Jump to content

Why did the Show discard Robb's will, only to arrive at the same outcome less credibly?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Doing the most stupid thing possible and getting most of his troops killed, that would win my trust. :rollseyes:

Gathering what troops he canto lead them against the guy who killed their families...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

In the most stupid way possible getting most of them killed.  Well done ShowJon.

Jon was done. As the north said, he brought vengeance. 

Also, isn't this why in another thread most people said they would not help the Starks cuz you know survival

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Doing the most stupid thing possible and getting most of his troops killed, that would win my trust. :rollseyes:

IMO the King in the North scene makes more sense if you think of it as a bunch of opportunistic Northern Lords deciding to seize the opportunity and turn the North into an elective monarchy when faced with two dumb, passive and indecisive Starks, so they would want to raise the one who has the least to lose from this (i.e. the bastard who would otherwise have nothing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2016 at 6:37 PM, GreenSeeress said:

In naming the King in the North, the lords are choosing the person to lead the fight against the Others.  Jon is the logical person to lead that fight, not Sansa, and not just because he's a warrior and she's not. He has already fought against the Others. He understands the threat as no one else in the room except Davos and Tormund do. So that's why I think the lords choose him and not Sansa.

 

I agree that Jon is the obvious choice in the only war that matters, but there are several issues that are unresolved in the show and make his ascension as KitN questionable.

First, the North is not shown to understand or even know about the threat of the Others. Jon wasn't even able to convince the Night's Watch to stop quibbling about letting the wildlings because of the much larger threat beyond the Wall, but suddenly the Northern lords are aware of/believe that such a threat exists? Lyanna Mormont is first shown to learn of this when Davos informs her about the existence of the Others, and she accepts that without question, but how about the other houses? Perhaps the point would have come across better if they mentioned the threat during Jon's coronation.

Second, this season seemed to work to undermine all of Jon's leadership qualities. He (personally) doesn't manage to get a single Northern house to join him -- I mean, it wouldn't be that hard for the show writers to have Jon be the one to convince House Mormont, or some other minor Northern House to show that he is someone that people are willing to rally behind? Instead they have Davos convince Lyanna for reasons I don't know. During the battle, he rushes in and gets most of his army killed. Sure it was noble and Stark-like to have him try to save Rickon, but realistically he would have died in the battle if not for his plot armor.

Third, the show doesn't even portray Jon as someone who is willing to lead the fight against the Others. After his resurrection, fully understanding the threat beyond the Wall, Jon deserts the Night's Watch; he tells Sansa that he is tired of fighting for cause X and cause Y, and only ends up fighting the Boltons because they have Rickon. What has changed since the start of the season and the finale that makes Jon willing to be KitN and willing to fight the Others?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Einheri said:

IMO the King in the North scene makes more sense if you think of it as a bunch of opportunistic Northern Lords deciding to seize the opportunity and turn the North into an elective monarchy when faced with two dumb, passive and indecisive Starks, so they would want to raise the one who has the least to lose from this (i.e. the bastard who would otherwise have nothing).

Now that is interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

In the most stupid way possible getting most of them killed.  Well done ShowJon.

Agreed. Hes a pathetic excuse for a commander. Even Tyrion was better than him during the battle of the blackwater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tangentially related, a lot of people discredit Sansa's role in the Battle of the Bastards, and even though she didn't display any leadership qualities, she was still crucial to Jon's winning the battle. Not because she was good at strategizing and commanding an army. Not because she was good at playing the game. But because she is Sansa Stark, daughter of Ned Stark and Catelyn Tully. The Vale troops only join in because of her, Lord Royce would have rallied the troops to protect Catelyn Tully's daughter, and Littlefinger rallies the troops because of his "picture" with Cat 2.0 or whatever plan his has that involves Sansa. If Sansa weren't in the picture, Littlefinger would have used his troops to sweep whoever was left from the battle and claim Winterfell for himself (as he was shown doing in his discussion with Cersei, regarding mobilizing the Vale troops to sweep the field after the Stannis x Bolton battle). Without Sansa, Jon would not have won, but none of the Northern houses acknowledge that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, queenmarg said:

Tangentially related, a lot of people discredit Sansa's role in the Battle of the Bastards, and even though she didn't display any leadership qualities, she was still crucial to Jon's winning the battle. Not because she was good at strategizing and commanding an army. Not because she was good at playing the game. But because she is Sansa Stark, daughter of Ned Stark and Catelyn Tully. The Vale troops only join in because of her, Lord Royce would have rallied the troops to protect Catelyn Tully's daughter, and Littlefinger rallies the troops because of his "picture" with Cat 2.0 or whatever plan his has that involves Sansa. If Sansa weren't in the picture, Littlefinger would have used his troops to sweep whoever was left from the battle and claim Winterfell for himself (as he was shown doing in his discussion with Cersei, regarding mobilizing the Vale troops to sweep the field after the Stannis x Bolton battle). Without Sansa, Jon would not have won, but none of the Northern houses acknowledge that.

They didn't? 

It was Jon who led the army. People saw him fighting tooth and nail to kill Bolton. He deserves more credit than her

im sure they acknowledge that but moreso, respect that Jon should be the King. Also, I don't recall anyone acknowledging the blacksmiths for making all those weapons, surely we know they are thanked 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, xjlxking said:

They didn't? 

It was Jon who led the army. People saw him fighting tooth and nail to kill Bolton. He deserves more credit than her

im sure they acknowledge that but moreso, respect that Jon should be the King. Also, I don't recall anyone acknowledging the blacksmiths for making all those weapons, surely we know they are thanked 

They did? When? When Lyanna declared the North would only acknowledge a Stark and went straight to Jon?

As for the blacksmith comparison, the point is moot. In a universe where those specific blacksmiths didn't exist, other people needing those jobs would have become blacksmiths and the weapons would continue existing. In a world where Sansa Stark doesn't exist, the Vale support for the Starks would not exist and Jon would have lost. In a world where Jon doesn't exist, it's hard to tell what the outcome of a Vale x Bolton war would have been like, but I'd say the Vale army would at least fared better than Jon's army of untrained wildlings + 62 Mormont men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, queenmarg said:

They did? When? When Lyanna declared the North would only acknowledge a Stark and went straight to Jon?

As for the blacksmith comparison, the point is moot. In a universe where those specific blacksmiths didn't exist, other people needing those jobs would have become blacksmiths and the weapons would continue existing. In a world where Sansa Stark doesn't exist, the Vale support for the Starks would not exist and Jon would have lost. In a world where Jon doesn't exist, it's hard to tell what the outcome of a Vale x Bolton war would have been like, but I'd say the Vale army would at least fared better than Jon's army of untrained wildlings + 62 Mormont men.

In a world where Sansa does not exist, Jon would have gone south and never hear about Rickon. Remember it was Sansa who fuel him to do something. He would not go to war if she did not exist.

and what I meant about the Blacksmiths is that just because no one said hey Sansa thank you, does not mean they don't... Thank her. You can make his claim for everyone. If it was not for Meli, he would be dead. If it was not for the wildings, they would be dead

 

normally the person who is in charge, and it was Jon would take the title. Did he have the biggest army no but he had the north which is more important, remember we saw him approaching lords first. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, xjlxking said:

In a world where Sansa does not exist, Jon would have gone south and never hear about Rickon. Remember it was Sansa who fuel him to do something. He would not go to war if she did not exist.

and what I meant about the Blacksmiths is that just because no one said hey Sansa thank you, does not mean they don't... Thank her. You can make his claim for everyone. If it was not for Meli, he would be dead. If it was not for the wildings, they would be dead

 

normally the person who is in charge, and it was Jon would take the title. Did he have the biggest army no but he had the north which is more important, remember we saw him approaching lords first. 

 

Sorry, I misinterpreted the point you were trying to make about the blacksmiths. 

As far as Sansa not being acknowledged, it seems like a deliberate omission to set up a Jon x Sansa conflict, as D&D talked about in the post-episode videos. So I still think none of the Northern houses recognize her role/name/claim or whatnot, but I guess we will have to wait for Season 7 to see.

As far as Jon's merits, it has been debated endlessly in this thread all others, whether Jon deserved the title after he led the army bravely but stupidly into Ramsay's trap, so I will not continue to beat a dead horse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

He earned their trust by being absolutely stupid in battle?  By failing to keep his cool getting most of his troops killed, by showing he can easily be manipulated?  

Did you read any of my other posts on this topic?  I have tried to lay it out as clearly as possible.  It's not like the first time he ever did anything was the BotB.  Like he just showed up took over.  He has done A LOT of other things as well, that I'm sure some of have gotten back ot the other Northerns.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, queenmarg said:

Sorry, I misinterpreted the point you were trying to make about the blacksmiths. 

As far as Sansa not being acknowledged, it seems like a deliberate omission to set up a Jon x Sansa conflict, as D&D talked about in the post-episode videos. So I still think none of the Northern houses recognize her role/name/claim or whatnot, but I guess we will have to wait for Season 7 to see.

As far as Jon's merits, it has been debated endlessly in this thread all others, whether Jon deserved the title after he led the army bravely but stupidly into Ramsay's trap, so I will not continue to beat a dead horse.

Fair enough.

i agree on the second point, I too think that there will be some sort of fight or whatever you want to call it between Jon and Sansa. Although, I still believe that Sansa at the end will hold the title and Jon will be further in command. 

 

As as far as Jon being stupid. Perhaps yes but the fact is people followed him. They could have easily said no to his call for help, or Davos' command. Let's not forget that when he came back to life, the wildings thought of his as a god. People also heard of all the stuff he has done (greatest swordman in the north), and he also did avenge the red wedding, (with Sansa) 

 

if I was one of those lords, I'd give the title  to Jon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon proved himself to all northern factions.

He proved himself to the night's watch at CB saving CB from the surprise attack. He made a huge personal sacrifice (Ygrette) for duty and for the "greater good" without having any personal gain on the table.

He proved himself for the wildlings at Hardhomme when he went there risking his own life to save wildlings. Again he had nothing to gain from it.

Last but not least, he proved himslef to the northern lords when he fought and risked his life for Rickon and Sansa. Yet again he could hope no personal gain from it as he is a bastard. It was clear that even if they won Sansa (Rickon if survives) has Winterfell and not Jon.

His willingness and determination to fight for the people (regardless whether they "wildlings", northeners etc) is beyond doubt. He leads by example, he never asks anything he would not do it himself. How is it not "kingly" material?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎27‎/‎06‎/‎2016 at 8:30 PM, sifth said:

How could Sansa even marry Ramsay with Tyrion still alive? Seriously this has been an issue with me for a while now. I mean sure Sansa getting raped by her husband was sick and disturbing as hell, but it never made sense to me how she could marry that psycho in the first place.

By european medieval standart rules on which the fiefs, land, and custos in Westeros are based a marrage never consumated can be set aside. Sansa is not Sansa Stark or Lannister, she is Sansa Bolton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, HallowedMarcus said:

By european medieval standart rules on which the fiefs, land, and custos in Westeros are based a marrage never consumated can be set aside. Sansa is not Sansa Stark or Lannister, she is Sansa Bolton.

I agree she is a Bolton as far the north is concerned. House Stark is dead unless Bran returns and has some miracle children. Even if Jon was really Ned's son he's not a Stark either. Maybe Jon will annulled her marriages somehow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, captaindargo said:

I agree she is a Bolton as far the north is concerned. House Stark is dead unless Bran returns and has some miracle children. Even if Jon was really Ned's son he's not a Stark either. Maybe Jon will annulled her marriages somehow. 

No the Stark are not dead because John Snow is a Stark and a Targaryen, if the direct descentes of Edward Stark were dead. Considering that Prince Rhaegar and Lysana did marry before a tree or/and a Septon.

But even  if John dies thae Stark line is not dead at all. Because....

ARYA STARK still lives!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, queenmarg said:

TIn a world where Jon doesn't exist, it's hard to tell what the outcome of a Vale x Bolton war would have been like, but I'd say the Vale army would at least fared better than Jon's army of untrained wildlings + 62 Mormont men.

Yeah, the Vale would have done much better - except the can't siege the castle, which would mean them dying outside in the snow. When the Vale arme appeared, Ramsay went back the Wf, and prepared for the siege. Without WunWun (who followed Jon) they couldn't have taken Winterfell back, not even with a much bigger Vale army. 

So maybe the Vale army would have lasted longer, but they would be dead anyway.

The Vale won the battle, but Jon took Winterfell back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...