen.

[XPac]

Not openly, perhaps. But that will not ensure her safe rule. Conquering a place and ruling it are NOT the same thing, and Daenerys should know that better than most after what happened in Meereen.

Certainly people fearing Dany will make it harder to rule. That's Tyions point all along as far as his strategy goes... and it makes sense on paper, though it also ended up with Dany losing every ally she had. There were pro's and cons to it.

That said, I think Dany has actually done a pretty good job of inspiring people to believe in her. Yes, people who don't know her have every right to fear the heck out of her. But people who do know her overtime do have a knack of believing in her. So while winning over people will be a challenge, it's not necessarily one she won't be able to rise to. THe ironyy being most people have more to fear from Cersi than from Dany (or anyone else on the show for that matter short of the Night King). She's borderline insane at this point and would likely blow up everyone in Kings Landing before suffendering.

[XPac]

The argument that Randyll Tarly "deserved to die because he was an ass" is a strange one

If he was an ass, his final scene wasn't evidence of it. By James Faulkner's performance, by the lines that he was asked to speak, and by his principled objection to refuse the offer of the Black on the basis that he did not acknowledge Dany's legitimacy as Queen, we were clearly being invited to admire him, if not necessarily to agree with his stand. Hell, he tried to save his son's life.

The point being that it is wholly reasonable to be opposed to Dany's rule, because she is a stranger to Westeros, and because the forces backing her consist of father-murdering advisers, treacherous spymasters, slaughtering bandits, and monstrous beasts.

Now as to whether Dany was right to execute him and his son, on a pragmatic basis, I'd say that's arguable. Beheading is a lot less likely to evoke memories of her insane father than burning alive through dragonfire, though.

I don't think the idea is so much that he deserved to die because he's an @$$, but rather that we don't give a damn that he died because he's an @$$.

The actual reason he died was less about character and more that he's a solider in war that lost a battle. Had the roles been reversed he likely would do the same to the other side. That's just how war works back then. If Dany had been captured, she either would have died or she would have WISHED she had died. There's no Geneva convention outlining proper conduct in this sort of thing.

[Vanguard-01]

Not openly, perhaps. But that will not ensure her safe rule. Conquering a place and ruling it are NOT the same thing, and Daenerys should know that better than most after what happened in Meereen.

Aegon conquered Westeros through far more brutal means than burning two measly people alive and somehow HE built a dynasty that lasted centuries and a kingdom that largely prospered.

Brutality has its place in warfare. The whole point is to break your opponent's will to continue fighting you. If they know they're beaten and facing an ugly death before they ever set foot onto the battlefield, they won't continue to fight. The King in the North saw Aegon's army and his dragons and wisely decided to yield rather than get himself and his men killed in a battle he knew could not be won. Because of this, the North suffered no deaths or destruction as they came under Aegon's rule and they shared in the prosperity of the new kingdom Aegon forged.

What's important is how you rule AFTER there is no more need for further brutality. If Daenerys crushes her enemies and then dedicates herself to rebuilding what she destroyed and ruling with a just hand, then people will tend to write off the brutality she used to get there.

When the USA nuked Japan, they were practically broken as a nation by the end of the war. If we had just walked away, leaving them shattered and impoverished, they probably would've fought us again in another generation or two. But we didn't. We helped them back to their feet and helped them rebuild their nation. Now? Japan is rich and prosperous and relations between our two nations are pretty positive.

Brutality wins wars. Compassion wins peace. Both are necessary (at times.) Daenerys has demonstrated both numerous times. This is much ado about nothing.

[AndrewCrossett]

Just FYI HBO SPain aired the episode early....the net is dark and full of spoilers...so for those who want to avoid watch out

Aaand why did they do that, exactly?

i think that howland reed ship has sailed and is long gone.
he would be way too much deus ex machina at his point

Not really... Meera just went home to him, so he and Bran are only one degree of separation apart now.

And he's the only possible way to prove Jon's ancestry, unless everyone in Westeros is willing to take the word of that crazy emo kid in the wheelchair. I assume the whole issue wouldn't have been brought up in the show if they weren't going to put something behind it sooner or later.

The argument that Randyll Tarly "deserved to die because he was an ass" is a strange one

If he was an ass, his final scene wasn't evidence of it. By James Faulkner's performance, by the lines that he was asked to speak, and by his principled objection to refuse the offer of the Black on the basis that he did not acknowledge Dany's legitimacy as Queen, we were clearly being invited to admire him, if not necessarily to agree with his stand. Hell, he tried to save his son's life.

The point being that it is wholly reasonable to be opposed to Dany's rule, because she is a stranger to Westeros, and because the forces backing her consist of father-murdering advisers, treacherous spymasters, slaughtering bandits, and monstrous beasts.

Now as to whether Dany was right to execute him and his son, on a pragmatic basis, I'd say that's arguable. Beheading is a lot less likely to evoke memories of her insane father than burning alive through dragonfire, though.

The show humanized Randyll at the last minute, showing that he loved his son (one of them, anyway) and so wasn't just a stock villain, like the guy who suggested whipping soldiers last week just for fun. It's good writing, to add some extra emotion to the scene and to back up Tyrion's horror at what's going on.

Yes, all kingdoms begin by conquest. In England the Romans conquered the Britons, then the Saxons conquered the Britons again after the Romans left, then the Saxons and Danes took turns conquering each other, and then William conquered everybody. For the next couple centuries English kings didn't even speak English. Then in 1689 the throne was given to some Dutchman (William III) mainly because he had a tenuous claim and he wasn't Catholic. And then in 1714 Queen Anne died with no living children and they gave the throne to George I, a German who lived in Germany, didn't speak English, and would have been about 50th in line for the throne if Catholics weren't excluded.

All of the above examples resulted in violence, as did several others that didn't result in successful conquest (Matilda, several French kings, Philip of Spain, etc.) That's what the show is all about, really... the "blood right" to rule is in fact mitigated by politics, religion, nativism, and most importantly, possession of the biggest stick.

Anyone who accepts Cersei as queen, however, is admitting that the laws of rightful succession are out the window and the throne belongs to whomever can take it and hold it. if you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. Randyll played. He didn't win. He died. That's the way it goes. He may have been a dick with a spark of decency, but hundreds of the people Drogon burned were probably better men than him. It doesn't really matter.

[XPac]

Aegon conquered Westeros through far more brutal means than burning two measly people alive and somehow HE built a dynasty that lasted centuries and a kingdom that largely prospered.

Brutality has its place in warfare. The whole point is to break your opponent's will to continue fighting you. If they know they're beaten and facing an ugly death before they ever set foot onto the battlefield, they won't continue to fight. The King in the North saw Aegon's army and his dragons and wisely decided to yield rather than get himself and his men killed in a battle he knew could not be won. Because of this, the North suffered no deaths or destruction as they came under Aegon's rule and they shared in the prosperity of the new kingdom Aegon forged.

What's important is how you rule AFTER there is no more need for further brutality. If Daenerys crushes her enemies and then dedicates herself to rebuilding what she destroyed and ruling with a just hand, then people will tend to write off the brutality she used to get there.

When the USA nuked Japan, they were practically broken as a nation by the end of the war. If we had just walked away, leaving them shattered and impoverished, they probably would've fought us again in another generation or two. But we didn't. We helped them back to their feet and helped them rebuild their nation. Now? Japan is rich and prosperous and relations between our two nations are pretty positive.

Brutality wins wars. Compassion wins peace. Both are necessary (at times.) Daenerys has demonstrated both numerous times. This is much ado about nothing.

And the thing about it is that Dany seems to be a pretty popular ruler among her people at least. She might be the most beloved of all the rulers on the show. Certainly more beloved than Cersi likely is, which was one of the points Tyrion made as far as why their side had the advantage. Danys people believe in her. As brutal a conquere as she might be, she seems to be a pretty fair and just ruler overall.

I think she's a very charismatic person that has a way of getting people behind her. And though she's not a politically savy person herself, she is smart enough to surround herself with people who are and she's MOSTLY willing to listen to them. And that's about as much as you can ask for in a leader.

Course, there's no way the people of Westeros know that about her yet... they have every right to fear her. But the point being that Dany is not only a person who can win the war but also a person who can win the peace.

[JBatmanFan05]

Anyone who accepts Cersei as queen, however, is admitting that the laws of rightful succession are out the window and the throne belongs to whomever can take it and hold it.

Anyone who accepts Aegon the Conqueror as King, however, is admitting that the laws of rightful succession are out the window and the throne belongs to whomever can take it and hold it.
Anyone who accepts Robert Baratheon as King, however, is admitting that the laws of rightful succession are out the window and the throne belongs to whomever can take it and hold it.
Anyone who accepts Dany as Queen, however, is admitting that the laws of rightful succession are out the window and the throne belongs to whomever can take it and hold it.

"Rightful succession"...wait, just how rightful is any succession? I think one is supposed to think about that.

[XPac]

Anyone who accepts Aegon the Conqueror as King, however, is admitting that the laws of rightful succession are out the window and the throne belongs to whomever can take it and hold it.
Anyone who accepts Dany as Queen, however, is admitting that the laws of rightful succession are out the window and the throne belongs to whomever can take it and hold it.

"Rightful succession"...wait, just how rightful is any succession? I think is supposed to think about that.

I think the whole right of succession model for the most part seems to be thrown out. We're seeing that in the NOrth too, where Jon is king over say Bran. Not that there aren't some dissenting voices on the matter... but it's more icing on the cake to justify leadership of a perosn that already won it by force than anything else.

Still Dany has all of the above. She has some claim to the right of succession, along with an army powerful enough to take it by force. So she's pretty good to go either way.

[sunofdarkchild]

I agree with this. If Dany truly believes her claim is legitimate irrespective of conquest, then she is mistaken. But it might be that she understands that no one really has perfect claim, but short of that, she has good (if, then) basis for claim. I think the approx phrase "a good claim" shows up a lot in books and show.

Jorah told Dani back in season 1 that Aegon had no right to rule Westeros when he conquered the continent with his dragons. In theory she knows it. In practice...

[The Big G]

Aaand why did they do that, exactly?

IDK but I watched the episode