|
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. |
On June 21 2016 01:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2016 01:42 LaNague wrote:On June 21 2016 01:38 Logo wrote:On June 21 2016 01:31 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that I have with the phalanx is that it was used in assbackwards fashion. Who the hell leads with a cavalry charge? I can sort of buy the cavalry charge, Ramsy was probably assuming he could get to John Snow first and get a quick kill on him while he was alone and possible just win the battle outright right then. it loooked like he planned to hold the enemy with the cav and then shoot arrows into both, which is basically sacrificing all of the cav for nothing, he had double the men PLUS apparently some greek phalanx PLUS medieval cav lancers going on versus peasent army. Not to mention that cavalry is normally the more highly trained/expensive part of an army. The foot soldiers are the farmers who are given a stick with a pointy end while the actual soldiers ride horses. So he kills his own trained soldiers so that his peasant cannon fodder can survive ><
maybe its his own way of being "nice" ?
|
United States42009 Posts
On June 21 2016 02:21 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2016 01:51 Gorsameth wrote:On June 21 2016 01:42 LaNague wrote:On June 21 2016 01:38 Logo wrote:On June 21 2016 01:31 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that I have with the phalanx is that it was used in assbackwards fashion. Who the hell leads with a cavalry charge? I can sort of buy the cavalry charge, Ramsy was probably assuming he could get to John Snow first and get a quick kill on him while he was alone and possible just win the battle outright right then. it loooked like he planned to hold the enemy with the cav and then shoot arrows into both, which is basically sacrificing all of the cav for nothing, he had double the men PLUS apparently some greek phalanx PLUS medieval cav lancers going on versus peasent army. Not to mention that cavalry is normally the more highly trained/expensive part of an army. The foot soldiers are the farmers who are given a stick with a pointy end while the actual soldiers ride horses. So he kills his own trained soldiers so that his peasant cannon fodder can survive >< maybe its his own way of being "nice" ?
Equally it's possible the cavalry were Stannis' sellswords which defected to him before the Stannis battle or perhaps provided mostly by one of the other northern lords whose loyalty was less than absolute. If the phalanx were all Bolton men but the cavalry were more questionable I would absolutely see Ramsay deliberately letting them take the brunt of the attack to weaken their power given that he expected this to be his last battle.
|
I really don’t see it that way. That battle did not go in their favor, but it likely wasn’t going to every go in their favor. He had what amounted to northern barbarians vs the Roman Legion, plus was outnumbered. It was going to be a blood bath no matter what.
But before he raised an army, convinced the wildlings to fight with him and did well during the battle. His mistakes are there, but they are only mistakes because we, the audience, have more information than him.
Edit: I didn't notice that the initial charge was done by non-bolton troops. That is a nice touch. Of course he would use everyone else and keep the Bolton troops back to contain the remaining forces.
|
On June 20 2016 22:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2016 22:13 RowdierBob wrote:
One thing I didn't get was the Masters' seeming surprise at Dany having dragons. Drogon showed up at the end of the last season to save Dany from them so they had to know dragons could be in play when attacking? Dany is literally the only person who has dragons. No one has ever seen them before, let alone can control them. Even if she is called the “mother of dragons” arrogant people will assume that is a myth or legends. Never underestimate the ability for powerful people to delude themselves into believing something simply can’t be true, despite overwhelming evidence. There are so many examples seemingly intelligent people doing this throughout history. They just assumed the Dragons were a pet, myth or just some lizard she claimed was a dragon. Also, Game of Thrones continues its love affair with the instant death throat cut. My favorite cinematic tool. Don’t want to spend money on special effects and logistics, but want someone dead? Slit their throat while the camera is behind them. It can be done with a knife or broad sword. Simple, flexible and you can just move on with your scene.
One of these masters saw the dragons himself earlier (edit: I mean earlier season/episode), when he was negotiating with Daenerys.
Furthermore: They should had reports from the brotherhood of the harpy, right? Dragons (OK, just one to be specific) rescued Daenerys already once.
That being said. I really liked the episode. But I´m really sad for Wunwun. Now giants do not exist any longer, since he was the last of them.
|
On June 21 2016 02:25 Plansix wrote:
I really don’t see it that way. That battle did not go in their favor, but it likely wasn’t going to every go in their favor. He had what amounted to northern barbarians vs the Roman Legion, plus was outnumbered. It was going to be a blood bath no matter what.
But before he raised an army, convinced the wildlings to fight with him and did well during the battle. His mistakes are there, but they are only mistakes because we, the audience, have more information than him.
Edit: I didn't notice that the initial charge was done by non-bolton troops. That is a nice touch. Of course he would use everyone else and keep the Bolton troops back to contain the remaining forces.
But he didn't really raise the army from what we see. We're lead to believe it's mostly Davos and Sansa that rallied any of the troops they actually got. John raised the wildlings, but that was pretty much a freebie since they were doomed if Ramsy controlled the north.
So all he did was kill a dozen or so people in the battle which would be good if he were a knight, but he's a commander.
By any reasonable measure John should have 0 credibility left in the show after the disastrous battle even if he's still a good guy. Anyone who follows him as a leader at this point would pretty much have to be pretty stupid especially now that there's a bunch of other people around in the same group that can actually lead.
|
The Wildlings don't fight for the Starks without Jon. That isn't free, since he had to die to get their true loyality. I doubt that any of the Houses join without Jon there. They are not going to listen to just Sansa and Davos. I don't agree that screwed up everything. That battle was hopeless to begin with. And I doubt his men are going to want to follow a commander who just watches as his little brother is murdered in an open field.
|
On June 21 2016 02:37 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2016 02:25 Plansix wrote:
I really don’t see it that way. That battle did not go in their favor, but it likely wasn’t going to every go in their favor. He had what amounted to northern barbarians vs the Roman Legion, plus was outnumbered. It was going to be a blood bath no matter what.
But before he raised an army, convinced the wildlings to fight with him and did well during the battle. His mistakes are there, but they are only mistakes because we, the audience, have more information than him.
Edit: I didn't notice that the initial charge was done by non-bolton troops. That is a nice touch. Of course he would use everyone else and keep the Bolton troops back to contain the remaining forces. But he didn't really raise the army from what we see. We're lead to believe it's mostly Davos and Sansa that rallied any of the troops they actually got. John raised the wildlings, but that was pretty much a freebie since they were doomed if Ramsy controlled the north. So all he did was kill a dozen or so people in the battle which would be good if he were a knight, but he's a commander. By any reasonable measure John should have 0 credibility left in the show after the disastrous battle even if he's still a good guy. Anyone who follows him as a leader at this point would pretty much have to be pretty stupid especially now that there's a bunch of other people around in the same group that can actually lead.
I don't think the wildlings are going anywhere (what few are left) but yeah he's pretty much done as a leader, the question is do Sansa and Littlefinger marry and play the Westeros game, or does Sansa just play Littlefinger and ally with Dany when she comes using the same angle as Yara (playing off her interest in seeing women considered for leadership).
+ Show Spoiler +I have to admit I'm secretly hoping everywhere of significance is ruled by women at the end, just because I know how much it would upset some people.
|
GH, I am with you. If that is how GRRM wants the series to end, I will laugh all the way into the night. And he would do it too, because that man does not care.
|
The issue was that Sansa told Jon exactly what he needed to hear, and he ignored it. If anything Sansa won't really rely on Jon now, but rather Littlefinger - bad news imo. Jon also charging in after Rickon dies was a bad idea and exactly what Sansa warned against.
|
United States42009 Posts
On June 21 2016 03:07 ShoCkeyy wrote:
exactly what Sansa warned against.
Sansa gave the single vaguest warning ever. If that counts then literally any outcome could have been exactly what Sansa warned against.
|
On June 21 2016 03:07 ShoCkeyy wrote:
The issue was that Sansa told Jon exactly what he needed to hear, and he ignored it. If anything Sansa won't really rely on Jon now, but rather Littlefinger - bad news imo. Jon also charging in after Rickon dies was a bad idea and exactly what Sansa warned against.
What Jon needed to hear was that there might be a big cavalry joining us soonish but nah why mention it and let them run into battle with whatever they got and risk losing any chance they got to capturing Winterfell.
|
On June 21 2016 03:09 KwarK wrote:Sansa gave the single vaguest warning ever. If that counts then literally any outcome could have been exactly what Sansa warned against.
Exactly. And what is Jon going to do, watch is brother die or send someone else to save him? And that plan by Ramsey could have backfired in amazing fashion as well. I don’t know how anyone could expect Jon to know that was coming or not respond how he did. Unless we assume Jon has the all seeing eye of the audience, which he does not.
|
On June 21 2016 03:18 Daray wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2016 03:07 ShoCkeyy wrote:
The issue was that Sansa told Jon exactly what he needed to hear, and he ignored it. If anything Sansa won't really rely on Jon now, but rather Littlefinger - bad news imo. Jon also charging in after Rickon dies was a bad idea and exactly what Sansa warned against. What Jon needed to hear was that there might be a big cavalry joining us soonish but nah why mention it and let them run into battle with whatever they got and risk losing any chance they got to capturing Winterfell.
I still don't think she knew that Littlefinger was actually coming. I think, in her stubbornness, she flat out refused him and he decided to come anyway. And if that's the case, what does she accomplish by telling Jon about it except to piss him off for throwing away a perfectly good army?
|
United States42009 Posts
On the one hand I'm happy that there is no Dorne this season because that was a clusterfuck but on the other, shouldn't people have noticed that there was a coup and now Dorne is trying to take over the 7 kingdoms after killing the younger sister of the king? It's like a burning building. Sure you'd rather people didn't set the building on fire while you're all still inside but given that the building has been set of fire at the very least they should notice.
|
|
|
On June 21 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't think the wildlings are going anywhere (what few are left) but yeah he's pretty much done as a leader, the question is do Sansa and Littlefinger marry and play the Westeros game, or does Sansa just play Littlefinger and ally with Dany when she comes using the same angle as Yara (playing off her interest in seeing women considered for leadership).
I don't think Sansa can play that angle anywhere near as well as Yara. Yara is bold, ambitious, and a go-getter, she has that aura of leadership about her that Dany likes, it's pretty much how Dany herself would like to be seen.
Sansa may be a somewhat competent court schemer (debatable), but she is definitely not a ruler. The only thing Sansa has going for her is her name, and Dany isn't very fond of the Stark name to begin with.
That said, I'm with you on the spoiler thingy.
|
On June 21 2016 03:36 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2016 03:18 Daray wrote:On June 21 2016 03:07 ShoCkeyy wrote:
The issue was that Sansa told Jon exactly what he needed to hear, and he ignored it. If anything Sansa won't really rely on Jon now, but rather Littlefinger - bad news imo. Jon also charging in after Rickon dies was a bad idea and exactly what Sansa warned against. What Jon needed to hear was that there might be a big cavalry joining us soonish but nah why mention it and let them run into battle with whatever they got and risk losing any chance they got to capturing Winterfell. I still don't think she knew that Littlefinger was actually coming. I think, in her stubbornness, she flat out refused him and he decided to come anyway. And if that's the case, what does she accomplish by telling Jon about it except to piss him off for throwing away a perfectly good army?
She definitely didn't know for certain whether they were coming or not. If Jon loses the battle and the army is lost there is no way of capturing Winterfell anymore so even if there is a small chance why not tell him so he could use the cavalry in the battle? But for whatever reason she decided not to tell him which we will find out in the next episode.
|
United States42009 Posts
On June 21 2016 03:47 Daray wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2016 03:36 ZasZ. wrote:On June 21 2016 03:18 Daray wrote:On June 21 2016 03:07 ShoCkeyy wrote:
The issue was that Sansa told Jon exactly what he needed to hear, and he ignored it. If anything Sansa won't really rely on Jon now, but rather Littlefinger - bad news imo. Jon also charging in after Rickon dies was a bad idea and exactly what Sansa warned against. What Jon needed to hear was that there might be a big cavalry joining us soonish but nah why mention it and let them run into battle with whatever they got and risk losing any chance they got to capturing Winterfell. I still don't think she knew that Littlefinger was actually coming. I think, in her stubbornness, she flat out refused him and he decided to come anyway. And if that's the case, what does she accomplish by telling Jon about it except to piss him off for throwing away a perfectly good army? She definitely didn't know for certain whether they were coming or not. If Jon loses the battle and the army is lost there is no way of capturing Winterfell anymore so even if there is a small chance why not tell him so he could use the cavalry in the battle? But for whatever reason she decided not to tell him which we will find out in the next episode.
Hell, Ramsay may have bargained with Rickon's life if he knew he had something to lose. Sansa keeping important information from everyone turned everyone into involuntary irrational actors to the profit of nobody but Littlefinger.
|
On June 21 2016 02:54 Plansix wrote:
The Wildlings don't fight for the Starks without Jon. That isn't free, since he had to die to get their true loyality. I doubt that any of the Houses join without Jon there. They are not going to listen to just Sansa and Davos. I don't agree that screwed up everything. That battle was hopeless to begin with. And I doubt his men are going to want to follow a commander who just watches as his little brother is murdered in an open field.
I still don't see it as a big accomplishment of the moment. It's part of him accepting in the wildlings in the first place and not like John did something smart or noble to then get them to fight. It's just been a long time since we've see John do something as worthy of being liked & followed as killing the zombies or the defense of Castle Black.
|
On June 21 2016 03:59 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2016 02:54 Plansix wrote:
The Wildlings don't fight for the Starks without Jon. That isn't free, since he had to die to get their true loyality. I doubt that any of the Houses join without Jon there. They are not going to listen to just Sansa and Davos. I don't agree that screwed up everything. That battle was hopeless to begin with. And I doubt his men are going to want to follow a commander who just watches as his little brother is murdered in an open field. I still don't see it as a big accomplishment of the moment. It's part of him accepting in the wildlings in the first place and not like John did something smart or noble to then get them to fight. It's just been a long time since we've see John do something as worthy of being liked & followed as killing the zombies or the defense of Castle Black.
I think that's intentional in some ways, the post-resurrection Jon has definitely not been as much of a leader material as he was in his first life. He seemed reluctant to even go for Winterfell, and when he committed, it always seemed he just wanted to get it over with - perhaps he even expected to die again (his late night visit to Mel seemed to hint at it).
I agree that this is definitely not a big victory and a catharsis for Jon. We'll see how he behaves in the next episode, but my guess is that he will still feel as lost, uncertain and directionless as he's been since he came back.
He needs something bigger to shake him up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
