Quote:
Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce
Interesting to read military strategists and historians pretty much lining up to suggest Daenerys' sacking of Kings Landing not only sound military strategy, but was reasonably common practice, historically. They just lacked Dragons as WMDs.
So much for the mad queen.
|
Sigh. This is again one of those explanations that sound rational, but don't actually make sense in context of the series.
First of all, she didn't sack the city. She destroyed it, callously killing many of her own men in the process, in a situation where troop loyalty is just about to become a major issue.
Second, the one thing Daenarys specifically needs is something to symbolically legitimize herself as the rightful ruler. She just destroyed what the whole war was about, and the one thing she needed... And she needs it more than anyone else. Jon Snow could (theoretically) rule from anywhere, because he's seen as being from Westerös, and same goes for every other wannabe king from here on out. Daenarys has a problem there, because she's an outsider. She needed that throne more than anyone.
But more importantly, that "strategic" logic makes no sense to her character. She's not much of a strategic thinker, so it's pretty laughable go excuse it as something she did because "strategy".
Also, speaking from a historical perspective I don't even have to check your sources to call BS that historians would be in any way "lining up" to support the idea.
Yes, cities were often sacked and sometimes burned that's true.
But those who wanted to rule the Roman empire did not burn Rome. (No, not even Nero, and even if you buy that he did, you're also buying into the idea that he was mad, so...) Those who wanted to rule England did not burn London.
Her explicitly stated personal goal has long been to sit on that throne. At the moment of victory, she ruined her chance to get what she was fighting for.
I mean, destroying the throne is a move that would actually have made sense for Cersei.