The Historical Inaccuracy in Game of Thrones: Why the Sack of Kings Landing Ruined the Dignity of the Targaryens
The Historical Inaccuracy in Game of Thrones: Why the Sack of King's Landing Ruined the Dignity of the Targaryens
Game of Thrones
has always been a show that prides itself on its historical accuracy and intricate worldbuilding. However, the finale of Season 8, particularly the scene where Daenerys Targaryen burns King's Landing, sparked a wave of controversy due to its lack of adherence to the rules of siege warfare and the inhumane treatment of the city's inhabitants. This article delves into the historical inaccuracies highlighted in these scenes, focusing on the sack of King's Landing and its impact on the narrative.
Historical Accurate Warfare
Siege warfare has a long and storied history, and one of the critical aspects of such scenarios is the non-negotiability factor. A siege usually involves a surrounding army that does not allow its enemy to escape or surrender until the city falls. This was famously exemplified by Julius Caesar's siege of Alesia in 52 BCE.[1]
At Alesia, Caesar built walls around the city and surrounded his troops, effectively trapping the besieged forces. He waited for the Gaulish reinforcements to arrive, starved them into submission, and eventually conquered the city. The siege ended with a brutal and inhumane outcome, as the trapped forces faced starvation and death.
[2]
Historically, sieges were marked by a complete lack of escape, with the defenders either starved, killed, or taken captive. This is a stark contrast to the portrayal in Game of Thrones, where King's Landing was besieged but somehow managed to ration food and resources, which is unrealistic and anachronistic for the time period depicted.
Mishandling In-Universe Logic
The in-universe logic in Game of Thrones further exacerbated the issue with the siege of King's Landing. According to the novels, the city of King's Landing had extensive underground passages and shelters built during the War of the Roses (Dance of the Dragons).
[3]
Grand Maester Munkun explicitly mentions these underground passages, suggesting that King's Landing had means to protect its citizens and prevent them from becoming the victims of a catastrophic siege. Despite this, the show's depiction of the siege failed to account for the existence of these shelters. This oversight led to the nonsensical scenario of thousands of people, including the elderly, children, and sick, dying simply because there was no alternative to stay in their homes.
The Siege of Alesia provides a more realistic scenario where people would have sought refuge in underground tunnels and shelters, drastically reducing the number of casualties and providing the defenders with a fighting chance. If these existing shelters were used, the population of King's Landing would not have been completely decimated, which goes against the established lore and the show's pre-existing narrative.
The Show's Exaggeration
The finale of Game of Thrones was criticized for its extreme and exaggerated portrayal of the siege. The whole idea of King's Landing's fall being a large-scale casualty event was overstated, and the writers failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for why the city would suffer such extreme loss of life. This lack of logical coherence and historical detail weakened the narrative and uncharacteristically cheapened the Targaryens, who were supposed to be the honorable and noble house of Westeros.
Instead of showcasing the bravery and defensive tactics of the people standing for Daenerys, the show chose to focus on the horrific and unnecessary deaths of thousands of civilians. This decision undermined the show's general theme of honor and the consequences of actions, and instead presented a gratuitous and senseless act of violence that was not only unpopular but also historically inaccurate.
Conclusion
While the finale of Game of Thrones received acclaim for its climactic scenes and emotional impact, the depiction of the siege of King's Landing remains one of its most criticized aspects. The historical inaccuracies in the handling of siege warfare and in-universe logic not only detracted from the show's integrity but also failed to live up to the expectations set by its rich and detailed narrative. In the end, the show's failure to adhere to historical realism and logical consistency did more harm than good, tarnishing the legacy of a show that otherwise pushed the boundaries of medieval fantasy drama.