Who Should Have Won Game Of Thrones?

Hey everyone, let's dive deep into the world of Westeros and talk about the ending of Game of Thrones. The show wrapped up a few years back, and, well, let's just say the finale sparked a whole lot of debate. Today, we're not just rehashing the controversial choices; we're diving into who should have ended up on the Iron Throne. Who deserved to win Game of Thrones? Who would have made the best ruler? Or, heck, who just had the best overall journey? We'll explore different characters, their arcs, and why they might have been a better fit for the ultimate victory. So, grab your favorite ale (or tea, if you're not into that sort of thing), and let's get into it.

Daenerys Targaryen: The Dragon Queen's Potential Reign

Let's start with Daenerys Targaryen, the Mother of Dragons. Daenerys had a compelling story arc throughout most of the series. We watched her rise from being sold off to Khal Drogo to becoming a powerful leader, liberating slaves, and building an army. Her journey was filled with incredible moments, like when she emerged from the flames with her newborn dragons. Her determination and charisma resonated with many viewers, making her a fan favorite for a long time. The promise of breaking the wheel and bringing a just society to Westeros was a powerful narrative that captivated us all. Imagine Daenerys as the ruler, with dragons soaring through the skies and her fiery justice. Sounds pretty cool, right? But the question remains: would Daenerys have been a good ruler in the end? This is where things get tricky.

Her descent into the Mad Queen was shocking, to say the least. The destruction of King's Landing, the needless slaughter of innocents – it was a dramatic shift in character that left many fans feeling betrayed. If we're looking at who should have won, we need to consider the long-term impact. Could Daenerys have maintained control without resorting to tyranny? Could she have ruled with the wisdom and diplomacy needed to unite the fractured kingdoms of Westeros? While her initial goals were noble, her methods became questionable. The sudden shift in her personality felt rushed, and that made it hard to imagine her as the ideal ruler. Her ending, while dramatic, didn't really showcase the qualities of a good leader. She ultimately fell victim to her own impulsiveness and paranoia. Her victory would have been bittersweet, leaving a trail of destruction that arguably outweighs the potential good she could have brought. So, while her story was captivating, Daenerys's arc, as it played out, makes it hard to argue that she should have won. It's a tough call, guys.

The Arguments For and Against Daenerys' Victory

Let's break it down further. Arguments for Daenerys: She had a strong claim to the throne, being the last of the Targaryens. She possessed dragons, a formidable weapon. She promised to break the wheel and bring a new era. She freed slaves and was initially seen as a liberator. She had a strong following, particularly in Essos. Arguments against Daenerys: She became ruthless and destructive, as seen in her burning of King's Landing. Her methods were often brutal, and she showed signs of paranoia and instability. Her decisions were often based on emotion rather than strategy. Her reign could have led to a tyrannical rule. Ultimately, the question isn't just about who could have won, but about who should have won, considering the long-term consequences for Westeros. Could Daenerys have learned to control her impulses? Maybe. But based on her trajectory, it's hard to say she was the best choice.

Jon Snow: The Reluctant King's Potential

Next up, we have Jon Snow. Jon, throughout the series, consistently showed qualities that make for a good leader. He was brave, honorable, and willing to put the good of others before his own desires. Unlike Daenerys, Jon was generally level-headed and able to make tough decisions, even when they went against his personal feelings. He was beloved by his people and had a knack for bringing different groups together. He always seemed to be doing what he thought was right, even when the odds were stacked against him. His lineage, of course, was revealed to be a significant factor. Being the trueborn son of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark meant he had a stronger claim to the Iron Throne than Daenerys. Imagine him as king – a just ruler with a strong moral compass. He could have been the bridge between the North and the South, uniting the kingdoms under his leadership. The idea of Jon Snow as king, keeping the peace and doing the right thing, is a compelling one. But again, there were some major hurdles in his path to the throne.

Of course, his personality was a bit of a problem. He was often too focused on doing what was right. He wasn't very ambitious, and, let's be honest, he was kind of a wet blanket sometimes. His reluctance to embrace power, coupled with his loyalty to Daenerys, ultimately led him to a difficult choice. His decision to kill Daenerys, while perhaps necessary, took him out of the running for the throne. He also had a history of making choices that weren't the most politically savvy. Remember his decisions when he was Lord Commander of the Night's Watch? Yeah, not all of those were winners. While Jon possessed many qualities of a good ruler, his lack of ambition and his tendency to be guided by others made him a less compelling choice for the Iron Throne. He would have likely been more content living a simple life, and that’s perfectly fine, but perhaps not as a king of Westeros.

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Jon's Claim

Let's break down Jon Snow's pros and cons. Strengths: He was honorable and just. He was loved by his people, particularly in the North. He had a strong claim to the throne. He was willing to make difficult decisions. He had experience leading and fighting. Weaknesses: He lacked ambition. He was often guided by others. He was sometimes indecisive. He was not politically savvy. He was too focused on doing what was right. While his heart was in the right place, his actions often weren't enough. His lack of a strong desire to rule, coupled with his more passive nature, makes it difficult to say that he should have been the one to win. He would probably be happier in the Night's Watch, protecting the realm, rather than ruling it.

Tyrion Lannister: The Wise Hand's Potential

Tyrion Lannister is another character that had the potential to sit on the Iron Throne. Tyrion, from the very beginning, was arguably the smartest person in the room. His wit, his political acumen, and his ability to see the big picture made him a formidable player in the game of thrones. Throughout the series, he consistently offered clever solutions, advised rulers, and navigated the treacherous political landscape of Westeros. He wasn't a fighter, but he knew how to use his mind. He had compassion, too. Despite his many flaws, he often championed the underdog and sought to do what was best for the people. Imagine Tyrion as king. With his sharp mind and understanding of the game, he could have brought a level of stability and prosperity to Westeros that it desperately needed. He had a great understanding of diplomacy and could potentially unite the Seven Kingdoms in a way that others couldn't. His intelligence and diplomatic skills are what Westeros truly needed after the chaos it was in.

However, Tyrion's journey wasn't without its stumbles. He had a complicated personal life and a weakness for alcohol and brothels, which often put him in compromising situations. He was also a Lannister, which made him untrustworthy to many. His past actions – let's not forget the murder of his father – also raised questions about his character. After the fall of Daenerys, he was given the role of Hand of the King, which, in a way, was a fitting position. It meant that he could still advise the ruler without necessarily being the ruler himself. But it also meant that he never got the chance to fully test his leadership skills. While Tyrion possessed many of the qualities needed to be a great ruler, his personal struggles and complex past made him a less likely candidate for the Iron Throne. His ability to advise and strategize was unparalleled, and he would have likely been the best Hand of the King any ruler could ask for.

Analyzing Tyrion's Potential Rule

Let's weigh Tyrion's capabilities. Arguments for Tyrion: He was incredibly intelligent and a master strategist. He possessed a deep understanding of politics and diplomacy. He had a compassionate side and a desire to do what was right. He had experience advising rulers. He could likely bring stability to Westeros. Arguments against Tyrion: He had a complicated personal life and a weakness for alcohol. He was a Lannister, which made him untrusted by many. He had a troubled past. His own ambitions were never fully realized. Although he was brilliant, the fact that he was so close to power, yet never in the throne, makes it difficult to say that he should have been the one to win. He definitely deserved a place on the Small Council, but the Iron Throne wasn't for him.

Bran Stark: The Three-Eyed Raven and the Ultimate Winner

And now, we get to Bran Stark, the character who actually did end up on the Iron Throne. Bran's journey was unique. He started as a young boy, paralyzed and thrust into the world of magic and visions. He became the Three-Eyed Raven, gaining the ability to see the past, present, and future. His transformation from a vulnerable boy to a seer gave him a unique perspective on the world. He witnessed the history of Westeros and knew the secrets of its inhabitants. The show presented the idea that his ability to see the past gave him the wisdom and understanding needed to rule. Imagine Bran as king. With his knowledge, he could avoid repeating past mistakes, anticipate threats, and bring a new era of peace and stability to the Seven Kingdoms. It was argued that he would be an impartial ruler, free from personal biases and desires, who could guide Westeros towards a brighter future. The idea of a ruler who could see everything was certainly a powerful one.

However, Bran's ending was also met with mixed reactions from fans. The suddenness of his ascension to the throne felt a bit rushed, and some found his character to be a bit emotionless. It was hard to connect with him on a personal level. There's also the question of whether a ruler who is detached from human emotion can truly connect with and understand the needs of the people. Did Bran possess the charisma, empathy, and leadership skills necessary to govern effectively? His detachment from the human experience made it difficult for some viewers to see him as the ideal ruler. He became the king, but at what cost? He wasn't the traditional choice, and some viewers felt that his rise to power lacked the emotional impact that other characters' arcs had. Bran being the king was a controversial decision. His ending was interesting, but not necessarily satisfying. While he had unique abilities, the question remains: was he the best choice?

The Case for and Against Bran's Rule

Let's explore Bran's strengths and weaknesses. Arguments for Bran: He possessed immense knowledge of the past and future. He was impartial and free from personal biases. He could anticipate threats and make informed decisions. He was the embodiment of wisdom. Arguments against Bran: He lacked empathy and emotional connection. He was detached from human experience. His ascension felt rushed and unearned for some. He wasn't a relatable character. Ultimately, his journey was a unique one, but the show's handling of his final season made it challenging to argue that he was the best possible outcome. While he had knowledge and a unique perspective, his lack of emotion made it difficult to see him as a king that should have won. The argument about who should have won is one that is definitely going to continue.

Analyzing the Outcomes: Who Truly Deserved the Iron Throne?

So, after looking at the major contenders – Daenerys, Jon, Tyrion, and Bran – it's time to assess who should have won. It's tough, guys. There's no single perfect answer. Each character had their strengths and weaknesses, their moments of glory and their missteps. But, let's look at the criteria for what makes a good ruler. We need someone who is just, wise, and capable of uniting the people. They must also be able to make tough decisions, plan strategically, and inspire loyalty. In that light, here's a quick rundown of who may have been a good fit.

• The Strongest Contenders: Tyrion Lannister. Tyrion's intelligence and ability to strategize are unmatched, however, he had the most experience in advising others, and could have been the best Hand of the King. Despite his flaws, he was level-headed. He wasn’t focused on himself. Jon Snow. He was honorable, just, and loved by his people, and made difficult decisions. He may have been better in the Night's Watch, however, Jon did meet the requirements needed of a good ruler.
• The Problematic Choices: Daenerys Targaryen. Her potential was undeniable, but her methods became too destructive. Bran Stark. While his wisdom was undeniable, his lack of emotion and relatability made him a less compelling choice for the throne.

Weighing the Choices

Ultimately, the question of who should have won is about more than just a character's journey. It's about what kind of Westeros we wanted to see at the end. Did we want a just and stable kingdom, or one ruled by a volatile tyrant? Did we want a detached seer or a king who could connect with his people? The answers to these questions are subjective, of course. Some might argue that Daenerys, with all her fire and passion, was the best choice. Others might say that Bran, with his knowledge, was the only one capable of guiding Westeros through the challenges ahead. What makes the argument about the best winner so engaging is the nuances of the characters and the plot twists of the show.

Final Thoughts: The Ongoing Debate

So, there you have it, a look at who should have won Game of Thrones. The show ended in a way that left many of us wanting more, but it also sparked some interesting conversations. The debate about who deserved the Iron Throne will probably continue for years to come. Ultimately, there's no right or wrong answer. It all depends on your own perspective and what you were hoping to see in the end. The brilliance of Game of Thrones lies in its complex characters and the morally gray decisions they faced. It’s what keeps us talking and debating even now. What do you guys think? Who should have won? Let me know in the comments below. And thanks for joining me on this journey through Westeros. Until next time!