godfather
Hall-of-Famer
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 38,838
- Reaction score
- 34,446
- Points
- 148
By all Medieval laws, which the show bases its Westerosi culture, a Lord guilty of treason, and not submitting to the monarch is treason, is punishable by death.
While the Tarlys didn't necessarily owe Dany fealty as she was not the enthroned Queen, in practice civil wars like the one depicted means legitimacy is in flux. Witness Stannis at the Wall and the Watch behaving as if he was the King.
So Tarly would have been dead anyway. However, under those Medieval laws, how one executed a noble was clear and understood. Tarley, by right and by law, should have been beheaded.
You notice that the Mad King burned the Starks and this method of execution was seen as not only brutal but wholly illegal that was so outside of the law that it was a legitimate excuse for rebellion. Yes, that is right, Medieval cultures considered brutal actions outside the law by a monarch as tyrannical and thus rebellion becoming an expected result as a quasi-legal response.
So, yes, Tarly actually left Dany no choice but to kill him. Every law of Westeros indicated that his refusal to submit, and refusal to join the Black, meant he was in willful disobedience and that is treason.
But Dany should not have killed him the way she did and in fact killing him in that fashion can be considered not only illegal, but also an act of tyranny.
Yep, having them killed wasn't out of line. But she had to have them burned and tortured. That's an act of a tyrant.
She was losing grip on her claim at that point (they were losing the war up until that battle) and reverted to tyrannical measures to assure she doesn't lose grip.
I don't think Dany is setting out to be a tyrant but is turning into one. When shit hits the fan she reverts to tyrannical behavior.
She will do anything to get her claim on the throne.