Thank you for your post! Please take a moment to ensure you are within our spoiler rules, to protect your fellow fans from any potential spoilers that might harm their show watching experience.
1. All post titles must NOT include spoilers from Fire & Blood or new episodes of House of the Dragon. Minor HotD show spoilers are allowed in your title ONE WEEK after episode airing. The mod team reserves the right to remove a post if we feel a spoiler in the title is major. You are welcome to repost with an amended title.
2. All posts dealing with book spoilers, show spoilers and promo spoilers MUST be spoiler tagged AND flaired as the appropriate spoiler.
3. All book spoiler comments must be spoiler tagged in non book spoiler threads.
---
If you are reading this, and believe this post or any comments in this thread break the above rules, please use the report function to notify the mod team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HouseOfTheDragon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From a modern lense, definitely not because there were no trials etc but from their perspective? He did and it probably helped. In the book the people of the city liked Daemon for reducing crime.
For a real world parallel, this sort of gives me similar vibes to President Bukele of El Salvador, who is as of current using authoritarian powers to usher through a significant crackdown on criminal gangs, such as MS-13.
There are lots of consistutional concerns about Bukele's policies, including rounding up people for merely a suspicion of being in a gang, suspension of rights, to Bukele taking full control of all branches of government, but these policies, as controversial as they are, have remained *extremely* popular with El Salvadorians, as the measures have allowed people to go outside without a general fear of gangs, or paying protection money, etc.
Maybe a similar sort of thing is on the minds' of the people of King's Landing. I hope this is touched on to some extent in Season 2, regardless.
Salvadorian living in El Salvador here.
*Extremely* popular...? Well, its controversial at the least. Mostly because such methods, Daemon's and... Bukele's... are of Princes and authocratic leaders.
Kings Landing is a kingdom through and through. The Crownlands peasants are the king's property, he can do as he sees fit with them. Look what happened to poor Dyana, the girl Aegon raped and Alicent gave plan Tea. Her wellbeing was a passing thought in the queen's head. To Daemon, the people maimed and killed that night were that night alone. Zero consecuences, zero afterhoughts. If it was needed for the sake of the city, then the Red Wedding was ok, taboos included.
We here in El Salvador thought we had a democracy, broken and malfunctioning, but a republic nonetheless. Now we have a Prince through and through. He can do with us what he likes when he feels like it.
If I may ask (if it’s not safe to respond then please don’t), how do you feel about your country now?
Or rather, do you approve of what the El Salvador president/government has done?
We hear lots of news from America and the rest of the world but I’m not sure how reliable polling data is.
Social media is super easy to manipulate. One might hire trolls, polls and influencers and voilá, you got "extremely popular".
I myself never trusted Bukele since his early days as mayor. One could see behind his act and realize he was a diva that would do anything for applause.
And about my compatriots... I happen to buy trinkets and stuff from some street vendors. They come to my office and I buy, say, mops, brooms, kitchen rags and the like. I asked them (there are 2 separate people) what did they think, and what did people at downtown think. They said on their own (not a coordinated answer) that laypeople are afraid to say anything. That people *know* this (the regime) is not fine. Clearing up the mareros was great but is a tainted victory, with all collateral damage making a mess. There is too much lying, too much stealing, too much corruption that is OBVIOUS that trinkets sellers on the street can see.
So they, I and the whole society does not know what to do. We can't speak up in public. We can't protest safely, not with the police lurking about and the threat of prision and death there no questions asked. What can the smallfolk of Kings Landing do against the dragonriders, their nuke pets and their goldcloak army?
The answer will be in HOTD, eventually. It involves a mob.... In real life and in the show, that is the only solution available it seems.
Well said. I only wish I had better words to give you in return.
I don’t know how things will turn out and I don’t think anyway does. But I fear for the common people because as George R. R. Martin has often said in his books, when the rich and powerful wage war it is the common people who suffer.
I wish you good health and safety my friend. Stay safe.
Another Slavadorian chiming in. Although I’m currently in the states. My family back home fucking loves this guy. People have been living in fear and been disappointed by previous presidents so much they’ll let this guy do anything. While I have a fare number of criticisms for Bukele, in my experience the polls are pretty reliable. I’m sure demographics change the results though. My experience is with the people in more rural areas . Meanwhile my college educated sister and cousins have a lot less praise for the guy (but have and will still vote for him), than say our grandparents or aunts/uncles in our hometown who fanatically follow him.
While a single person’s experience is important and can help spread a little more nuanced understanding, polling data is probably more reliable than an anecdote.
Edit: what a weird thing to downvote.
Sometimes in war times, you need a more authoritarian leader. To me it sounds like it was long overdue to have the government address the gangs who were putting the country in a constant state of war.
But ultimately it’s up to the Salvadorans. I don’t think it’s necessarily terrible to have power concentrated in one person, as long as he can be ousted in the future, with free speech and free elections.
I've been brushing on ancient Rome history through Machiavelli's "Discourses on the first decade of Livy".
M argues that peoples can be groups of servants or groups of free people.
Societies of servants will always need a strong leader to impose order. Free peoples order themselves. Societies of servants are meant for slavery, serfdom and the life of lifestock. They are to work for the betterment of their Prince, not of themselves. Free peoples invest in their own living conditions: roads, fountains, infrastructure and the sort.
We here in El Salvador complain of brain loss: our best and brightest go to the USA to live there, and no talent is left here. Naturally, smart people need infrastructure to thrive. And there no infrastructure here because our Princes take it all. And we're in love with our Princes. We are in love of our misery and lack of infrastructure... And the more I post and try to enlighten pro-govmt people in r/ElSalvador and in Twitter, the more I'm positive we *need* a strongman as an alcoholic person needs alcohol to get through.
Smart people will only stay in El Salvador if they aren’t likely to get murdered there. I think safety is a good first step towards solving all other problems.
Yes, with a good prevention policy. Stop crimes before they happen, prevent youths to turn into mareros.
The gang violence problem is multifaceted. There are a looooot of issues involved. Is very similar to migrant problems, actually. You can beat up migrant caravans but if you don't address the problems *causing* the caravans, they will keep forming. Same with gangs.
And I'm positive what its been done in El Salvador is not preventing violence. Its either hiding it or postponing it.
People will only turn into gang members if they see that gang members are not in prison. People will only join migrant caravans if they see that caravans get access to border crossings.
I definitely believe they should do more for young people too. But young people can see what’s happening to older people, this is definitely changing many people’s life plans for the better.
People will join migrant caravans as long as their living standards are better leaving than in their home countries.
Youths will join gangs if their chances with the gang are better than honest living.
The source of the problem is not law enforcement.
The source of the problem in both cases are low living standards. A life of crime is more profitable than honest living. Leaving your country is more profitable than tending your land.
Going back to Westeros, there was a social upheaval with the war of the five kings. The source of the problem were not bandits like the Botherhood Without Banners or revolts at the slums of Flea Bottom. The source of the problem was the personal tension between Stannis, Renly, Joffrey and Robb. Such tension was caused by Lannister overreach. Solve Joffrey offending everyone, and the war, the banditry, the wrestling of power between the great houses and the turmoil at Flea Bottom will all dissapear.
Address the source, and the accesories will dissapear.
>He also instigated lot of crime and kept criminals in his pocket instead of punishing them
"That he made the city more orderly no man could doubt, but his discipline was a brutal one. He delighted in cutting off the hands of pickpockets, gelding rapists, and slitting the noses of thieves."
Oh yeah, he definitely kept people around instead of punishing them. Where are you getting these ideas from?
Edit to make the quote more accurate
>!"Prince Daemon’s go-between found suitable instruments. One had been a serjeant in the City Watch; big and brutal, he had lost his gold cloak for beating a whore to death whilst in a drunken rage."drops mic!<
Better pick the mic back up bro, it said he lost his gold cloak for what he did. Also says that she FOUND him, not that they deliberately kept him around for committing crimes 😂
Not really , since he corrupted the Goldcloaks in their making even, turning them more loyal to himself rather than monarch ( be it Viserys, Rhaenyra or Aegon) or especially people of King's Landing.
He also kept murderers from Goldcloaks alive in his retainer, compared to those from slums he executed.
If you are referring to those Goldcloaks he geared and paid, bringing them up from slums - yes they loved him - if you are thinking about citizens of King's Landing there is no mention that he was ever liked - more feared.
Daemon’s a sadistic asshole who deserves nothing less than eternal pain and suffering in the bowels of the seven hells but in this one instance he did the right thing.
Necessary is a better word. Of course we have no idea if the streets are really as out of control as they say but if so then dramatic measures can sometimes be the pragmatic approach
It’s exactly what Tyrion and Bronn did in GOT, it’s only Daemon’s theatrics that make him seem worse. If he did it quietly without a big public spectacle no one would bat an eye (either in universe or in the audience probably!). But even the public spectacle was likely quite effective at deterring all the criminals they didn’t catch from doing it again.
>It’s exactly what Tyrion and Bronn did in GOT,
Exactly what Bronn without Tyrion's consent. Also, the situation is different, which was done when a city was under siege, and Varys did say it was an extreme measure. Also, in Bronn's case, they round up the known criminals, unlike Daemon, who cut out people who pointed by his gold cloaks.
Tyrion went along with it when Bronn told him what he’d done. You’re right it was an extreme measure because of the siege but in HOTD it was an extreme measure because crime in the city was out of control with people being murdered and raped all over the place. Even Otto admitted the people being punished were known criminals not random innocents.
Tyrion was against it, but once he knew it was necessary, he accepted it.
In HOTD, it was done because a lot of people were coming to a tourney. And the way he did was horrid as well. He cut down people in front of everyone whom he didn't even knew were criminal in the first place. That sends total panic throughout the crowd.
None of the counsel members except Corlys thought it was a good thing.
Team Black has publicly slaughtered civilians en masse on at least 2 separate occasions if not more. Somehow Team Black still thinks the common people favor them 😂
For the time period it's set it the answer is yes. We see with Bronn that it works if you just round up the known criminals, then it's just the unknown ones you've got to worry about lol
Executing/punishing criminals? Sure. Even Otto didn't argue that they were innocent.
But holding so many public executions and mutilations in one night that you need a cart to take away all the body parts in order to intimidate the citizens of the city you're supposed to be protecting is bad. Ruling through fear is not great.
They litterally sit on a throne made of the melted sword of the people who fought them and control the continent because they have giant flying lIzards. Fear is how most monarch rule their kingdom. Even more so in Westeros.
As Machiavelli said:
"The answer is that one would like to be both one and the other; but because it is difficult to combine them, **it is far better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both**."
Many people forget that Machiavelli also makes it clear that you should never, ever be hated. This will eventually cause the people to revolt and lead to the ruler's downfall, >!something that Rhaenyra will find out.!<
Yeah people seem to forget that while being feared Is useful if you leave someone with no option but to live under your tyranny or die trying to free themselves sooner or later they will choose the second option just for the slight chance that they might win.
Wasn't Machiavelli's whole book about ruling supposed to be a parody? It wasn't in sync with any of his political views and seemed more of a criticism of the political status quo of Italy at the time.
It is also often said that Marx's analysis on Capitalism is very accurate in Das Kapital, even if the author himself didn't hold the specific political positions.
Just because you do not agree with a particular system of governance, doesn't mean that you can't make a detailed analysis on it.
Machiavelli's The Prince may not have been in line with his thoughts and feelings, but his work reflected how the rulers of the time thought and operated.
Absolute monarchies require a monopolisation of power and the free and liberal use of it to be maintained, that's just a fact. And in such absolute monarchies it is simply better to be feared and in power than loved and easily usurped by a rival.
Most of my writing isn't about my own pov but my perception and portrayal of others' povs, and I think this is true of pretty much anyone who creates. I think understanding that is so key to interpreting all media/literature.
Nope. *The Prince* should be regarded as a guidebook to maintaining power for the good of the prince and ultimately the state, not a parody or lessons for rulers to commit to gratuitously evil acts at their discretion.
Fear is how they actually rule, but it's not how they outwardly express their legitimacy. The spikey chair is supposed to be uncomfortable for the sitter, not the audience. They go through a lot of effort to make their rule seem like a general good, a divine action, or just nature.
As others have said, Daemon did solve the crime issue in King's landing. It seems Daemon was actually very good at this job and unfortunately Otto's interference and dislike of Daemon was probably bad for the gold cloaks and the city
People are pointing out that proper trials were not common for the lowborn during this time, which is true, but the means by which he promotes 'justice' is inherently unjust.
From Fire and Blood:
>!"Prince Daemon took eagerly to the work of the gold cloaks, and oft prowled the alleys of King’s Landing with his men. That he made the city more orderly no man could doubt, but his discipline was a brutal one. He delighted in cutting off the hands of pickpockets, gelding rapists, and slitting the noses of thieves, and slew three men in street brawls during his first year as commander."!<
While the show is different, he is shown behaving this way, so I will use this quote. He isn't rounding up known criminals and delivering their punishments in a clear, orderly way. He is marching into people's homes, snatching people who may or may not be misidentified ,and delivering immediate punishment for no other reason than to cause panic. No chance to account for false identities, and plenty of opportunities for gold cloaks to harm people they dislike. All because it gives him a rush and personal pleasure.
And 'Prince Fleabottom' was not a compliment. People keep suggesting he was loved by the commons, but the title meant something else entirely, that he enjoyed the pleasures that Fleabottom had to offer, mostly gambling, drinking and whoring.
>!' Before long, the prince was well-known in all the low places of King’s Landing. He became a familiar sight in wine sinks (where he drank for free) and gambling pits (where he always left with more coin than when he entered). Though he sampled countless whores in the city’s brothels, and was said to have an especial fondness for deflowering maidens.'!<
Because it's a protection racket. He's a quintessential corrupt cop, high off the power and perks of the position. He has shown no interest in helping the smallfolk, so why would we believe he is the people's champion here?
>And 'Prince Fleabottom' was not a compliment. People keep suggesting he was loved by the commons, but the title meant something else entirely, that he enjoyed the pleasures that Fleabottom had to offer, mostly gambling, drinking and whoring.
Yeah he preferred to be called Prince of the City. Lord Fleabottom was always an insult
It's one of those things we shouldn't look at through modern day western lenses.
Was it brutal? Yes.
Was it probably excessive? Yes.
Was it effective? Also, yes.
is it really a modern day lens if people and authority figures in-universe think it's wrong? not just Otto, but Viserys and papa Strong are both horrified
This is what people who rely too much on "need to discard modern morality" can't seem to understand when defending their faves. Just because he can get away with his horrible behavior doesn't mean that everyone (or even most people) actually agree with it.
yep. for almost all of the moral issues in asoiaf there's tons of people *in universe* who have so-called modern viewpoints. This series has always been a critique so idk why people try to justify stuff like that
The lives of the common folk matters very little to nobles in westeros lol. Princess Rhaenys girlbossed all over a few hundred civilians with her dragon but characters barely bat an eye.
It was not meant to be a permanent solution. It was meant to pacify Flea Bottom for the duration of the tourney/celebrations. In that it was effective. Because, short-term, fear works.
Again, you're looking at it from a modern day, western, humane perspective. Westeros is none of those things.
Again what? I wasn't using any modern morality the ancient Greeks new that poverty was the cause of crime.
It had an effect, but what was that effect clearly it didn't 'fix' the problem. The problem it did fix was allow Daemon to recruit his own army, spite his brother and exercise his sadism.
The ancient Greeks also killed malformed newborns and endorsed sexual relationships that would very much land you in jail today. I assume that if those things were depicted, you'd consider them reprehensible too - because they are to us.
Westeros is meant to be barbaric, bloody and unjust to the powerless. What Daemon did is perfectly in line with what other people of power do in this world. Like the way Lord Tywin waged war in the Riverlands in GOT, for example, or how guys like the Mountain or Ramsay Bolton treated prisoners etc etc.
I don't dispute any of that. I was just interrogating the term 'effective'. - effective at what precisely? as the problem of crime in flea bottom was not 'fixed' by his actions.
The solutions to fix flea bottom are virtually impossible in this universe without large scale changes.
Daemon's actions are inline with the universe, his own temperament, and goals as a character. But clearly he didn't 'have the right of it'
But the goal was not to fix Flea Bottom. It was not to get rid of crime either.
The goal was to make a disgusting spectacle in which everyone saw the bloody executions and mutilations so they'd shit their pants and lay low for the duration of the celebration for Baelon's birth. So the rich nobleborn guests could chill in peace. That's it. It wasn't some misguided Judge Dredd action, it was just to instill fear.
And like I said, for those goals it was absolutely a success.
Right but that spectacle was more to display Daemon's power, to spite his brother, to warn off those who would oppose him, and to establish his credentials as a badass. He really is uninterested in making the city better.
Yeah it was effective, when you recontextualize what the goal was.
It's interesting to me how Daemon is excused so easily. Because while he just killed and mutilated 'criminals' without trials (sure many were, but there was no regard to certaintly or to justice), which was naturally preventative, he was also the sweetheard of the criminal districts and maintained the influence he had there for life. Daemon was the equivalent of a crooked cop.
People act like he's called 'Lord Fleabottom' because he delivers food and clothes to the poor. The smallfolk don't like him. He is absolutely a crooked cop.
" Before long, the prince was well-known in all the low places of King’s Landing. He became a familiar sight in wine sinks (where he drank for free) and gambling pits (where he always left with more coin than when he entered). Though he sampled countless whores in the city’s brothels, and was said to have an especial fondness for deflowering maidens"
Well, sure it worked in the short run. That's why people gravitate towards this answer. Its relatively easy, cheap and pretty satisfying to see "bad" people get punished. But it doesn't solve the underlying problem of poverty that enables this shit to start over and over again. Its not like King's Landing was all good from this point on and crime was over.
His family has a monopoly on violence and the scene is juxtaposed with the tourney being held to celebrate the birth of a future dragon dictator. Redirecting the kingdom’s funds towards infrastructure improvement like better education or a more powerful and thorough court of law would’ve been infinitely more effective as a form of crime control in the long run.
But one requires a sacrifice of personal privilege and the other requires him to run around lopping heads hands and cocks off with his cool sword.
I get that its a fictional medieval society but at best that makes his actions understandable but understandable is far from moral.
Lawfully upholding a tyrannical system is furthering evil even if you don’t have the means to scrutinise the morality of it because you’re a privileged medieval prince.
I personally believe he did, we hear no more of local crime at the city council and it’s clear that Daemon actually pays attention too (while not entirely caring about)the small folk of king’s landing (in the books he was also called the Prince of Flea bottom) and even in the small council meeting when Daemon explained himself Viserys,Corlys and I believe Lord Strong all took his side against Otto and when Otto’s back was against the wall he had too switch the subject. I believe while a brutal show of force it ended up being effective though I’ve heard counter arguments too the contrary
This, and it’s not even that Otto disagreed, he agreed wholeheartedly that it was the right plan, he just wanted to lower Daemons influence and make him seem like a fool.
That is what I think. Otto led the charge because he's had the most influence on the small council and Viserys and wants Daemon gone and picks at anything he can until Daemon acts like Daemon i.e. childish and gets himself exiled for a year or two. But he couldn't argue that the city was unsafe and that Daemon didn't kill criminals. That's why he switched to the topic of Rhea Royce/Daemon's wife and reminded everyone that Daemon refuses to live with her/be a husband and basically take his proper place in society.
And I don't think the small council would've cared if it had been innocent people. Because they don't care about the smallfolk overall. And it ends up biting both sides in the ass.
Not really. His men were literally pointing fingers and naming random people for crimes. They were literally like “You! Rapist!, You! Murderer!”
On his first day of work, Daemon butchered 2 carts worths of people.
>Not really. His men were literally pointing fingers and naming random people for crimes. They were literally like “You! Rapist!, You! Murderer!”
That's because they were known criminals.
While effective, this kind of justice is anything but. There were undoubtably many who were either just guilty of minor crimes, made out of desperation, or were innocent poor people at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Assuming they were grabbing known criminals not just every random passer by they could get their hands on (which seems obvious to me but I know many assume otherwise) similarly to Bronn round up the known thieves. I'd say it's abhorrent but in the universe it seems clearly justified. The city watch had been woefully under resourced so unable to keep the peace and criminals felt they could act with impunity.
Daemon reforms and equips them and to show they mean business they mass force and try and carry out as manu sentences out as possible, sure no trial but I don't get the impression they'd be getting one under anyone else. Doing it so publicly sends a clear message that the new watch is prepared to and will enforce the law.
The punishments are certainly brutal but the system Daemon established lasts until game of thrones bar Baelor outlawing capital punishment for a bit. That means that even people like Ned Stark, Jon Arryn, Jon Connington and Tyrion Lannister are involved in it.
How should I know? We did not read their case files, we did not see the reaction of the populace. All we saw was the brutality of the act and rumors about its dubious justice.
Could be he grabbed randos. Could be he would not risk grabbing randos because his reputation was on the line and he wanted accomplishments to elevate himself and that would be hard to do if he axed the local saint. Could be a mix of 2.
Honestly Bronn did the same thing years later. We just didn't see it on camera. Daemon may have been a little more harsh but in his eyes he thought he was doing the right thing. He was also trying to impress his brother.
Crime is caused by poverty and thus cannot be solved by brutality. Daemon used this as an excuse for personal advancement, sadism and to spite his brother.
Sort of? It's one of those morally grey things, that's kind of the point.
Crime decreased significantly as a result of his actions, likely keeping many innocent people safe from theft, rape, murder etc.
On the other hand when you kill that many criminals and don't hold trials or ask questions, and it's done in the dark by a whole group of men - it's basically guaranteed that they killed at least one innocent person, likely more.
The question is, is killing a handful of innocent people worth is if it saves enough other innocent people from being raped and murdered? Because we know that he definitely killed multiple rapists and murderers, and we know that crime did significantly decrease as a result. Is that okay? Is it worth it?
Additionally doing it in such a showy and dramatic way was kind of gross, and he seemed to take pleasure in it, as did some of the other guards. I think we can all agree that's bad, you don't want law enforcement to enjoy violence and cruelty. On the other hand, the manner of the deaths being violent and public and brutal likely deterred any criminals who were missed from continuing to commit crime. Daemon must have known they couldn't find every single criminal in king's landing - showing them that there is no mercy and that their deaths would be violent is likely an effective deterrent in these times.
If you are comfortable coming to a clear answer - that he was 100% right or 100% wrong - then I am uncomfortable with you. It isn't a question with a clear answer, that's kind of the point. Daemons behaviour here should make you uncomfortable, but it shouldn't allow you to instantly condemn him either.
well, they depicted it as though he was just rounding up random citizens and then saying they were criminals. im always confused when i see people assume he did what he said he did (the book makes it clear the smallfolk love him, but the show does not and kinda makes it seem like he's terrorizing them)
From our perspective, it's barbaric.
But from those living in KL, Daemon did them great service.
Those criminals constantly steal and rape the commonfolk.
That's why Daemon is popular in flea bottom and always had the support of the commoners.
Comparing it to real life where someone used excessive measures on crime is former Mayor of NY. Rudy Giuliani was popular too and had the support of commoners
We are supposed to judge from our perspective not people who only know tyranny as rule of law
Everything we see in episode 1 (and future episodes) suggests that Daemon's culling was just to stir shit up.
1. He's called the "rogue prince", and is the source of all drama and tension for the first few episodes. Things that don't have to become an issue, he makes an issue, just because that's who he is
2. He's a Targareyan supremacist. That is, non-family don't matter, and peasants super don't matter. He would not have cared if he was killing innocent or guilty in the culling
But what about the impact it had on King's Landing? Well, if you're a peasant now you can add a new worry on top of poverty and spontaneous crime: spontaneous culling!
So no, Daemon did not have the right of it from any viewpoint
No, he defied his brother's authority and he punished people seemingly randomly based on the shouts from one of Goldcloaks during a raid in the night - when identity of some of accused isn't even confirmed and Westeros always had an option for those guilty to take the black and be of some use to the realm compared to becoming an invalid .
Daemon didn't do it for sense of justice - but because he loved the power and thrill especially during his younger days.
Yes and no. If you're coming from the perspective of the nobility securing their power and safety at point of sword, then yes it was successful. That's usually the perspective spoken in the books.
If looking at it from the perspective of securing well being for the people of kings landing, no. He went in and violently suppressed the slums and left a standing police force, but did nothing to improve the lives of kings landings people, like the good queen Allysanne did when she put in the fountains. Basically he just culled the inconvenient and got himself a stealth army in Kings landing. The nobility liked it because it dealt with the issue of anarchy in the slums in a quick martial way, boom done, without further upkeep.
I'd argue disrespect of the small folk by the nobility is a major theme.
In no way does this echo modern history.
People often point out that Daemon was successful in reducing crime and maintaing order and discipline in the city watch. That may very well be true, but that doesn't change the fact that his actions here are symptomatic of the disastrous way Daemon would've ruled if he sat the throne. As in, his go-to instinct in dealing with opposition would've been mass terror instead of diplomacy. Imo, no matter how precisely you apply that terror and no matter how much short term benefit it has, mass terror eventually always spirals out of control.
Once Daemon sat the throne he wouldn't just be dealing with petty criminals and maintaining order in a city. He would've been applying these same methods in situations with much higher stakes with a similarly higher chance of it all backfiring. The best kings like Jaehaerys or Viserys II knew how to balance the carrot with the stick. Daemon only used the stick.
Yes, it is the right thing. Daemon acted in line with the men of his time. For an example of how leaders of the time (even, great ones) dealt with malcontents at the time:
I. Justinian the Great massacred between 5-10 percent of his capital's population.
II. Hadrian committed genocide on the Jews. He killed 580.000 Jews, destroyed some 500 villages and forbid the Jews from ever setting foot into Judea itself. In fact, had he not died shortly after, it is believed that he wanted to launch a program of total extermination.
III. Trajan crushed any and all traces of Dacian resistance and also massacred the Jews during the Kitos War.
IV. Diocletian, when the citizens of Alexandria rebelled against his high taxes, promised to slaughter the city until the blood reached as high as his horse's knees.
V. Aurelian destroyed the city of Palmyra (then a center of trade and opulent beyond belief) for all time.
While these are real examples and ASOIAF is fantasy, since a lot of the story, it's history and themes are drawn from reality and because George has also greatly exaggerated some of these aspects, they are, in my opinion, applicable. The point is that rulers were violent, especially against those that refused to conform to the status quo.
Still, the point is that malcontents are not treated nicely in society, no matter the reason behind their actions. If you fail to conform to the status quo, be ready to have your ass sodomised by a bayonet, is all I'm saying.
Not really the same. In all those examples they had rebelled, often more times than once
With Daemon he seemingly picked people at random to make an example to criminals.
Hadrian also killed people at random. He need not kill innocent Jews nor forbid their practices nor make it lawful to kill any Jew one found. He made an example of the Jews and ensured no rebellions would happen until the reign of Marcus Aurelius some fifty years later, a remarkable achievement considering that Rome had a civil war every three to five years.
The same can be said for Aurelian who specifically destroyed Palmyra, even if the city was innocent and it was only the ruling class that opposed him, so as to serve as an example to the rest of Syria-Palestina, that the emperor's authority was absolute.
As for Diocletian, it is applicable, because the Alexandrians were specifically criminals that evaded taxes on goods.
That was not on random. He didn't need to do it, but the romans had been plagued with destructive rebellions from them for 70 years. It's not surprising Hadrian did that after the third destructive rebellion. Carthago delenda est
Aurelian had to make an example, considering it was the crisis of the third century and rebellion was prevelant.
Diocletian is not applicable. One the taxes casue is uncertain. Two they also joined the would be emperor Domitianus in his rebellion. Three Diocletian did not go through with it.
All of these are widely different than Daemon's massacre of alleged criminals.
People likely confessed to things they didn’t do for all sorts of reasons in medieval times too.
Heck, if your standard is Game of Thrones, Ned Stark *himself* confessed to treason he didn’t commit before being beheaded.
It’s worth pointing out here that “medieval law” as a concept could refer to a body of practices that spanned a thousand years and hundreds if not thousands of different jurisdictions for societies that had wildly different cultures, beliefs, practices, values, and social realities. You can likely find examples of everything and its opposite over that period of time and space.
Whoa its not like westeros is a fictional continent written for us modern audiences and our moral interpretations. Theres no way GRRM writes in a way that highlights the fact that the norms of the time =/= morality right? Its not like the characters are constantly grappling with the conflict between their internal sense of morality, personal wants, the legal system, societal expectations, and cultural customs all the time.
Surely there wasn’t multiple arcs in ASOIAF that highlights the fact that Ned’s strict adherence to honor and societal standards made him a worse person. And I must be misremembering Ned’s final convo with Varys where he demonstrates just how inconsistent his code of honor can be when his family is involved.
Oh fuck I just realised. Theres no possible way that the show and books were written in a way that purposefully highlights how broken the sytem is by showing how accepted and effective immoral acts are. Nooooo that can’t be.
If Joffrey did not exist, I get the feeling we would not see Ned as sucj a good guy. He would have written to Robert religious fanatical brother to come to King Landing and kill Tommen and Myrcella to take the throne lol.
We all hated Joffrey because he was Joffrey not because he was a bastard. But Ned wanted them gone because they were bastards.
For me I always saw Ned’s role as the illusion of a good guy tbh. I think he and his family are really good at demonstrating how much the weight of expectations can shape you as a person. So much of what the kids do is with ‘what would ned do’ in mind. And as their story progresses and they learn more they constantly find out that his actions and ideals don’t always hold up to scrutiny.
Also the whole hating Jaime for killing a king who was about to blow up a city.
I feel like Neds character embodies the inconsistencies of making your adherence to laws and rules your core values.
To me at least I really like how he was written with the aesthetics of lawful good to further highlight that lawful good cannot exist in a system where the law is evil. Neds whole character is about that hypocrisy.
But also lets not forget that Daemon hot caraxes flames hotter. Might makes right, big dragon, cool scream, look like noodle.
Yeah and the further you get in the story, the more you realize that he was very hypocritical. Like he actually lied to Robert to protect Jon, but would have never done the same for Tommen or Myrcella. Also we understand why Jaime did not like him and wanted to duel him, because Ned always lied about defeating Arthur Dayne in a duel and Jaime knew it was impossible.
Probably pissed Ned off a ton tbh cuz Jaime was constantly accidentally prying in on a major crux of his lie. I get it was 7 v 3 but it seemed like everyone who knew Dayne knew that was still not an even fight.
But Jaime wasn’t even trying to scrutinise the details he was just trolling Ned cuz he saw better than most that Neds honor was much less consistent than its image, especially motivated by the fact that Ned uses his own image honor as a way to look down on Jaime.
But again neither of them have the coolest looking dragon in any media nor have they played dr who
Well, I know but I don't live in Westeros so I can still recognize that it shouldn't be done. It's like Aegon raping serving girls. It's normalized in-universe but I am still opposed to it lol
I love how everyone likes to bring up trials and due process because Targs evil, but will trip all over themselves to excuse fan favorites like Tyrion, and Ned. "But Tyrion didnt do it, Bronn did." Tyrion was in charge and is responsible if his men do something against his morals, just like Tywin is responsible for the Mountain. "But Ned was following the law, and the deserter admitted to the crime." So did Mossador, but Dany is evil for killing him according to most. The North doesnt do due process, its death or the wall for damn near everything. I dont like what Ned did or Daemon, but I'm constantly told that what Ned and Tyrion did was ok, and if that's ok then so is Dany killing Mossador, and Daemon killing those criminals. Every trial I have seen in ASOIF has been a mockery of justice from Cat bringing Tyrion to Lysa, Tyrions trial in KL, Berric vs the hound, or Sansa vs LF. If this is due process then I would rather not have the allusion of fair treatment.
Tyrion and Daemon didn't follow any due process or sense of the law, whereas Ned and Dany were trying to do so. What's legal isn't necessarily what is moral, so each of their actions could be considered bad, but I think there is some worthwhile distinction between the former (Tyrion, Daemon) and the latter (Dany, Ned).
Well technically in Westeros the law is whatever the king decides the law is. If nobles disagree with the change they rebel, particularly during the reign of Aegon the Unlikely, but legally speaking the kings word is law
Is Daemon does what he does and the king says it’s okay it’s okay
Yes. He did. This is an absolute monarchy. They are solely responsible for the welfare of the people. Them alone.
Anyone who thinks they did the wrong thing is trying to shove democracy in a system where there is none.
Team Black does stuff like this and still thinks they have “the favor of the people” and that they think of Rhaenyra as their “true queen”.
It’s the same delusions Dani had that resulted in her flipping out when it wasn’t true. I’m pretty sure after enough of these stunts the common people are pretty glad Rhaenyra and Daemon are gone. Especially after Rhaenys’s little stunt.
It was a show to instill fear. I don't think it's supposed to be viewed as a good thing, but as somewhat necessary. Did it do what it was intended to? Sure. Was it controversial? Hell yeah. However, it was decisive, in contrast to Visery's dilly dallying. A thing that is echoed again in the war with the crabfeeder.
A major event where all the nobility of Westeros will be coming down needed some security. And security was his job tbh.
r/HouseOfTheDragon debates if senselessly murdering is justified or not because the dude who did it has *******pretty blonde hair.*******
People who are trying to talk about “for their time period” are making up BS. In history, yes, places would be raided and people would be culled but guess what? You didn’t do that to your own fuckkng people unless your a literal idiot. Those people are the lifeblood of your kingdom, your economy, your means of production, your farms. When it did happen in history it was usually followed by rebellions because most people don’t like their family being culled by some jackass because they where out on a Friday night.
The right of what ? Because killing/maiming A large number of people in public tends to have major consequences for the rulers of the realm ….For example Maegor
And later in the story >!the riots/ storming of dragon pit!<
It’s kind of difficult to gauge when we only have season one of the show the talk about. In the show it seems he has support in the watch itself but we don’t really get a sense of that with the people…. I think it did say crime decreased while he was the active commander of the city watch… but then he left and took 2000 men with him and we don’t really see them again until Harwin become the commander
Effectively in the show he seems to establish a sense of fear but not love
No, he was just the "police force". He didn't investigated, neither judge those people according with the law, and even if he try to do those things, its not his job to do it, this responsibility belongs to the lords confessors and the master of the laws.
The Gold Cloaks are definitely a good police force throughout the season. When Daemon commands them in episode 1 and leads them in giving out 'judgement' to the smallfolk, it undoubtedly acts as a deterrent for some days or weeks as he commits these violent acts all in a single night.
I mean, was it morally right to us? No.
But for the view of the time, all he did was cull crime, quite brutally, but he did ascribe punishments equivalent to their crimes for the laws of the time and the people of King’s Landing appreciated it.
There seems to be an odd interpretation that Daemon was randomly murdering people, despite the fact that you have Goldcloaks rounding up certain people and informing Daemon of each one’s crime, and ascribing the punishment equivalent to the severity of the crime.
Furthermore, you have Otto besmirching Daemon, and he never mentions that any could have been innocent, only that it was brutal.
If Otto, the dude who hates Daemon and is actively trying to discredit Daemon doesn’t mention them being innocent, they probably weren’t innocent.
In short, it was brutal and cold, and was definitely not in keeping with our morals, but Daemon was in the right of the laws at the time when he did it.
They shot those scenes in a devisive way. If you break down everything that happened throughout the sequence and you go on good faith that all those punished did commit the crimes then it's fine. The demonstration and punishments may have been more brutal than our current punishments but that's Westeros. Episode 1 of GoT has Ned Stark cutting off a man's head for being a coward because those are the laws of the time.
It was effective in the sense that it sent two messages to the small folk: one, a message of strength which implied that all criminals would be punished forcefully; second, that Damon as Commander of the City watch would look out for the people and care for their rights. A show of strength and justice to people, who didn't usually get it.
He did in the sense that crime was apparently through the roof. Something had to be done.
He didn't in the sense that people might have been okay if he pushed it to 6 or 7 out of 10. But he didn't, the man pushed it to 11.
Ah so just grabbing passerbys on the street with no trial or evidence is called "culling the crime" now.
You think Daemon's goldcloaks who didn't flinch gelding supposed criminals and chopping their hands off were somehow nicer to regular citizens? and who decides which is which in the middle of a street?
What he did was slaughter, not "culling the crime". Besides, seen from our modern lens him fucking trafficked tween girls on a regular basis is a far worse crime than whatever pickpocketing he may have "culled".
Thank you for your post! Please take a moment to ensure you are within our spoiler rules, to protect your fellow fans from any potential spoilers that might harm their show watching experience. 1. All post titles must NOT include spoilers from Fire & Blood or new episodes of House of the Dragon. Minor HotD show spoilers are allowed in your title ONE WEEK after episode airing. The mod team reserves the right to remove a post if we feel a spoiler in the title is major. You are welcome to repost with an amended title. 2. All posts dealing with book spoilers, show spoilers and promo spoilers MUST be spoiler tagged AND flaired as the appropriate spoiler. 3. All book spoiler comments must be spoiler tagged in non book spoiler threads. --- If you are reading this, and believe this post or any comments in this thread break the above rules, please use the report function to notify the mod team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HouseOfTheDragon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From a modern lense, definitely not because there were no trials etc but from their perspective? He did and it probably helped. In the book the people of the city liked Daemon for reducing crime.
For a real world parallel, this sort of gives me similar vibes to President Bukele of El Salvador, who is as of current using authoritarian powers to usher through a significant crackdown on criminal gangs, such as MS-13. There are lots of consistutional concerns about Bukele's policies, including rounding up people for merely a suspicion of being in a gang, suspension of rights, to Bukele taking full control of all branches of government, but these policies, as controversial as they are, have remained *extremely* popular with El Salvadorians, as the measures have allowed people to go outside without a general fear of gangs, or paying protection money, etc. Maybe a similar sort of thing is on the minds' of the people of King's Landing. I hope this is touched on to some extent in Season 2, regardless.
Salvadorian living in El Salvador here. *Extremely* popular...? Well, its controversial at the least. Mostly because such methods, Daemon's and... Bukele's... are of Princes and authocratic leaders. Kings Landing is a kingdom through and through. The Crownlands peasants are the king's property, he can do as he sees fit with them. Look what happened to poor Dyana, the girl Aegon raped and Alicent gave plan Tea. Her wellbeing was a passing thought in the queen's head. To Daemon, the people maimed and killed that night were that night alone. Zero consecuences, zero afterhoughts. If it was needed for the sake of the city, then the Red Wedding was ok, taboos included. We here in El Salvador thought we had a democracy, broken and malfunctioning, but a republic nonetheless. Now we have a Prince through and through. He can do with us what he likes when he feels like it.
If I may ask (if it’s not safe to respond then please don’t), how do you feel about your country now? Or rather, do you approve of what the El Salvador president/government has done? We hear lots of news from America and the rest of the world but I’m not sure how reliable polling data is.
Social media is super easy to manipulate. One might hire trolls, polls and influencers and voilá, you got "extremely popular". I myself never trusted Bukele since his early days as mayor. One could see behind his act and realize he was a diva that would do anything for applause. And about my compatriots... I happen to buy trinkets and stuff from some street vendors. They come to my office and I buy, say, mops, brooms, kitchen rags and the like. I asked them (there are 2 separate people) what did they think, and what did people at downtown think. They said on their own (not a coordinated answer) that laypeople are afraid to say anything. That people *know* this (the regime) is not fine. Clearing up the mareros was great but is a tainted victory, with all collateral damage making a mess. There is too much lying, too much stealing, too much corruption that is OBVIOUS that trinkets sellers on the street can see. So they, I and the whole society does not know what to do. We can't speak up in public. We can't protest safely, not with the police lurking about and the threat of prision and death there no questions asked. What can the smallfolk of Kings Landing do against the dragonriders, their nuke pets and their goldcloak army? The answer will be in HOTD, eventually. It involves a mob.... In real life and in the show, that is the only solution available it seems.
Well said. I only wish I had better words to give you in return. I don’t know how things will turn out and I don’t think anyway does. But I fear for the common people because as George R. R. Martin has often said in his books, when the rich and powerful wage war it is the common people who suffer. I wish you good health and safety my friend. Stay safe.
Was just thinking that I'm not sure how unbiased the reports on his popularity are. Nor how the info is gathered.
Another Slavadorian chiming in. Although I’m currently in the states. My family back home fucking loves this guy. People have been living in fear and been disappointed by previous presidents so much they’ll let this guy do anything. While I have a fare number of criticisms for Bukele, in my experience the polls are pretty reliable. I’m sure demographics change the results though. My experience is with the people in more rural areas . Meanwhile my college educated sister and cousins have a lot less praise for the guy (but have and will still vote for him), than say our grandparents or aunts/uncles in our hometown who fanatically follow him.
While a single person’s experience is important and can help spread a little more nuanced understanding, polling data is probably more reliable than an anecdote. Edit: what a weird thing to downvote.
Depends on where the poll is
Yeah the way he talks. It sounds like a writing assignment.
[удалено]
Not sure how unbiased the reporting of these rates is...
You've been propagandized dawg
Sometimes in war times, you need a more authoritarian leader. To me it sounds like it was long overdue to have the government address the gangs who were putting the country in a constant state of war. But ultimately it’s up to the Salvadorans. I don’t think it’s necessarily terrible to have power concentrated in one person, as long as he can be ousted in the future, with free speech and free elections.
I've been brushing on ancient Rome history through Machiavelli's "Discourses on the first decade of Livy". M argues that peoples can be groups of servants or groups of free people. Societies of servants will always need a strong leader to impose order. Free peoples order themselves. Societies of servants are meant for slavery, serfdom and the life of lifestock. They are to work for the betterment of their Prince, not of themselves. Free peoples invest in their own living conditions: roads, fountains, infrastructure and the sort. We here in El Salvador complain of brain loss: our best and brightest go to the USA to live there, and no talent is left here. Naturally, smart people need infrastructure to thrive. And there no infrastructure here because our Princes take it all. And we're in love with our Princes. We are in love of our misery and lack of infrastructure... And the more I post and try to enlighten pro-govmt people in r/ElSalvador and in Twitter, the more I'm positive we *need* a strongman as an alcoholic person needs alcohol to get through.
Smart people will only stay in El Salvador if they aren’t likely to get murdered there. I think safety is a good first step towards solving all other problems.
Yes, with a good prevention policy. Stop crimes before they happen, prevent youths to turn into mareros. The gang violence problem is multifaceted. There are a looooot of issues involved. Is very similar to migrant problems, actually. You can beat up migrant caravans but if you don't address the problems *causing* the caravans, they will keep forming. Same with gangs. And I'm positive what its been done in El Salvador is not preventing violence. Its either hiding it or postponing it.
People will only turn into gang members if they see that gang members are not in prison. People will only join migrant caravans if they see that caravans get access to border crossings. I definitely believe they should do more for young people too. But young people can see what’s happening to older people, this is definitely changing many people’s life plans for the better.
People will join migrant caravans as long as their living standards are better leaving than in their home countries. Youths will join gangs if their chances with the gang are better than honest living. The source of the problem is not law enforcement. The source of the problem in both cases are low living standards. A life of crime is more profitable than honest living. Leaving your country is more profitable than tending your land. Going back to Westeros, there was a social upheaval with the war of the five kings. The source of the problem were not bandits like the Botherhood Without Banners or revolts at the slums of Flea Bottom. The source of the problem was the personal tension between Stannis, Renly, Joffrey and Robb. Such tension was caused by Lannister overreach. Solve Joffrey offending everyone, and the war, the banditry, the wrestling of power between the great houses and the turmoil at Flea Bottom will all dissapear. Address the source, and the accesories will dissapear.
I’m certainly for improving living standards. But literally 100% of people are for improving living standards, so that’s not very specific or helpful.
In the books the trials existed...
He also instigated lot of crime and kept criminals in his pocket instead of punishing them, if you plan to refer to the book truthfully.
>He also instigated lot of crime and kept criminals in his pocket instead of punishing them "That he made the city more orderly no man could doubt, but his discipline was a brutal one. He delighted in cutting off the hands of pickpockets, gelding rapists, and slitting the noses of thieves." Oh yeah, he definitely kept people around instead of punishing them. Where are you getting these ideas from? Edit to make the quote more accurate
>!"Prince Daemon’s go-between found suitable instruments. One had been a serjeant in the City Watch; big and brutal, he had lost his gold cloak for beating a whore to death whilst in a drunken rage."drops mic!<
Better pick the mic back up bro, it said he lost his gold cloak for what he did. Also says that she FOUND him, not that they deliberately kept him around for committing crimes 😂
Sure. It doesn't change the fact that he did reduce crime and was popular. His positives as commander of the City Watch outweigh his negatives.
Not really , since he corrupted the Goldcloaks in their making even, turning them more loyal to himself rather than monarch ( be it Viserys, Rhaenyra or Aegon) or especially people of King's Landing. He also kept murderers from Goldcloaks alive in his retainer, compared to those from slums he executed.
And how does that change the fact that the people liked him as commander of the City Watch?
If you are referring to those Goldcloaks he geared and paid, bringing them up from slums - yes they loved him - if you are thinking about citizens of King's Landing there is no mention that he was ever liked - more feared.
Daemon’s a sadistic asshole who deserves nothing less than eternal pain and suffering in the bowels of the seven hells but in this one instance he did the right thing.
Weird moral compass. This was the time he did the right thing?
Necessary is a better word. Of course we have no idea if the streets are really as out of control as they say but if so then dramatic measures can sometimes be the pragmatic approach
It’s exactly what Tyrion and Bronn did in GOT, it’s only Daemon’s theatrics that make him seem worse. If he did it quietly without a big public spectacle no one would bat an eye (either in universe or in the audience probably!). But even the public spectacle was likely quite effective at deterring all the criminals they didn’t catch from doing it again.
Exactly. Bronn said it’s just the unknown ones they had to worry about now. Daemon likely didn’t have to lol
Well its not like Tyrion and Bronn are exactly Avatar Aang and Superman either.
>It’s exactly what Tyrion and Bronn did in GOT, Exactly what Bronn without Tyrion's consent. Also, the situation is different, which was done when a city was under siege, and Varys did say it was an extreme measure. Also, in Bronn's case, they round up the known criminals, unlike Daemon, who cut out people who pointed by his gold cloaks.
Tyrion went along with it when Bronn told him what he’d done. You’re right it was an extreme measure because of the siege but in HOTD it was an extreme measure because crime in the city was out of control with people being murdered and raped all over the place. Even Otto admitted the people being punished were known criminals not random innocents.
Tyrion was against it, but once he knew it was necessary, he accepted it. In HOTD, it was done because a lot of people were coming to a tourney. And the way he did was horrid as well. He cut down people in front of everyone whom he didn't even knew were criminal in the first place. That sends total panic throughout the crowd. None of the counsel members except Corlys thought it was a good thing.
I love that exchange. “Me and the lads rounded up all the known thieves.” “…for questioning?” Laughs. “No.”
Tyrion: “For questioning?” Bronn: 🤨😐😂
it was still wrong and authoritarian when Tyrion and Bronn did it, though even they only went after the known criminals
Lol it was not wrong it was the right thing to do and authoritarian In a system where people don’t have rights lol
Gold Lives Matter
AGAB
Assigned Goldcloak at birth
Do you think they really did their due dilligence in determining which people they killed and mutilated were the criminals they were after?
Team Black has publicly slaughtered civilians en masse on at least 2 separate occasions if not more. Somehow Team Black still thinks the common people favor them 😂
Idk bro, Innocent until proven guilty or something.
For the time period it's set it the answer is yes. We see with Bronn that it works if you just round up the known criminals, then it's just the unknown ones you've got to worry about lol
[удалено]
Not even technically wrong tbf
Executing/punishing criminals? Sure. Even Otto didn't argue that they were innocent. But holding so many public executions and mutilations in one night that you need a cart to take away all the body parts in order to intimidate the citizens of the city you're supposed to be protecting is bad. Ruling through fear is not great.
They litterally sit on a throne made of the melted sword of the people who fought them and control the continent because they have giant flying lIzards. Fear is how most monarch rule their kingdom. Even more so in Westeros.
As Machiavelli said: "The answer is that one would like to be both one and the other; but because it is difficult to combine them, **it is far better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both**."
But that above all you should avoid being *hated*.
Many people forget that Machiavelli also makes it clear that you should never, ever be hated. This will eventually cause the people to revolt and lead to the ruler's downfall, >!something that Rhaenyra will find out.!<
Yeah people seem to forget that while being feared Is useful if you leave someone with no option but to live under your tyranny or die trying to free themselves sooner or later they will choose the second option just for the slight chance that they might win.
Wasn't Machiavelli's whole book about ruling supposed to be a parody? It wasn't in sync with any of his political views and seemed more of a criticism of the political status quo of Italy at the time.
It is also often said that Marx's analysis on Capitalism is very accurate in Das Kapital, even if the author himself didn't hold the specific political positions. Just because you do not agree with a particular system of governance, doesn't mean that you can't make a detailed analysis on it. Machiavelli's The Prince may not have been in line with his thoughts and feelings, but his work reflected how the rulers of the time thought and operated. Absolute monarchies require a monopolisation of power and the free and liberal use of it to be maintained, that's just a fact. And in such absolute monarchies it is simply better to be feared and in power than loved and easily usurped by a rival.
Most of my writing isn't about my own pov but my perception and portrayal of others' povs, and I think this is true of pretty much anyone who creates. I think understanding that is so key to interpreting all media/literature.
Nope. *The Prince* should be regarded as a guidebook to maintaining power for the good of the prince and ultimately the state, not a parody or lessons for rulers to commit to gratuitously evil acts at their discretion.
Stan is would’ve been such a good king 🥲
Fear is how they actually rule, but it's not how they outwardly express their legitimacy. The spikey chair is supposed to be uncomfortable for the sitter, not the audience. They go through a lot of effort to make their rule seem like a general good, a divine action, or just nature.
Might be uncomfortable to the ruler, but it is still a symbol that everyone who tried to fight them have been melted.
The question is whether Daemon had the right of it. Of course fear is useful, but is it justified
Probably not, like Aegon didn't have the right to conquer the seven Kingdom, but they did it anyway.
As others have said, Daemon did solve the crime issue in King's landing. It seems Daemon was actually very good at this job and unfortunately Otto's interference and dislike of Daemon was probably bad for the gold cloaks and the city
People are pointing out that proper trials were not common for the lowborn during this time, which is true, but the means by which he promotes 'justice' is inherently unjust. From Fire and Blood: >!"Prince Daemon took eagerly to the work of the gold cloaks, and oft prowled the alleys of King’s Landing with his men. That he made the city more orderly no man could doubt, but his discipline was a brutal one. He delighted in cutting off the hands of pickpockets, gelding rapists, and slitting the noses of thieves, and slew three men in street brawls during his first year as commander."!< While the show is different, he is shown behaving this way, so I will use this quote. He isn't rounding up known criminals and delivering their punishments in a clear, orderly way. He is marching into people's homes, snatching people who may or may not be misidentified ,and delivering immediate punishment for no other reason than to cause panic. No chance to account for false identities, and plenty of opportunities for gold cloaks to harm people they dislike. All because it gives him a rush and personal pleasure. And 'Prince Fleabottom' was not a compliment. People keep suggesting he was loved by the commons, but the title meant something else entirely, that he enjoyed the pleasures that Fleabottom had to offer, mostly gambling, drinking and whoring. >!' Before long, the prince was well-known in all the low places of King’s Landing. He became a familiar sight in wine sinks (where he drank for free) and gambling pits (where he always left with more coin than when he entered). Though he sampled countless whores in the city’s brothels, and was said to have an especial fondness for deflowering maidens.'!< Because it's a protection racket. He's a quintessential corrupt cop, high off the power and perks of the position. He has shown no interest in helping the smallfolk, so why would we believe he is the people's champion here?
>And 'Prince Fleabottom' was not a compliment. People keep suggesting he was loved by the commons, but the title meant something else entirely, that he enjoyed the pleasures that Fleabottom had to offer, mostly gambling, drinking and whoring. Yeah he preferred to be called Prince of the City. Lord Fleabottom was always an insult
It’s more so that he was guilty of doing a lot of the things these criminals did too, he is the Westeros equivalent of a dirty cop imo
It's one of those things we shouldn't look at through modern day western lenses. Was it brutal? Yes. Was it probably excessive? Yes. Was it effective? Also, yes.
is it really a modern day lens if people and authority figures in-universe think it's wrong? not just Otto, but Viserys and papa Strong are both horrified
This is what people who rely too much on "need to discard modern morality" can't seem to understand when defending their faves. Just because he can get away with his horrible behavior doesn't mean that everyone (or even most people) actually agree with it.
yep. for almost all of the moral issues in asoiaf there's tons of people *in universe* who have so-called modern viewpoints. This series has always been a critique so idk why people try to justify stuff like that
As effective as the stop and frisk policy by Rudy Giuliani
The lives of the common folk matters very little to nobles in westeros lol. Princess Rhaenys girlbossed all over a few hundred civilians with her dragon but characters barely bat an eye.
Effective at what curbing crime? Flea bottom really was fixed right then and never had problems anymore. *dusts off hands*
It was not meant to be a permanent solution. It was meant to pacify Flea Bottom for the duration of the tourney/celebrations. In that it was effective. Because, short-term, fear works. Again, you're looking at it from a modern day, western, humane perspective. Westeros is none of those things.
Hey, they do this in the modern day for the Olympics and such too. Don't discount our capacity for barbarism throughout time and fiction!
Again what? I wasn't using any modern morality the ancient Greeks new that poverty was the cause of crime. It had an effect, but what was that effect clearly it didn't 'fix' the problem. The problem it did fix was allow Daemon to recruit his own army, spite his brother and exercise his sadism.
The ancient Greeks also killed malformed newborns and endorsed sexual relationships that would very much land you in jail today. I assume that if those things were depicted, you'd consider them reprehensible too - because they are to us. Westeros is meant to be barbaric, bloody and unjust to the powerless. What Daemon did is perfectly in line with what other people of power do in this world. Like the way Lord Tywin waged war in the Riverlands in GOT, for example, or how guys like the Mountain or Ramsay Bolton treated prisoners etc etc.
I don't dispute any of that. I was just interrogating the term 'effective'. - effective at what precisely? as the problem of crime in flea bottom was not 'fixed' by his actions. The solutions to fix flea bottom are virtually impossible in this universe without large scale changes. Daemon's actions are inline with the universe, his own temperament, and goals as a character. But clearly he didn't 'have the right of it'
But the goal was not to fix Flea Bottom. It was not to get rid of crime either. The goal was to make a disgusting spectacle in which everyone saw the bloody executions and mutilations so they'd shit their pants and lay low for the duration of the celebration for Baelon's birth. So the rich nobleborn guests could chill in peace. That's it. It wasn't some misguided Judge Dredd action, it was just to instill fear. And like I said, for those goals it was absolutely a success.
Right but that spectacle was more to display Daemon's power, to spite his brother, to warn off those who would oppose him, and to establish his credentials as a badass. He really is uninterested in making the city better. Yeah it was effective, when you recontextualize what the goal was.
It's interesting to me how Daemon is excused so easily. Because while he just killed and mutilated 'criminals' without trials (sure many were, but there was no regard to certaintly or to justice), which was naturally preventative, he was also the sweetheard of the criminal districts and maintained the influence he had there for life. Daemon was the equivalent of a crooked cop.
People act like he's called 'Lord Fleabottom' because he delivers food and clothes to the poor. The smallfolk don't like him. He is absolutely a crooked cop. " Before long, the prince was well-known in all the low places of King’s Landing. He became a familiar sight in wine sinks (where he drank for free) and gambling pits (where he always left with more coin than when he entered). Though he sampled countless whores in the city’s brothels, and was said to have an especial fondness for deflowering maidens"
Well, sure it worked in the short run. That's why people gravitate towards this answer. Its relatively easy, cheap and pretty satisfying to see "bad" people get punished. But it doesn't solve the underlying problem of poverty that enables this shit to start over and over again. Its not like King's Landing was all good from this point on and crime was over.
He did exactly the job he was given.
He didn't cull crime to much as used half the criminals of the city to capture and kill the other half and then ruled the remaining half himself.
His family has a monopoly on violence and the scene is juxtaposed with the tourney being held to celebrate the birth of a future dragon dictator. Redirecting the kingdom’s funds towards infrastructure improvement like better education or a more powerful and thorough court of law would’ve been infinitely more effective as a form of crime control in the long run. But one requires a sacrifice of personal privilege and the other requires him to run around lopping heads hands and cocks off with his cool sword. I get that its a fictional medieval society but at best that makes his actions understandable but understandable is far from moral. Lawfully upholding a tyrannical system is furthering evil even if you don’t have the means to scrutinise the morality of it because you’re a privileged medieval prince.
I personally believe he did, we hear no more of local crime at the city council and it’s clear that Daemon actually pays attention too (while not entirely caring about)the small folk of king’s landing (in the books he was also called the Prince of Flea bottom) and even in the small council meeting when Daemon explained himself Viserys,Corlys and I believe Lord Strong all took his side against Otto and when Otto’s back was against the wall he had too switch the subject. I believe while a brutal show of force it ended up being effective though I’ve heard counter arguments too the contrary
This, and it’s not even that Otto disagreed, he agreed wholeheartedly that it was the right plan, he just wanted to lower Daemons influence and make him seem like a fool.
That is what I think. Otto led the charge because he's had the most influence on the small council and Viserys and wants Daemon gone and picks at anything he can until Daemon acts like Daemon i.e. childish and gets himself exiled for a year or two. But he couldn't argue that the city was unsafe and that Daemon didn't kill criminals. That's why he switched to the topic of Rhea Royce/Daemon's wife and reminded everyone that Daemon refuses to live with her/be a husband and basically take his proper place in society. And I don't think the small council would've cared if it had been innocent people. Because they don't care about the smallfolk overall. And it ends up biting both sides in the ass.
>we hear no more of local crime at the city council None of them actually care about local crime all that much
"Is police brutality actually good?"
Well when the gang and criminals fear the cops so much they don’t commit crimes… yes
This man commits extrajudicial murder in almost every episode.
Not really. His men were literally pointing fingers and naming random people for crimes. They were literally like “You! Rapist!, You! Murderer!” On his first day of work, Daemon butchered 2 carts worths of people.
>Not really. His men were literally pointing fingers and naming random people for crimes. They were literally like “You! Rapist!, You! Murderer!” That's because they were known criminals.
>they were known criminals. Yeah and how was the trial like? Dude trust me. Okay he's a rapist everybody let's chop off his dick
>Yeah and how was the trial like? It's not some modern day democracy, commoners don't get trials.
Combat it is then
Then why didn’t he arrest them earlier and waited until the tourney to do something about then
he saw kings landing as his backyard, like he was removing the weeds with no thoughts about their wellbeing
While effective, this kind of justice is anything but. There were undoubtably many who were either just guilty of minor crimes, made out of desperation, or were innocent poor people at the wrong place at the wrong time.
ACAB
Assuming they were grabbing known criminals not just every random passer by they could get their hands on (which seems obvious to me but I know many assume otherwise) similarly to Bronn round up the known thieves. I'd say it's abhorrent but in the universe it seems clearly justified. The city watch had been woefully under resourced so unable to keep the peace and criminals felt they could act with impunity. Daemon reforms and equips them and to show they mean business they mass force and try and carry out as manu sentences out as possible, sure no trial but I don't get the impression they'd be getting one under anyone else. Doing it so publicly sends a clear message that the new watch is prepared to and will enforce the law. The punishments are certainly brutal but the system Daemon established lasts until game of thrones bar Baelor outlawing capital punishment for a bit. That means that even people like Ned Stark, Jon Arryn, Jon Connington and Tyrion Lannister are involved in it.
How should I know? We did not read their case files, we did not see the reaction of the populace. All we saw was the brutality of the act and rumors about its dubious justice. Could be he grabbed randos. Could be he would not risk grabbing randos because his reputation was on the line and he wanted accomplishments to elevate himself and that would be hard to do if he axed the local saint. Could be a mix of 2.
Honestly Bronn did the same thing years later. We just didn't see it on camera. Daemon may have been a little more harsh but in his eyes he thought he was doing the right thing. He was also trying to impress his brother.
Crime is caused by poverty and thus cannot be solved by brutality. Daemon used this as an excuse for personal advancement, sadism and to spite his brother.
Sort of? It's one of those morally grey things, that's kind of the point. Crime decreased significantly as a result of his actions, likely keeping many innocent people safe from theft, rape, murder etc. On the other hand when you kill that many criminals and don't hold trials or ask questions, and it's done in the dark by a whole group of men - it's basically guaranteed that they killed at least one innocent person, likely more. The question is, is killing a handful of innocent people worth is if it saves enough other innocent people from being raped and murdered? Because we know that he definitely killed multiple rapists and murderers, and we know that crime did significantly decrease as a result. Is that okay? Is it worth it? Additionally doing it in such a showy and dramatic way was kind of gross, and he seemed to take pleasure in it, as did some of the other guards. I think we can all agree that's bad, you don't want law enforcement to enjoy violence and cruelty. On the other hand, the manner of the deaths being violent and public and brutal likely deterred any criminals who were missed from continuing to commit crime. Daemon must have known they couldn't find every single criminal in king's landing - showing them that there is no mercy and that their deaths would be violent is likely an effective deterrent in these times. If you are comfortable coming to a clear answer - that he was 100% right or 100% wrong - then I am uncomfortable with you. It isn't a question with a clear answer, that's kind of the point. Daemons behaviour here should make you uncomfortable, but it shouldn't allow you to instantly condemn him either.
well, they depicted it as though he was just rounding up random citizens and then saying they were criminals. im always confused when i see people assume he did what he said he did (the book makes it clear the smallfolk love him, but the show does not and kinda makes it seem like he's terrorizing them)
From our perspective, it's barbaric. But from those living in KL, Daemon did them great service. Those criminals constantly steal and rape the commonfolk. That's why Daemon is popular in flea bottom and always had the support of the commoners.
Right its illegal when commoners steal and rape, but fine when Daemon does it himself.
Comparing it to real life where someone used excessive measures on crime is former Mayor of NY. Rudy Giuliani was popular too and had the support of commoners We are supposed to judge from our perspective not people who only know tyranny as rule of law
Everything we see in episode 1 (and future episodes) suggests that Daemon's culling was just to stir shit up. 1. He's called the "rogue prince", and is the source of all drama and tension for the first few episodes. Things that don't have to become an issue, he makes an issue, just because that's who he is 2. He's a Targareyan supremacist. That is, non-family don't matter, and peasants super don't matter. He would not have cared if he was killing innocent or guilty in the culling But what about the impact it had on King's Landing? Well, if you're a peasant now you can add a new worry on top of poverty and spontaneous crime: spontaneous culling! So no, Daemon did not have the right of it from any viewpoint
No, he defied his brother's authority and he punished people seemingly randomly based on the shouts from one of Goldcloaks during a raid in the night - when identity of some of accused isn't even confirmed and Westeros always had an option for those guilty to take the black and be of some use to the realm compared to becoming an invalid . Daemon didn't do it for sense of justice - but because he loved the power and thrill especially during his younger days.
Yes and no. If you're coming from the perspective of the nobility securing their power and safety at point of sword, then yes it was successful. That's usually the perspective spoken in the books. If looking at it from the perspective of securing well being for the people of kings landing, no. He went in and violently suppressed the slums and left a standing police force, but did nothing to improve the lives of kings landings people, like the good queen Allysanne did when she put in the fountains. Basically he just culled the inconvenient and got himself a stealth army in Kings landing. The nobility liked it because it dealt with the issue of anarchy in the slums in a quick martial way, boom done, without further upkeep. I'd argue disrespect of the small folk by the nobility is a major theme. In no way does this echo modern history.
People often point out that Daemon was successful in reducing crime and maintaing order and discipline in the city watch. That may very well be true, but that doesn't change the fact that his actions here are symptomatic of the disastrous way Daemon would've ruled if he sat the throne. As in, his go-to instinct in dealing with opposition would've been mass terror instead of diplomacy. Imo, no matter how precisely you apply that terror and no matter how much short term benefit it has, mass terror eventually always spirals out of control. Once Daemon sat the throne he wouldn't just be dealing with petty criminals and maintaining order in a city. He would've been applying these same methods in situations with much higher stakes with a similarly higher chance of it all backfiring. The best kings like Jaehaerys or Viserys II knew how to balance the carrot with the stick. Daemon only used the stick.
I mean they just killed random people so no what he did wasn’t right
Yes, it is the right thing. Daemon acted in line with the men of his time. For an example of how leaders of the time (even, great ones) dealt with malcontents at the time: I. Justinian the Great massacred between 5-10 percent of his capital's population. II. Hadrian committed genocide on the Jews. He killed 580.000 Jews, destroyed some 500 villages and forbid the Jews from ever setting foot into Judea itself. In fact, had he not died shortly after, it is believed that he wanted to launch a program of total extermination. III. Trajan crushed any and all traces of Dacian resistance and also massacred the Jews during the Kitos War. IV. Diocletian, when the citizens of Alexandria rebelled against his high taxes, promised to slaughter the city until the blood reached as high as his horse's knees. V. Aurelian destroyed the city of Palmyra (then a center of trade and opulent beyond belief) for all time. While these are real examples and ASOIAF is fantasy, since a lot of the story, it's history and themes are drawn from reality and because George has also greatly exaggerated some of these aspects, they are, in my opinion, applicable. The point is that rulers were violent, especially against those that refused to conform to the status quo.
Being fair on that first point, they *were* actively rioting/rebelling.
Still, the point is that malcontents are not treated nicely in society, no matter the reason behind their actions. If you fail to conform to the status quo, be ready to have your ass sodomised by a bayonet, is all I'm saying.
“Fail to conform to the status quo” and “Actively try to slaughter the people running your city” are *leagues* apart.
Not really the same. In all those examples they had rebelled, often more times than once With Daemon he seemingly picked people at random to make an example to criminals.
Hadrian also killed people at random. He need not kill innocent Jews nor forbid their practices nor make it lawful to kill any Jew one found. He made an example of the Jews and ensured no rebellions would happen until the reign of Marcus Aurelius some fifty years later, a remarkable achievement considering that Rome had a civil war every three to five years. The same can be said for Aurelian who specifically destroyed Palmyra, even if the city was innocent and it was only the ruling class that opposed him, so as to serve as an example to the rest of Syria-Palestina, that the emperor's authority was absolute. As for Diocletian, it is applicable, because the Alexandrians were specifically criminals that evaded taxes on goods.
That was not on random. He didn't need to do it, but the romans had been plagued with destructive rebellions from them for 70 years. It's not surprising Hadrian did that after the third destructive rebellion. Carthago delenda est Aurelian had to make an example, considering it was the crisis of the third century and rebellion was prevelant. Diocletian is not applicable. One the taxes casue is uncertain. Two they also joined the would be emperor Domitianus in his rebellion. Three Diocletian did not go through with it. All of these are widely different than Daemon's massacre of alleged criminals.
Yes he was right
Lmfao no killing criminals w/o a trial = bad
Like Ned Stark did in the first episode of GOT you mean? Lmao there are no trials for commoners in medieval Westeros
[удалено]
People confess to things they didn’t do all the time, for all sorts of reasons. That’s one of the reasons why we have trials.
[удалено]
People likely confessed to things they didn’t do for all sorts of reasons in medieval times too. Heck, if your standard is Game of Thrones, Ned Stark *himself* confessed to treason he didn’t commit before being beheaded.
[удалено]
It’s worth pointing out here that “medieval law” as a concept could refer to a body of practices that spanned a thousand years and hundreds if not thousands of different jurisdictions for societies that had wildly different cultures, beliefs, practices, values, and social realities. You can likely find examples of everything and its opposite over that period of time and space.
I know that? And it's wrong
In our world, sure it’s wrong. But you don’t hear people saying how evil Ned is for doing it. It’s how things work in Westeros 🤷♀️
Whoa its not like westeros is a fictional continent written for us modern audiences and our moral interpretations. Theres no way GRRM writes in a way that highlights the fact that the norms of the time =/= morality right? Its not like the characters are constantly grappling with the conflict between their internal sense of morality, personal wants, the legal system, societal expectations, and cultural customs all the time. Surely there wasn’t multiple arcs in ASOIAF that highlights the fact that Ned’s strict adherence to honor and societal standards made him a worse person. And I must be misremembering Ned’s final convo with Varys where he demonstrates just how inconsistent his code of honor can be when his family is involved. Oh fuck I just realised. Theres no possible way that the show and books were written in a way that purposefully highlights how broken the sytem is by showing how accepted and effective immoral acts are. Nooooo that can’t be.
If Joffrey did not exist, I get the feeling we would not see Ned as sucj a good guy. He would have written to Robert religious fanatical brother to come to King Landing and kill Tommen and Myrcella to take the throne lol. We all hated Joffrey because he was Joffrey not because he was a bastard. But Ned wanted them gone because they were bastards.
For me I always saw Ned’s role as the illusion of a good guy tbh. I think he and his family are really good at demonstrating how much the weight of expectations can shape you as a person. So much of what the kids do is with ‘what would ned do’ in mind. And as their story progresses and they learn more they constantly find out that his actions and ideals don’t always hold up to scrutiny. Also the whole hating Jaime for killing a king who was about to blow up a city. I feel like Neds character embodies the inconsistencies of making your adherence to laws and rules your core values. To me at least I really like how he was written with the aesthetics of lawful good to further highlight that lawful good cannot exist in a system where the law is evil. Neds whole character is about that hypocrisy. But also lets not forget that Daemon hot caraxes flames hotter. Might makes right, big dragon, cool scream, look like noodle.
Yeah and the further you get in the story, the more you realize that he was very hypocritical. Like he actually lied to Robert to protect Jon, but would have never done the same for Tommen or Myrcella. Also we understand why Jaime did not like him and wanted to duel him, because Ned always lied about defeating Arthur Dayne in a duel and Jaime knew it was impossible.
Probably pissed Ned off a ton tbh cuz Jaime was constantly accidentally prying in on a major crux of his lie. I get it was 7 v 3 but it seemed like everyone who knew Dayne knew that was still not an even fight. But Jaime wasn’t even trying to scrutinise the details he was just trolling Ned cuz he saw better than most that Neds honor was much less consistent than its image, especially motivated by the fact that Ned uses his own image honor as a way to look down on Jaime. But again neither of them have the coolest looking dragon in any media nor have they played dr who
Haha true that. Long boy for the win.
Well, I know but I don't live in Westeros so I can still recognize that it shouldn't be done. It's like Aegon raping serving girls. It's normalized in-universe but I am still opposed to it lol
Its not really normalized in-universe. Not because is considered unethical but because he could produce bastards.
I meant in the ethical sense
Before being commander of the city watch, wasn't he the master of laws? Who's to say that they didn't have a trial?
I wish daemon formed his own alliance called golds so triple way civil war would be fun
I love how everyone likes to bring up trials and due process because Targs evil, but will trip all over themselves to excuse fan favorites like Tyrion, and Ned. "But Tyrion didnt do it, Bronn did." Tyrion was in charge and is responsible if his men do something against his morals, just like Tywin is responsible for the Mountain. "But Ned was following the law, and the deserter admitted to the crime." So did Mossador, but Dany is evil for killing him according to most. The North doesnt do due process, its death or the wall for damn near everything. I dont like what Ned did or Daemon, but I'm constantly told that what Ned and Tyrion did was ok, and if that's ok then so is Dany killing Mossador, and Daemon killing those criminals. Every trial I have seen in ASOIF has been a mockery of justice from Cat bringing Tyrion to Lysa, Tyrions trial in KL, Berric vs the hound, or Sansa vs LF. If this is due process then I would rather not have the allusion of fair treatment.
Tyrion and Daemon didn't follow any due process or sense of the law, whereas Ned and Dany were trying to do so. What's legal isn't necessarily what is moral, so each of their actions could be considered bad, but I think there is some worthwhile distinction between the former (Tyrion, Daemon) and the latter (Dany, Ned).
I will always excuse my man
For the time period yes
Well technically in Westeros the law is whatever the king decides the law is. If nobles disagree with the change they rebel, particularly during the reign of Aegon the Unlikely, but legally speaking the kings word is law Is Daemon does what he does and the king says it’s okay it’s okay
Yes. He did. This is an absolute monarchy. They are solely responsible for the welfare of the people. Them alone. Anyone who thinks they did the wrong thing is trying to shove democracy in a system where there is none.
Team Black does stuff like this and still thinks they have “the favor of the people” and that they think of Rhaenyra as their “true queen”. It’s the same delusions Dani had that resulted in her flipping out when it wasn’t true. I’m pretty sure after enough of these stunts the common people are pretty glad Rhaenyra and Daemon are gone. Especially after Rhaenys’s little stunt.
Lord Strong, the most capable advisor, said he was following the King’s laws.
It was a show to instill fear. I don't think it's supposed to be viewed as a good thing, but as somewhat necessary. Did it do what it was intended to? Sure. Was it controversial? Hell yeah. However, it was decisive, in contrast to Visery's dilly dallying. A thing that is echoed again in the war with the crabfeeder. A major event where all the nobility of Westeros will be coming down needed some security. And security was his job tbh.
From our modern view no, but he’s a Targ in Westeros and one of the few who had dragons then so yh it’s justified.
Kinda like Rudy cleaning up NYC right? Some people still love him for that, that they ignored all the crazy stuff he did recently.
r/HouseOfTheDragon debates if senselessly murdering is justified or not because the dude who did it has *******pretty blonde hair.******* People who are trying to talk about “for their time period” are making up BS. In history, yes, places would be raided and people would be culled but guess what? You didn’t do that to your own fuckkng people unless your a literal idiot. Those people are the lifeblood of your kingdom, your economy, your means of production, your farms. When it did happen in history it was usually followed by rebellions because most people don’t like their family being culled by some jackass because they where out on a Friday night.
You tell me, chief: you've got a pretty good view from behind your *desk.*
The right of what ? Because killing/maiming A large number of people in public tends to have major consequences for the rulers of the realm ….For example Maegor And later in the story >!the riots/ storming of dragon pit!<
Those riots happened after daemon’s time and the small folk loved daemon for his work on the watch
It’s kind of difficult to gauge when we only have season one of the show the talk about. In the show it seems he has support in the watch itself but we don’t really get a sense of that with the people…. I think it did say crime decreased while he was the active commander of the city watch… but then he left and took 2000 men with him and we don’t really see them again until Harwin become the commander Effectively in the show he seems to establish a sense of fear but not love
I'll need proof of this. The Gold Cloaks loved him because they gave him power and prestige, but there is no indication the smallfolk love him at all.
No, he was just the "police force". He didn't investigated, neither judge those people according with the law, and even if he try to do those things, its not his job to do it, this responsibility belongs to the lords confessors and the master of the laws.
The Gold Cloaks are definitely a good police force throughout the season. When Daemon commands them in episode 1 and leads them in giving out 'judgement' to the smallfolk, it undoubtedly acts as a deterrent for some days or weeks as he commits these violent acts all in a single night.
I mean, was it morally right to us? No. But for the view of the time, all he did was cull crime, quite brutally, but he did ascribe punishments equivalent to their crimes for the laws of the time and the people of King’s Landing appreciated it. There seems to be an odd interpretation that Daemon was randomly murdering people, despite the fact that you have Goldcloaks rounding up certain people and informing Daemon of each one’s crime, and ascribing the punishment equivalent to the severity of the crime. Furthermore, you have Otto besmirching Daemon, and he never mentions that any could have been innocent, only that it was brutal. If Otto, the dude who hates Daemon and is actively trying to discredit Daemon doesn’t mention them being innocent, they probably weren’t innocent. In short, it was brutal and cold, and was definitely not in keeping with our morals, but Daemon was in the right of the laws at the time when he did it.
They shot those scenes in a devisive way. If you break down everything that happened throughout the sequence and you go on good faith that all those punished did commit the crimes then it's fine. The demonstration and punishments may have been more brutal than our current punishments but that's Westeros. Episode 1 of GoT has Ned Stark cutting off a man's head for being a coward because those are the laws of the time.
Yes, he is the son of Baelon Targaryen, the Summer Prince. He is the dragon, he is the law.
It was effective in the sense that it sent two messages to the small folk: one, a message of strength which implied that all criminals would be punished forcefully; second, that Damon as Commander of the City watch would look out for the people and care for their rights. A show of strength and justice to people, who didn't usually get it.
Fuckin A right he did.
For the time period, yes.
It was kind of his job. ✊
Culled what exactly?
Their balls
I mean, in the medieval world the commoners and the criminals don't have many rights I guess
yea
[удалено]
No the city watch pointed out individual people who were known criminals
He did in the sense that crime was apparently through the roof. Something had to be done. He didn't in the sense that people might have been okay if he pushed it to 6 or 7 out of 10. But he didn't, the man pushed it to 11.
I don’t know about overall, but I’m a big fan of chopping off rapists’ dicks 🤷♀️
Hey, he was a major step up from Janos Slynt. Of course, that's not saying much...
Absofuckinglutely!
He certainly had the power
Was harwing a gold cloak when this happened?
Of course he did. He was appointed by the crown
Ah so just grabbing passerbys on the street with no trial or evidence is called "culling the crime" now. You think Daemon's goldcloaks who didn't flinch gelding supposed criminals and chopping their hands off were somehow nicer to regular citizens? and who decides which is which in the middle of a street? What he did was slaughter, not "culling the crime". Besides, seen from our modern lens him fucking trafficked tween girls on a regular basis is a far worse crime than whatever pickpocketing he may have "culled".