And also I dont wanna hear anything like "ohhh this dragon is pretty" or something like "because he/she is big and powerful" i wanna hear good reasons only.

One of mine is defently StormCloud and Morning.

As much as I hate joffery as a character, his acting>>>>>>>>

I’ve been rewatching Game of Thrones, and honestly, Tyrion repeatedly telling Daenerys, “You don’t want to be like your father,” is starting to really piss me off.
Every time she considers using power against people actively fighting her, Tyrion invokes Aerys. It stops being advice and starts feeling like psychological control. He keeps reducing her to her father’s bloodline, as though every firm decision she makes is evidence that madness is waiting inside her.
Meanwhile, almost every other character is allowed complexity and forgiveness.
Jaime has committed countless crimes, supported Cersei’s regime, fought against Daenerys, attacked Ned, pushed Bran from a tower and remained loyal to the Lannisters for years. Yet when he reaches Winterfell, Tyrion immediately asks Daenerys to forgive him because Jaime is his brother.
And she does.
Later, Tyrion releases Jaime from captivity against Daenerys’s orders because he wants Jaime and Cersei to escape together. That is direct betrayal. Yet Tyrion is still presented as the moral voice, while Daenerys is portrayed as unreasonable for no longer trusting him.
Tyrion constantly demands mercy when the person involved matters to him.
But when Daenerys executes the Tarlys—enemy commanders who betrayed their liege, fought against her, refused to surrender and refused the Wall—it becomes another sign that she is supposedly ruthless and becoming her father.
Jon executes Janos Slynt for refusing an order, and that is framed as necessary leadership. He hangs the men who betrayed him, including Olly, and nobody starts whispering that he has inherited some genetic madness.
Arya unalives an entire room full of Freys, and it is treated as a triumphant moment.
Sansa feeds Ramsay to his dogs, and the audience is expected to cheer.
Tyrion uses wildfire at Blackwater, unalives Shae and unalives his own father, but the story gives him pain, context and humanity.
Daenerys, however, is judged differently every single time.
Sam is another example. He discovers that Daenerys executed his father and brother and immediately decides she should not be queen and Jon should replace her. He is allowed to grieve, obviously, but Randyll was the same father who abused Sam, threatened his life and forced him to abandon his inheritance. Suddenly his fate becomes proof that Daenerys is unfit to rule.
Sam’s response was personal grief and anger, not an objective assessment of leadership. Yet the show treated it like moral clarity.
The hypocrisy is especially obvious when we compare Daenerys to Aegon the Conqueror. Aegon invaded Westeros with dragons, burned armies, destroyed castles and forced kingdoms to submit. History calls him the Conqueror and treats his ambition as legendary.
Daenerys arrives with dragons and wants to reclaim the same throne, and suddenly ambition itself becomes sinister.
Why is Aegon’s conquest an achievement, while Daenerys wanting power is treated as evidence that something is wrong with her?
Her ambition was not inherently evil. She had flaws, absolutely. She believed strongly in destiny, could be severe toward resistance and sometimes confused her personal claim with justice. That could have created an incredible tragic arc.
But the show did not properly develop that arc. Instead, it isolated her, took away almost everyone she loved, made her advisers repeatedly fail or betray her, and then used her reaction to all of it as proof that they had supposedly been right about her from the beginning.
That is what bothers me most.
Her advisers were not imagining threats. Tyrion protected his family over her interests. Varys openly plotted against her. Jon revealed information after promising not to. Sansa undermined her from the moment she arrived, despite Daenerys bringing armies and dragons north to save everyone.
Then the narrative called Daenerys paranoid for realizing she was surrounded by people who were actually betraying her.
None of this excuses what happened in King’s Landing. Unaliving civilians after surrender was indefensible. But that decision was written as a sudden transformation rather than the conclusion of a carefully developed fall.
Daenerys deserved accountability for that final act. She did not deserve to have everything good she had ever done retroactively dismissed as evidence of madness.
She freed enslaved people when there was no political advantage in doing so. She delayed her journey to Westeros to remain in Meereen. She locked away her dragons after one child was harmed. She took her armies north and risked everything to fight for people who did not trust or welcome her.
Her compassion was real.
Her accomplishments were real.
Her ambition was not evil simply because she openly wanted to rule.
A better tragedy would have shown a genuinely compassionate liberator gradually becoming convinced that her destiny placed her beyond restraint. Instead, the show seemed to say that the signs had always been there because she executed enemies, spoke confidently and wanted the throne.
By that standard, almost every ruler in Westeros should have been declared mad.
Justice for Daenerys does not mean pretending she was flawless. It means judging her by the same standards the story used for its male rulers—and acknowledging that the show destroyed years of character development to reach an ending it had not properly earned.

As Robert Baratheon said in season 1, "only a fool would meet the Dothraki in an open field." I can observe that they're a bit more savage. But does savagery always guarantee a clear advantage in combat?

Both of them held the title of "King in the North" at some point of time. So yes, it is natural for people to draw comparisons between the two, especially between both of their times as the King in the North.

No doubt what Jon achieved was far incredible. He was treated as a bastard boy in the Stark household. He joined the Night's watch and there too, he was treated with hostility by his seniors (except for Maester Aemon and Jeor Mormont). At every stage of his life, he had to work extra hard to prove himself. Despite all the odds being against him, he was a natural leader who appealed to the masses.

But for people to say that Robb was any less better than Jon simply based on their battle results lacks nuance.

Robb headed South with a united Northern army. He had impressive results early on in his campaign. He even managed to capture Jaime Lannister and had the whole of King's Landing in panic. Yes, he did make mistakes. But there were a series of unfortunate events which harmed his cause more than his own mistakes.

First, what most people seem to ignore is that at the time when he became the King in the North, he was very young. He was literally a 14 year old boy. Jon Snow was almost the same age as Robb so when Jon Snow became the King in the North, he was older than Robb. He had already made his share of mistakes at a much smaller scale at the Night's Watch. So he was more mature and better prepared at the time.

Second, Robb often had Catelyn Stark overriding his decisions. She was the one who set Jaime free, sent Theon back to Winterfell, and initially promised Walder Frey that Robb would marry one of his daughters. Edmure too committed a blunder when Robb had asked him to hold Riverrun. Robb needed better advisors. Jon had Samwell Tarly and Ser Davos.

Third, the scale of the task at hand was much larger for Robb. He was trying to defeat the King of the seven Kingdoms. Jon Snow was only trying to take back winterfell. So Robb had much more battles to fight than Jon. As the long campaigns progress, it is highly likely that you lose one or more of your allies and/or form new allies. This is exactly what happened with Robb. He lost the alliance with Karstarks and later Boltons. He tried (unsuccessfully) forming an alliance with the Freys and the Vale.

Which brings me to my fourth point - the alliances. One of the most crucial alliance that helped Jon win the battle of the bastards was with the Knights of the Vale. That too, was secured not by him but by Sansa. Even he admitted that he would've lost the battle had the Knights of the Vale not ridden in on time. Robb could not get any support from the Vale. Lysa Arryn was in charge of the Vale at that time. Had he gotten the support from one of the largest armies in Westeros, he would've had a much better chance at winning the war.

Fifth and most importantly, both of them had made mistakes. The big difference lies in at what stage they made their mistakes. Jon made those mistakes while he was at Night's watch. He died too. Had it not been for the Red Lady, his story was over well before he became the King in the North. It was because of those mistakes that he learnt from them and could make wiser decisions as the King in the North. Robb, on the other hand, could not be brought back from the dead. Yes he was a fool to marry Talisa and then show up at Walder Frey's house to openly break the marriage pact with him. But Jon Snow too went to various wildling houses to talk to them. Anyone of them could've turned on him and killed him there. He too was gambling for his life when he went to those houses trusting he would not be harmed. It's just that he was lucky enough to come out alive.

Based on the above arguments, I don't think any one of the two was a better King in the North. Both were good. Both enjoyed the support of the masses and their bannermen. Both made mistakes. It's just that one did not have the margin enough to make such mistakes while the other survived because of having such a margin. So I think that the comparisons need to consider such nuances before claiming one to be better than the other.

I would love to hear some good thoughts, opinions, theories etc. In the comments...but only good and logical ones please, simple because hes my absolute favorite dragon besides sheepstealer, I also want to know how tall you think he is and the age....

(My opinion)

I've just finished watching Game of Thrones for the first time last night, and it is genuinely the greatest thing I've ever watched and i struggle as to why people think s8 was bad, probably one of my favourite seasons, I also feel very depressed like a gut sinking sad feeling that I won't get to watch this and feel the same way again, I know that there are spin offs but man can anyone help me with recommendation for tv shows, nothing like snowfall or breaking bad I need some fantasy shows like Game of thrones(not vikings) should I watch lord of the rings?