This essay is in conversation with a pair of excellent essays: Steven Attewell's "Laboratory of Politics" missive on Dany's Slavers Bay Campaign and Bryndenbfish's blog series "The Dragon’s Mercy: The Violent Future Path of Daenerys Targaryen" on what comes next for Dany in Essos. I would encourage anyone who has not, to read those essays first.
In the four years since the end of the Game of Thrones tv show much critical sweat has been spent discussing Daenerys actions at the end of the series. An important question is how her ending will be similar or different when the A Song of Ice And Fire book series is completed. While I believe strongly that the show botched Dany in the latter seasons, I consider it very likely that Dany will not survive the end of A Dream of Spring and that that it likely (although less likely then her death) that Jon will be the one to kill her.
Rather my view is that the show erred when, among other issues, they had Dany burn the entirety of Kings Landing (rather than a specific target, such as the Red Keep) to show that she had succumbed to "Targaryen Madness." This allowed viewers to avoid grappling with the specific ideology Dany represented and instead dismiss her as crazy.
To guess the future is a hazardous game, but I believe that George RR Martin will provide a depth and complexity to Dany's ending that will leave readers with more to chew on.
To understand why, we need to look at some historical figures that I believe share some similarities with Dany, and one in particular that is not often mentioned in discussions of her. Along with some GRRM originality I see Dany as a composite of four different historical characters. The first is TE Lawrence, a stranger in a strange land, who finds himself "going native" and leading a foreign army. The second is Alexander the Great, a bisexual conqueror who is viewed by many as a divine figure. The third is (100 Days) Napoleon, a talented military commander, who seeks to regain and maintain a lost throne against all comers. The last is the one that I don't see mentioned very often is John Brown, the zealous uncompromising emancipator who is willing to undertake extreme violence in pursuit of his righteous purpose. It is Brown that I think we will see the most of going forward, and that comparison will be the key to Dany's "tragic" ending.
At her worst Dany can be egotistical and self centered, but at her core she believes in justice. That it is the reason she, or indeed any monarch, should rule at all. For Dany one of the worst injustices in the world is slavery, and one of the greatest forms of justice is it's eradication. That is why she makes the decisions she does in Slaver's Bay. I 100% agree therefore, with Steven Attewell, that the best real world analogue to her campaign is that of the American Civil War. in the aftermath of her wars however, she makes, as Attewell notes, many of the same mistakes that the Federal government did during Reconstruction, specifically that she held out her hand in reconciliation to the ex slavers, instead of crushing them by seizing their "non slave" wealth and basing her support instead on the Ex Slave and non slave owning classes.
Unlike the failure of Reconstruction, which led to Jim Crow in the American South, Dany will most likely course correct, in a radical way. We know that Dany has previously been willing to embrace extreme violence as a tactic (crucifying 163 Great Masters) but throughout A Dance with Dragons Dany chained herself with moderation. However after Dany's sojourn in the Dothraki Sea, she will return to Slavers Bay and, much like John Brown did, commit mass murder in order to get revenge, spread terror, and secure justice. The slavers and their ilk will soon all be dead or clinging to life in hiding, the land will transformed and the vast majority of the population (Attewell says 83% are slaves, although i'm not sure how he arrives at that figure) will live a life of true freedom. And Dany will learn that it is not compromise or diplomacy that gets her what she wants, but rather the ruthless application of extreme violence.
With that being being said, I want to clear here, Dany may be ruthless when it comes to violence, but she is not indiscriminate in her application of that violence. Even when she is at her most Fire & Blood she is careful, much like John Brown, to do her best not to kill children and people who were not among her enemies. (Contrast this with the show.)
I largely agree with Bryndenbfish's analysis of how Dany will end up in Westeros and the troops she will have at her disposal, (The Unsullied, A Free Volantine Fleet, & the Dothraki, not to mention the Second Sons and her Dragons.) Such a force would be able to conduct both amphibious and combined arms operations, and, if the Others were not a thing, it would likely guarantee her ability to conquer Westeros, if she should so wish. The question remains however, why would she want to?
To be certain Dany has a valid Targaryen claim to press (sorry Young Griff), but as we talked about previously, Dany believes she has a higher calling, to deliver justice. She needs to see herself as doing something more than asserting a noble right to rule. Of course Westeros doesn't have slavery, so how can Dany claim to provide a better world? I believe that Dany will attempt to abolish Westerosi Feudalism.
We don't see a lot of discussion "peacetime" feudalism in the books, and what we do see is warped by the fact that all our main POV characters are members of nobility. (N.B. It is here that I should note that specialists in the field no longer use "Feudalism" as a single catch all term for the social and economic mode of production in medieval Europe. Rather they talk about"Manorialism". However, as feudalism does exist in Westeros, I will be using the term generally to apply to both Westeros and real world history.) However using a historical example we can see how feudalism was, to borrow a term from Engles, a form of social murder. Historian of the French Revolution Peter McPhee, citing the work of fellow scholar Paul Spagnoli, notes that: "there was a
decisive decline in mortality and an increase in life expectancy from the 1780s to the
1820s: for women from 28.1 to 39.3 years and for men from 27.5 to 38.3 years... it
was directly linked to the consequences of the Revolution in the countryside: land
sales, fiscal equity, the removal of seigneurial dues and the tithe, higher wages for
agricultural laborers, and greater incentives to increase production." (p. 36) {Emphasis Mine}
In other words, the abolition of feudalism in France was one of the factors that lead to an over Ten years gain in life expectancy. Given that what we do see of Westerosi "war" feudalism is absolutely horrific and that Martin has said that things are "turned up to eleven" in his world, we can only imagine the impact on the commoners of "peacetime" feudalism. I think Dany will recognize this and seek to change it, perhaps by instituting as Napoleon did, an "aristocracy without privilege". However as we in past Westerosi history, in the reign of Aegon V, when he tried to curb the power of the nobility, it lead to to a series of wars. Now unlike Aegon I think Dany has the ability to win those wars, at least initially. Her forces face no divided loyalties and will be personally sworn to her alone. Plus, unlike Aegon, she has dragons. However, she would have made enemies of the lords of Westeros, those lords would most likely have major pockets of support, and would be likely to maintain a guerrilla campaign. Further, feudalism, unlike slavery, is often indirect in its horrors, and there are many common people who would be supportive of it. What's more any military force engaged in combat eventually becomes depleted, and must be replenished. This would likely be accomplished at least somewhat through conscription. This conscription would most likely, as it did in the real world, cause more counterrevolutionary revolt. I think If Dany attempted to this, there would be war, regular, or irregular, in Westeros for at least a decade.
Of course Dany doesn't need to do this. She could simply assert her claim and leave the structures of Westeros largely unchanged. However it is here that we must get in into her personal psychology. Dany truly believes that she is a liberator, that she is the breaker of chains. What's more I think she'll feel a great deal of guilt, over the fact that, in her mind, she let her children die and be killed during an attempt a peace and reconciliation in Mereen, when she could have saved their lives by using more extreme violence. Further, as Attewell points out, Dany's initial policy in Meereen is just the latest in a series of post bellum mistakes that puts her revolution in Slavers Bay at risk I believe that Dany will have learned to simply kill her way out her problems and that she will apply those lessons to Westeros. Furthermore, I don't think Dany would stop in Westeros. Put simply, Planetos as a whole is horrible. If she thinks she has the capability to bring justice to the world, then she has a duty to search for monsters to destroy.
However As I said previously, I don't think Dany will be indiscriminate in her violence, not caring who she kills in her pursuit of justice. However, even the most just and ethically fought wars are by their very nature massively destructive, full of what one philosopher calls "innocent murder". Martin, who was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War, but who also said he would have served in the Second World War, has long been interested in peace and war and the cost and benefits of both. As Dany once noted, "she would not want to be eternally at war" But, as she also later thought, "What good is peace if it must be purchased with the blood of little children." I think Dany's storyline is a way to ask the readers a question, "When is an unjust peace better than a just war?" Where does one draw the line? Can you. For there is always another evil to annihilate.
For John Brown, in his final written words before heading to gallows the answer was thus: "I... am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think, vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done." I believe that Dany will come to the same conclusion.
As for the reader? It's up to you.
