every time someone says “““dany was just handed her dragons”” another bunch of my brain cells die

dany was handed three fucking rocks.

she got her dragons through fire and blood and ritual sacrifice and by walking into a blazing funeral pyre which could have burnt her into a crisp, but didn’t because she got the secret that her family’s tried to figure out for decades to no avail but tragedy

#you know who was handed their beasts the starks were handed their direwolves #but it’s not used to devalue their achievements because it is a stupid argument

I think the reason why the dire wolves aren’t mentioned is because the achievements of the Starks aren’t completely predicated on their ownership of dire wolves. Robb could’ve won the Battle of the Whispering Wood without Grey Wind being there, but without the dragons… Dany’s entire ACoK story after she leaves the Red Waste is off the table, she can’t steal the Unsullied army (and thus, no conquering, and thus her ADWD story is off the table), and it’d be basically unreworkable in a way the Stark story without dire wolves would not be. The direwolves are important to the Starks’ stories, but dragons are indispensable to Dany’s story.

While I agree with you that the dragons are an integral part of Dany’s story, I still disagree with the claim by the anti part of the fandom that Daenerys is nothing without them.

Would her story have been different without them? Most definitely, yes. But I still think she would have been able to get herself into a position of power without them.

Back in AGOT, Dany and Viserys didn’t have dragons and yet, Viserys was able to make a loose agreement with Drogo about exchanging Daenerys’ hand in marriage for an army. Dany still had her Targaryen name and that means something to people.

She could have wed again - not another Khal, obviously, but some powerful magister or other in Essos or a lordling in Westeros…or even fAegon. There was still the pact signed by Darry in exchange for Dorne’s allegiance… Dany had options and lots of them. She just didn’t need to use them because she had the dragons.

Would Robb have been named KITN had he not been Ned Stark’s son? Or Jon? No, absolutely not. Would anyone want to wed or offer help to Sansa if her last name was not Stark? Most definitely, NO.

Also, Dany’s story isn’t just about fighting wars and taking lands, like Robb’s is. Yes, yes, his war is “noble” because he’s fighting for his country’s independence and to get revenge on the Lannisters for what they did to Ned, whatever whatever.

But Dany’s path has always been about helping others along with trying to get back home. It’s a much bigger and frankly, more important narrative. She’s not just trying to take back her family’s throne. She’s trying to save hundreds of thousands of people from slavery. It takes more than a name and some cool moves with a sword to do that.

Also, we’re still leaving out the fact that, even without the dragons, Dany is magic. Yes, in the books her “fireproofness” works in a different way… but it still works at key moments - when she was hatching the dragons AND in the fighting pit in Meereen - Dany’s hair burns off again and she burns her hands but she is otherwise unharmed by the flames. When she gets to Vaes Dothrak, I’m willing to bet the book scene will go relatively the same as it went in the show - Dany burning all the Khals and emerging from the flames unharmed with the rest of the Dothraki bowing for her - a crucial Dany moment done without a single dragon present.

And aside from the magic and the name, Dany is a fucking amazing military commander and she’s cunning. Robb won the battle at the Whispering Wood yes, but Dany took a whole fucking city with only a dozen men lost on her end. THAT’S FUCKING IMPRESSIVE. And that absolutely wouldn’t have been possible had Dany not been clever enough to come up with the plan that got Yunkai to surrender. She did that. By herself. Without her counselors and commanders helping her plan it. She’s a badass.

So this whole argument that Dany’s story would be nothing without her dragons…is still…utter bullshit. The dragons just make everything way cooler.

Without the dragons, she probably would’ve died in the Red Waste. Without those dragons, she wouldn’t have gotten into Qarth, let alone stealing an army in Astapor.  All the military skill isn’t worth a damn if you don’t have an army, which Dany got by… offering a dragon.

Yes, if she had managed to get back to Pentos… she might’ve been able to scrounge something else up. But that’s a pretty big if, and whatever it was, it definitely wouldn’t be carving out a huge kingdom for herself. It’d be as a pawn of Illyrio’s, which is specifically why she doesn’t go back as soon as the option presented itself in the first place.

@citadelofoldtown please see @winelover1989‘s comments about GRRM originally not planning to include dragons in the story at all…and back then was when he had his five key characters, of which Dany was one. He would have had a plan in place for her without the dragons.

Also, if you remember, Dany only went through the red waste because she had dragons. She wouldn’t have gone through it if she didn’t. She was afraid they would run into a people who would try to kill them for the dragons…their existence presented a threat to Dany. Without the dragons, Dany could easily have disguised herself so she wouldn’t have been such a target and to travel more easily.

Again, Dany still has her name and her own wits without the dragons. Viserys obtained an army of 40k with nothing more than the promise of Dany’s hand (he just wasn’t patient enough). Dany could have easily accomplished the same feat because Illyrio, regardless of his trustworthiness, still favored putting a Targaryen on the Iron Throne and Dany was the last of them. fAegon would have come along, she could have married him and had the allegiance of the Golden Company, which, with the 7K still torn up over the War of the Five Kings, would have been enough for her to take the throne.

Again, to reduce Dany’s accomplishments to “it’s because she has dragons” is ridiculous. No one ever reduces Robb or Jon’s accomplishments to “He’s Ned Stark’s son” or “it’s only because Jon has a Valyrian steel sword”.

I don’t understand what’s this constant need to diminish Dany’s accomplishments, it’s become almost pathological in certain sectors of the fandom. 

As others, have already mentioned, while the dragons are certainly an important part of Dany’s narrative they aren’t driving the narrative. The dragons are there, first, as a symbolic representation of Daenerys heritage and her inner-self, and second, as a tool to assist Dany, at times, to accomplish her goals.

The driving force in Dany’s story is Dany herself. Her ability to accomplish her goals using the tools she has at hand is what makes her such a successful character. I forgot who mentions it but someone notes that had Viserys had the dragon eggs, he could never have accomplished what Dany has been able to accomplish.

It is with her intelligence that she is able to decipher her prophetic dreams and create the magic necessary to hatch the dragon eggs. It is her bravery that gives her the strength to walk into the pyre. It is her fortitude that keeps her small khalasar together as they cross the Red Waste and might I remind everyone that she was only 14 years old at the time and grown men were depending on her for guidance.

It is her cunning that allows her to hatch the plan in Astapor to trick Kraznys and free the slaves of Astapor, Drogon was just a tool, she could have used another.

The dragons were not used in Yunkai and they were not used in Meereen. Here we see Dany’s military and strategic mind flourish.

It’s ridiculous to ascribe the successes Dany has accomplished merely to the fact that she has dragons.

A reminder that also; at that time the Dragons were Catsized, unable to feed themselves and bareley able to fly.

Not useful to take any city, in the purest practical sense they were rather a liability for a long time.

When she was marching to Astapor and Yunkai the dragons were indeed scary but bareley bigger than a golden retriever; again useless to a degree. The unsullied, taking Mereen, Yunkai, Astapor…it was all her, her wit, her strategy, her persuasiveness.

The Dragons didn’t become an advantage until A Dance of Dragons or season 5 of the Show, when they became large enough that she could ride them.

That time in the pit when Drogon rescued her became the first time the Dragons were useful, it was the first time the Dragons pulled her out of a situation like the antis claimed they did all the time.

The battle of mereen was the first time they prooved useful in battle.

Before they were simply too small.

The same can’t be said about the Direwolves thought.

And Drogon saving Dany in Daznak’s Pit is a show only scene. In the books, it’s Dany that saves everyone by taming Drogon.

And the thing is that everyone has some kind of advantage. Like, this argument that “Daenerys wouldn’t have gotten an army if she didn’t have a dragon to offer and therefore that makes her nothing” is a bullshit argument. Because literally every person has something that if you took away from them, they wouldn’t have what they have. Would Robb have an army if he didn’t have his family name? Would Jon be the commander of the Night’s Watch if he wasn’t Ned’s son? Would Sansa have anything if it weren’t for her beauty and Stark name? No, the Starks wouldn’t be where they are if you took those things away from them. And yet, I don’t see people calling them “nothing” without them. And why not? Because people still recognize that the Starks have their talents. But they refuse to recognize the same for Dany.

Because when you call someone “nothing”, what you actually mean is that this person has no talents, is worth nothing and that everything this person has in life is due to that one thing. This is what people are saying when they say Dany is nothing without her dragons. They mean that Dany has not merit in anything she has accomplished, that it was everything she has is solely because she has dragons.

And this is wrong. Having dragons alone isn’t what made Dany accomplish what she has now. Without Dany’s intelligence, without Dany’s brilliant battle plans, without Dany’s competent leadership, without Dany’s courage and wisdom, she wouldn’t be where she is. The dragons wouldn’t have made her accomplish anything if she didn’t have all of those other talents. Daenerys is much more than her dragons.

Also, funny how nobody talks about all the times the direwolves helped the Starks accomplish things. Bran would be dead without Summer. Jon would have been killed by the wildlings if Summer hadn’t saved his life. Jon was feared by the wildlings because of Ghost. Nymeria protected Arya from Joffrey. Grey Wind found a goat track that was responsible for one of Robb’s military victories (and that isn’t even counting the advantage that a direwolf’s protection during all of your battles gives you, and also the boost of morale that is to have such an animal at your side). The direwolves are also indispensable to the Stark’s stories. Without the direwolves, many of them would be dead. And yet, I don’t see people using this to dismiss the accomplishments of the Starks the way I see people trying to dismiss Dany’s accomplishments, even though Dany almost never uses her dragons. They didn’t help her in the Red Waste, they were only a bargaining chip in Astapor, and Dany didn’t use them at all to conquer Yunkai and Meereen. In ADWD, Dany also doesn’t use her dragons. The only time she is saved by them is in ACOK, in the House of the Undying, but Jon and Bran are also saved by their direwolves and people don’t call them “nothing” because of this.

In the end, people just want to dismiss Dany’s accomplishments, dismiss her strength and intelligence, and reduce her to just some dumb girl who got lucky to have dragons, which is completely incorrect.

Bran would probably be dead after the fall from tower , both Jon & Robb have been helped by their direwolves countless times . Literally there are only 2 Starks that accomplish things without direwolves and those are Sansa and Arya . And even Sansa had she not been a Stark she would probably end up like Jeyne Pool and Arya wouldn’t be able to escape if she wasn’t trained by Sirio ( and she only got trained by him BECAUSE she was a nobleman’s daughter and her father could afford that ) Stannis on books won at least two times without battle - and had it been a battle both of the times he probably wouldn’t have enough armies to attack king’s landing - using Melisadra’s magic but no one say’s he’s nothing without Melisadra . Obviously that doesn’t dismiss anyone’s accomplishments but that’s the thing : all characters have been helped in some way because of their name or magic ( or magic animals ) And dragons ( just like characters last names ) are a double edge sword : they do cause Danny plenty of troubles too , they aren’t some magical deus ex machina whatever fans like it or not . They had cause Daenerys as many problems as they’ve been help

#this x character would be nothing without their powers / money / status / privilege#also a lot of you cream your panties at the thought of Jon or Tyrion or anyone else getting dragons#and yet you hate Daenerys for having them#also I’ve been seen the argument#be done for male characters#like Batman or superman#but surprisingly it is made for female characters#so yeah mysogyny much ? (tags by @gothamsharls)

As at the end of ADWD, the dragons have not meant much, in military terms, in any case.

Dany defenders: point out that Dany’s story could have continued without dragons because she still had her Targaryen name and could have leveraged that to make an alliance by marriage

Dany antis: Totally forget that Robb never would have been able to get to the Battle at Whispering Wood/the rest of the war had he not made a marriage alliance with Walder Frey for passage through the Twins.

Antis like to make this whole thing about “the dragons” but the truth is, all of the characters mentioned have something of value that’s not just a plucky personality. 

And Dany wouldn’t have been “just a pawn” had she made an alliance and gained an army through marriage. After Viserys died, she was the fucking HEIR. Anyone she would have married would have been her consort. Hell, she had a betrothal all lined up with Quentyn that would have gained her the Dornish army. THAT’S power. And it’s the same kind of power all the Starks have/are capable of as well. She wouldn’t have had the same saving slaves storyline, but she would have eventually made it back to Westeros to fight for the throne. 

Which is one of the reasons why I think the dragons are in her story, because Dany was destined for more than fighting for an ugly old chair. She needed that extra bit of magic to try and rid her world of its most vile injustice. And she would have had that extra bit of magic with or without the dragons because George was originally just going to give the Targaryens some sort of firepower. Dany would have been like, a fire bender or something. But a friend of his convinced him dragons would be cooler. 

“Dragons in Asshai, dragons in Qarth, dragons in Meereen, Dothraki dragons, dragons freeing slaves…” -AFFC. The dragons have become a symbol of freedom.   

So take that antis. 

Dany's lack of a formal education and how it could have affected her in Slaver's Bay

I was having a discussion with @sharisfootly, and the topic of Dany’s education came up. We usually talk about how Dany not having a formal education impacted her rule, and how things could have gone better if she had a formal education. So the question that we asked ourselves is: how much does the lack of a formal education did impact Dany’s rule? After all, it’s not like there has ever been a successful slave revolution before from which Dany could learn from. So even if she did have a formal education, it would still not be a guarantee that things would go smoothly, because there are no examples in history that Dany could follow regarding how to end slavery.

So what could have been different? Here’s is what I think could have changed if Dany had a formal education:

1) Medieval rulers usually give or take lands from their vassals for political reasons. A vassal that betrayed his liege lord could have part of his lands and wealth taken from him as a punishment, which serves as a way to weaken them and as a warning against those who would betray their liege lord. Similarly, vassals that supported their liege lord could be granted more lands and wealth as a reward for their loyalty and services, which strengthens their loyalty to their liege lord.

So, if Dany had a formal education, this could have crossed her mind more easily. One of the things many people mention that Dany should have done in Slaver’s Bay is to take the wealth of the slave masters (to take away their economic power and leave them more powerless to resist her), take a part for herself (to pay for more sellswords and strengthen Meereenese economy), and redistribute it to the freedmen. Dany actually does some of this in the books: she takes the wealth of the families Zhak and Merreq when they decide to leave Meereen, and she takes taxes from the slaveowner families to help pay for soldiers and rebuild Meereenese economy. However, she does too little of this, and what she does is not enough to weaken her enemies as much as she needs, and to rebuild Meereen as she needs. So because she does too little, the masters still have strength to threaten Dany and force her to compromise with them.

2) Another way I think a formal education could have helped Dany is that she would have a better idea of the importance of military strength. If she had a better idea of that, she would have known that she needed to leave behind an army in Astapor and Yunkai (and remove the masters of Yunkai from power), to help protect against counterrevolution. If she had done this, then it would be less likely that the Butcher King would have overthrown her council, and less likely for the masters of Yunkai to enslave everyone again.

So a formal education might have helped Dany. However, would it have solved all of her problems? I also don’t think so:

As we can see, while there are things in which a formal education could have helped Dany, it doesn’t fix all problems. Because ending slavery is still a very complex and difficult thing with no perfect solution, and also because, as already mentioned at the beginning of this post, there are no successful historical examples from which Dany could base herself on.

Besides, I would also like to point out two things:

To conclude: the fact that Dany did all she did and had the ideas that she had despite her lack of education is really impressive. And even if she did have a formal education, this would not fix all of her problems.

“My own heroes are the dreamers, those men and women who tried to make the world a better place than when they found it, whether in small ways or great ones. Some succeeded, some failed, most had mixed results… but it is the effort that’s heroic, as I see it. Win or lose, I admire those who fight the good fight.”

— George R.R. Martin

#too many people in this fandom believe that heroes can only be perfect flawless angels #who never make any mistakes #but that line of thinking doesn’t align at all with the kind of story grrm is trying to tell #according to the author himself being a hero is not determined by whether you succeed or fail in your attempts #being a hero is about being willing to fight for what’s right #failure and success are irrelevant  (via @viisenya)

“On the ADWD cover for Brazil, I put Daenerys at the top of the stairs of the meereenese pyramid. I had undoubtedly been, unconsciously, influenced by the series. And George told me that Daenerys wants equality for everyone, she wants to be at the same level as her people, so I had her climb down to keep it consistent” - Marc Simonetti

Here you can see the original one and other asoiaf art he drew

“George told me that Daenerys wants equality for everyone, she wants to be at the same level as her people.”

Louder please for the idiot antis in the back!!!!

Such a villain.

Just to clarify:

And there is a reason why this is important, because the thrones and what they symbolize is a running theme with Dany in the books. Even when it “does not befit a queen”, Dany prefers a simple bench over an fantastic throne. She doesn’t act based on what is proper and improper according to society; rather she strives for equality and simplicity. She genuinely wants equality or everyone, even when it reduces her own grandeur. Even when others think that as a queen, she should place herself above her subjects, she does NOT.

There is a reason why her thrones are brought up repeatedly in the books:

Can I also add that it’s interesting to note the size of her profile has also reduced with GRRM’s input. Previously, she appears as a large yet distant imposing figure from high on above. And with the revision, she’s brought closer to the ground and appears smaller in stature, more human and therefore more approachable.

Also people in the ASOIAF fandom don’t genuinely hate the system of monarchy and succession based on primogeniture OR claiming a throne through right by conquest. 

You guys only hate on the monarchic aspect of the systems in twoiaf when you’re hating on Dany, because in your eyes, Dany is the only one in the wrong for being a monarch and for having a claim to a throne, lol. 

Otherwise, you’d be hating every single monarch and monarchic claimaint in this series as well, and you’d hate the princes and princesses and nobles and lord/lady paramounts too. 

But you don’t, in fact you romanticize quite a few of them or their reigns or their houses. Yes, Daenerys is a monarch, which means she’s part of the feudalist system, but the OVERWHELMING majority of the characters in the series who play a role in its plot are privileged under the system or even outright monarchs themselves. Holding that against Dany and only Dany is fucking ridiculous.

Not to mention that any time someone points out that Dany is actively changing oppressive systems, people say “BUT SHE’S A MONARCH!!11″ okay, and? Robb Stark was also fighting to change things by actively going against Lannister supremacy. And yet he is still a monarch. Stannis Baratheon goes through character development in ASOS… and he is still a monarch! Jon Snow is the Lord Commander of the Night’s Watch and he will most likely be King in the North in TWOW/ADOS! So still a monarch! Even characters like Brienne or Arya or Arianne or Asha or Sansa are all either princesses or highborn ladies! 

If you’re going to hate Dany for wanting to change things while still being a feudalist ruler, you better be hating the other characters as well. Oh wait, you don’t do that, because it’s fucking ridiculous to uniquely hate one character for being a feudalist ruler while accepting all of the other characters with their high birth statuses and feudalist claims to ruling. 

I mean battles and wars interest me too - and medieval feasts interest me. And you know I’m creating a whole world here and every facet of it. As I get to it I try to approach it as realistically as I can, but ultimately as I said before, it’s it’s the human heart in conflict with itself. It’s what makes Cersei Lannister the way she is, and is she capable of learning and changing? What drives Dany? With Dany I’m particularly looking at the… what effect great power has upon a person. She’s the mother of dragons, and she controls what is in effect the only three nuclear weapons in the entire world that I’ve created. What does it do to you when you control the only three nuclear weapons in the world and you can destroy entire cities or cultures if you choose to? Should you choose to, should you not choose to? These are the issues that fascinate me. I don’t necessarily claim to have answers to these. I think exploring the questions is far more interesting than just me giving an answer and saying to the reader, here’s the answer, here’s the truth. Now think about it for yourself, look at the dilemmas, look at the contradictions, look at the problems, and the unintended consequences. That’s what fascinates me.

- George R.R. Martin on Cersei, Daenerys and the human heart in conflict with itself

The things going on north of the Wall and the Targaryen on the other continent with her dragons are of course the ice and fire of the title, “A Song of Ice and Fire.” […] One of the dynamics I started with was the sense of people being so consumed by their petty struggles for power within the seven kingdoms, within King’s Landing […] that they’re blind to the much greater and more dangerous threats that are happening far away on the periphery of their kingdoms. —George R. R. Martin

Someone help me because I saw this on bruce-wayne’s post and I don’t want to freak out. But Martin acknowledges that Dany and her dragons are part of the song of ice and fire been knew but k but then goes on to say “that they’re blind to the much greater and more dangerous threats that are happening far away on the periphery of their kingdoms.” Wtf is he calling her a threat? That she’s dangerous? Like I want to believe that he’s referring to slavers being the threat or something but he deliberately name drops Dany! Please tell me I’m missing something?!

From the original outline:

From GRRM’s interview with Al Jazeera:

Pay attention to the context. GRRM is talking about threats in a general sense. The Starks and the Lannisters are also mentioned as threats, because their war also causes problems and is a threat to the peace. Daenerys is a threat in the same way: she is bringing more war, which is also a threat to the Seven Kingdoms. That doesn’t mean Daenerys is a villain. She is a threat in the same way everyone who is waging war (including the Starks) is a threat.

Not only that, but in the second interview, in which GRRM mentions only the Others and Dany, again, pay attention to the context. GRRM is not saying “these are the main villains of my story”, he is saying that one of the themes of his books is that “people are so consumed by their petty struggles for power within the seven kingdoms that they’re blind to the much greater and more dangerous threats that are happening far away on the periphery of their kingdoms”. Who are these people who are fighting for power and ignoring the threats to their kingdoms that GRRM is talking about? The lords of Westeros. He is talking from the perspective of the lords of Westeros, and from their perspective, Dany is a threat. The Others are an important threat obviously because they’re coming to destroy all life. And from the perspective of the lords of Westeros, Dany is also an important threat, because she is coming to take their power/conquer their kingdom. Their infighting means that they are neglecting to prepare for what’s really important, that they are not paying attention to Dany and won’t be united to face Dany. THIS is what GRRM is saying. That from the perspective of the lords of Westeros, Dany is a threat that they are neglecting to prepare for and neglecting to unite against (and she is a dangerous threat because she is very powerful, so it won’t be easy to fight against her), just like they are neglecting to prepare for and unite against the Others. He is not saying “Daenerys and the Others are the same”, he is not saying “Dany and the Others are the two villains”, he is talking about how the petty power disputes of lords of Westeros makes them not pay attention to either Dany or the Others. But that doesn’t mean Dany is a villain, it means Dany is a threat, and being a threat to the lords of Westeros doesn’t necessarily mean that person is the villain.

Words shouldn’t be isolated from their contexts. Describing Dany as a “threat” doesn’t automatically mean “evil” or “villain”. The word “threat” is not a synonym for “evil” or “villain”. Robb start was a threat to Joffrey and the Lannisters, but does that mean that Robb Stark was a villain, just because I used the word “threat” to describe him? Obviously not. If I said that “Tywin underestimated the threat that Robb Stark posed”, does this mean I am saying that Robb was a villain? No. Everything has to be taken in context.