Jump to content

Death Of Logistics Logic?


The Bare Hand

Recommended Posts

Over the years, it always irked me that some of what we saw regarding the running of kingdoms, city states or armies was a bit questionable. I forgave it mostly due to focus being given to maybe more important elements, but this season a few things have been too much for me to ignore. 

At the beginning of the season, the biggest army - one of the biggest - Westeros has seen for a long time arrives at a tiny island and decides to camp there, so far not good but not impossible. Advisers to the queen manage to stay her hand and not attack the capital immediately; thus, making their stay on the tiny island a longer term plan. Now we know a Dothraki khalasar is not just the warriors and their horses; consisting of families, former slaves or whoever decides to join in I guess. Add to that, the Unsullied, Dany's retinue, the crew of her ships and you get the point. Although we do not see any of that during the shots of Dragonstone where Dany and Co do their thing, but nowhere is mentioned how this horde of over 150,000 in number are being managed on an island where Stannis barely survived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen others bring this up. It would have made more sense if they had some sort of reasonable explanation for how her forces are deployed, because it's flat out impossible for all of them to be on Dragonstone. But you know, at the end of the day, that sort of thing isn't what GRRM, D & D, or any of the other writers (and directors) are interested in. It's annoying because it would have taken 5 seconds to say something about landing her forces in the Stormlands (or wherever). But nope, the creative vision just doesn't include that sort of thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its not just during the current season either. martin, in both books and show, seems to not consider logistics when the series gets to military matters. if logistics had been considered, then robb could have beaten tywin almost as soon as the lannister army moves into harrenhal. then tywin's supply line runs all the way across the riverlands back into his home territory of the westerlands. the logistic train would run close enough to riverrun that robb could have easily cut it, forcing tywin to draw solely on the crownlands for support, and that region is stretched thin as it is, as about a third of it sided with stannis, and most of what remained was straining to supply Kings Landing. robb could have laid siege to harrenhal and let tywin starve. robb's own supply line was relatively secure, at least from lannisters, as it ran from riverrun up into the north, and when the riverlords swore to house stark, he was technically fighting in friendly territory, and could draw on the riverlands for support, with out simply raiding the populous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pecan said:

I've seen others bring this up. It would have made more sense if they had some sort of reasonable explanation for how her forces are deployed, because it's flat out impossible for all of them to be on Dragonstone. But you know, at the end of the day, that sort of thing isn't what GRRM, D & D, or any of the other writers (and directors) are interested in. It's annoying because it would have taken 5 seconds to say something about landing her forces in the Stormlands (or wherever). But nope, the creative vision just doesn't include that sort of thing. 

You are complaining about this when Euron and his giant fleet keeps going in and out of King's landing, passing by that narrow corridor where Dragonstone is and where Daenerys and her dragons and company are, without ever getting spotted by them. It is biggest bullshit of them all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tormond said:

You are complaining about this when Euron and his giant fleet keeps going in and out of King's landing, passing by that narrow corridor where Dragonstone is and where Daenerys and her dragons and company are, without ever getting spotted by them. It is biggest bullshit of them all. 

Euron has a magic invisibility amulet that he found in Asshai. He uses it to make his entire fleet invisible. I'm surprised you weren't aware of this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

I've seen others bring this up. It would have made more sense if they had some sort of reasonable explanation for how her forces are deployed, because it's flat out impossible for all of them to be on Dragonstone. But you know, at the end of the day, that sort of thing isn't what GRRM, D & D, or any of the other writers (and directors) are interested in. It's annoying because it would have taken 5 seconds to say something about landing her forces in the Stormlands (or wherever). But nope, the creative vision just doesn't include that sort of thing. 

 

GRRM is extremely interested in this stuff. Indeed, it's part of the reason why he had big problems with AFFC and ADWD (and possibly TWoW): getting characters into the right place at the right time in a way that makes sense when it takes forever to get anywhere due to the limitations of c. 14th Century technology. 

Benioff and Weiss don't give even the slightest toss about it. I think probably a happier middle ground could have been found for the show, especially since a lot of the most egregious problems could have been fixed with a line or two of dialogue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Werthead said:

GRRM is extremely interested in this stuff. Indeed, it's part of the reason why he had big problems with AFFC and ADWD (and possibly TWoW): getting characters into the right place at the right time in a way that makes sense when it takes forever to get anywhere due to the limitations of c. 14th Century technology. 

Benioff and Weiss don't give even the slightest toss about it. I think probably a happier middle ground could have been found for the show, especially since a lot of the most egregious problems could have been fixed with a line or two of dialogue.

I don't know that GRRM is especially interested in the actual logistics of moving an army from one place to another. Granted, he doesn't completely ignore that stuff the way the show does, but he doesn't go into any level of detail in the books. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  1. he also seems to have a bad habit about jumping in time. one moment the royal party is leaving the inn of the crossroads, the next they are at KL. he doesnt really go into how long it takes for someone to travel from point A to point B. how long did it take for robb to move his army from Moat Cailin to the twins? or for Jaime to ride from KL to casterly rock? or how long it takes to sail from white harbor to KL, and from KL to old town?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why does it matter? I'm not trying to be contrary, but honestly asking why it matters. We know the Dothraki are there, and they are alive; so it's reasonable to conclude they are surviving and managing. But why do we need to know the, cold-hard facts and figures, as it were? What type of dialogue or such would you think needed in order to satisfy your curiosity, and then, is the dialogue necessary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George's details on logistics get better in the later books. In the beginning things don't work quite so well in that field.

The show essentially tossed out good sense in that field back in season 2 when Littlefinger first used his teleportation device to jump from KL to Harrenhal to the Stormlands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Harrenhal to the Stormlands.

Strike that.  Reverse it.  But yes, this was the harbinger.  They're obviously racing to the finish, which is terribly disappointing when one considers HBO would probably renew them to the 10th season right now if they wanted.  It is what it is.  This thread mainly got my attention for the tortured title of logistics logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, John Meta said:

But why does it matter? I'm not trying to be contrary, but honestly asking why it matters. We know the Dothraki are there, and they are alive; so it's reasonable to conclude they are surviving and managing. But why do we need to know the, cold-hard facts and figures, as it were? What type of dialogue or such would you think needed in order to satisfy your curiosity, and then, is the dialogue necessary?

It matters, because logic matters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, L’Age d’or said:

It matters, because logic matters?

I understand what you're saying but what I mean is, when does logic matter; why? Such as, is it logical that dragons can fly? Should it be logically explained? Do we need to know the logistics of forging Valyrian steel, or crafting obsidian? When Dany sailed for Westeros do we need a scene with crates being loaded onto the ships and someone saying "Get that grain and foodstuff on the ship so we have food for the journey" "How many crates do we have?" "X thousand" "That will be enough for our Y number of troops" "Good" it just seems really forced and unnecessary dialogue. And where does the logistic line get drawn? Do we also need lines explaining where the Dothraki will use the bathroom? Whenever a journey has taken place do we need dialogue "I'm glad we finally made it" "Yes, it's been X days travelling at Y kmh over Z km; but thankfully we loaded A food in B crates to nourish our C troops" "Good"?

Also if we say "The Dothraki are at Dragonstone and the Dothraki are surviving" then is it logical to conclude they have the resources to survive without the cold facts being introduced into scenes and dialogue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, John Meta said:

I understand what you're saying but what I mean is, when does logic matter; why? Such as, is it logical that dragons can fly? Should it be logically explained? Do we need to know the logistics of forging Valyrian steel, or crafting obsidian? When Dany sailed for Westeros do we need a scene with crates being loaded onto the ships and someone saying "Get that grain and foodstuff on the ship so we have food for the journey" "How many crates do we have?" "X thousand" "That will be enough for our Y number of troops" "Good" it just seems really forced and unnecessary dialogue. And where does the logistic line get drawn? Do we also need lines explaining where the Dothraki will use the bathroom? Whenever a journey has taken place do we need dialogue "I'm glad we finally made it" "Yes, it's been X days travelling at Y kmh over Z km; but thankfully we loaded A food in B crates to nourish our C troops" "Good"?

Also if we say "The Dothraki are at Dragonstone and the Dothraki are surviving" then is it logical to conclude they have the resources to survive without the cold facts being introduced into scenes and dialogue?

It matters because if the fictional universe doesn't adhere to it's own rules then it becomes a silly, unbelievable story.  HBO has maps of Westeros.  We can see that Dragonstone is small, Stannis already told us that there is nothing there of value.  So, the idea of 100,00+ Dothraki on Dragonstone for months is stretching credulity.  If this was the only thing, that would be okay we don't expect fictional worlds to never rely on coincidence or to explain all details.  But, when the same things are glossed over, again and again, it makes the story weak and silly.  When armies are always, every time, showing up over the horizon out of nowhere and everyone is surprised, then it becomes no better than a bad action flick.  When distances that used to take time to travel now appear to happen in a couple of days, same thing.  When characters forget or remember key pieces of information as the plot demands, it's bad writing and destroys the immersion in the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

It matters because if the fictional universe doesn't adhere to it's own rules then it becomes a silly, unbelievable story.  HBO has maps of Westeros.  We can see that Dragonstone is small, Stannis already told us that there is nothing there of value.  So, the idea of 100,00+ Dothraki on Dragonstone for months is stretching credulity.  If this was the only thing, that would be okay we don't expect fictional worlds to never rely on coincidence or to explain all details.  But, when the same things are glossed over, again and again, it makes the story weak and silly.  When armies are always, every time, showing up over the horizon out of nowhere and everyone is surprised, then it becomes no better than a bad action flick.  When distances that used to take time to travel now appear to happen in a couple of days, same thing.  When characters forget or remember key pieces of information as the plot demands, it's bad writing and destroys the immersion in the story.

Adherence to rules, I agree: but our inability to know what the Dothraki are, saying, eating is not breaking any rules, it's just not providing information that is not relevant and doesn't need to be addressed. A difference would be if, say, King's Landing is shown as not starving in winter after we've gotten the information that their food supply was destroyed.

I'm not sure about how many square miles comprises the Dragonstone area; Stannis saying "nothing of value" doesn't tell me anything since I'm not sure what he's meaning by "of value" (though it turns out that Dragonstone is on a mountain of dragonglass which is now "more precious than gold" so I do get the irony in Stannis' remark). But, I do understand where you're coming from: a large army needs resources (I even wondered this back at the beginning of the story - how do the Dothraki survive at all in such numbers? But my question being, is it relevant to the story? And, where does the logistic-line get drawn? When do we actually need information for the writing to be "good"?

I'm not sure about the "armies are always showing up over the horizon" is a logistics problem? A narrative problem? How many times has this occurred, and when is "too many"? Seems an arbitrary thought.

When you say about distances "now appear to be different" I'm not sure what you mean by "appear": do you mean as logistics, or, as narrative? Meaning, are you suggesting that "it took a week last time and now only took a day" or are you meaning "last time I saw them en-route, but this time they did not show them en-route, so the absence of the en-route scene makes the narrative more concise"?

Also not sure what you mean about characters forgetting things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh, that seems like a pretty good map - sure DS and Driftmark seem a little north, and the Eyrie apparently is on flat ground.  Other than those complaints, seems fairly solid to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-8-17 at 0:47 PM, John Meta said:

I understand what you're saying but what I mean is, when does logic matter; why?

When the logistics of something conflicts with prior established rules or facts, for the sole purpose of moving the plot in the direction that the show runners want it to go; You know, "creatively it made sense to us because we wanted it to happen". 

It has been established in world, that DS is a small rocky island that has limited resources of no value. So much so that "Queen Cercei" - a ridiculously illogical concept in of itself - deemed DS to be of so little importance that it was left abandoned for months on end, despite its strategic military location, and now, apparently the resources to sustain an army of a hundred thousand soldiers. If I am to assume that DS has the resources to sustain this large army, then it must be explained why such a resource rich island was left abandoned.

On 2017-8-17 at 0:47 PM, John Meta said:

Such as, is it logical that dragons can fly?

Yes, it is logical that dragons can fly. That is an established fact in the world of ice and fire. In fact, GRRM had rejected the original concept art of HBOs dragons on the grounds that they did not adhere to proper evolutionary rules; the original dragons were to have four legs.

On 2017-8-17 at 0:47 PM, John Meta said:

 Whenever a journey has taken place do we need dialogue "I'm glad we finally made it" "Yes, it's been X days travelling at Y kmh over Z km; but thankfully we loaded A food in B crates to nourish our C troops" "Good"?

You are attempting to build a straw man argument here. The issue is not that everything isn't explicitly shown or explained. One could easily assume that a trip from Slavers Bay to Dragonstone took the required amount of time to make the trip, without the show explaining or showing that it did. The issue is that the time lines are not consistent or plausible in reference to other time lines in the show. If I assume that it took a month for Danny and her army to travel to DS, then why has only a day or a week passed in other parts of Westeros?

On 2017-8-17 at 0:47 PM, John Meta said:

Also if we say "The Dothraki are at Dragonstone and the Dothraki are surviving" then is it logical to conclude they have the resources to survive without the cold facts being introduced into scenes and dialogue?

That would be acceptable if it wasn't already established that they don't have the resources to survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Darkstream said:

When the logistics of something conflicts with prior established rules or facts, for the sole purpose of moving the plot in the direction that the show runners want it to go; You know, "creatively it made sense to us because we wanted it to happen". 

It has been established in world, that DS is a small rocky island that has limited resources of no value. So much so that "Queen Cercei" - a ridiculously illogical concept in of itself - deemed DS to be of so little importance that it was left abandoned for months on end, despite its strategic military location, and now, apparently the resources to sustain an army of a hundred thousand soldiers. If I am to assume that DS has the resources to sustain this large army, then it must be explained why such a resource rich island was left abandoned.

Yes, it is logical that dragons can fly. That is an established fact in the world of ice and fire. In fact, GRRM had rejected the original concept art of HBOs dragons on the grounds that they did not adhere to proper evolutionary rules; the original dragons were to have four legs.

You are attempting to build a straw man argument here. The issue is not that everything isn't explicitly shown or explained. One could easily assume that a trip from Slavers Bay to Dragonstone took the required amount of time to make the trip, without the show explaining or showing that it did. The issue is that the time lines are not consistent or plausible in reference to other time lines in the show. If I assume that it took a month for Danny and her army to travel to DS, then why has only a day or a week passed in other parts of Westeros?

That would be acceptable if it wasn't already established that they don't have the resources to survive.

First a small favor to ask if you would: I can't figure out how to convert the quote into html so I can divide it in my responses like you're doing. I don't see the option in the text box tools. If that's not an option at all, how are you dividing the quote into sections?

I agree about the contradictory information being a problem.

About Dragonstone, you bring up that it has no resources deemed by Cersei as worthy of a Lannister presence, but again, I'm not sure what she considers resources worthy of a Lannister presence. So I don't really see that as a contradiction, but as a lack of definition creating a case of too little information to actual draw a conclusion. I do note on the map there is another larger island next to Dragonstone, but I'm not sure of the square milage of either. I'm seeing this as a case of, I don't have enough information to call this a contradiction, and I'm not entirely sure it needs to be addressed. I can understand wanting it addressed by certain group of viewers, but that is where I'm asking, where is the line drawn as to, what needs addressed and what doesn't (especially in order to consider it "good writing"): and who determines this? It seems to me to create a logistics "slippery slope" which will inevitably detract from the story itself, as people will vary over, what we need addressed and what we do not.

I mentioned before I wondered how the Dothraki survive in such numbers even in their native land. I wonder how the Mongols survived their campaigns in our world; but apparently they did. Agree the situation at Dragonstone "appears" to even further limit their resources, but without proper information I just can't draw any conclusions; and I'm not sure it's needed that it be explained.

Okay about the dragons. Note I'm really just trying to understand the ideas in the thread when I'm asking these questions. Trying to be sure I understand where people are coming from, as it were, when words like "logic" and "logistics" are being used. Because that's my reason, I don't agree I'm creating a strawman argument by asking "Where is the line drawn?" and asking "Do we need dialogue explaining every movement?" If anything, I am addressing a potential slippery slope and asking, where does the slippery slope end, because it could end up creating dialogue for every movement, every situation. You respond with a limit of "contradictory information" and that is fair; but again, I'm not sure the Dragonstone situation is "contradictory information" or is different undefined uses of "valuable resources" (meaning not sure either Stannis or Cersei were meaning "huntable animals/edible fauna" as "valuable resources" or if they were meaning, "gold mine/iron ore"): but I do see the irony in both leaving the "mountain of dragonglass" abandoned as "not useful"

About the time differentials: I can propose that narrative timing doesn't always (if rarely?) work like straight linear timing, and I'm not sure that needs explained, unless perhaps it is readily obvious their is a timing situation. What I mean is, in a narrative it isn't always "event-event-event:scene-scene-scene" and can jump around without needing to state the timing differential. As an example of what I mean: we may have a scene with, say, Sansa talking to someone and her dialogue ending the scene is "and to the Wall", scene cuts to King's Landing and Cersei's first dialogue is "Let's have a talk": now, to the viewer the scenes follow each other in linear time, but in the narrative structure we're not able to say "If it was 11pm when Sansa finished her dialogue, then 10 seconds later Cersei began hers in King's Landing" do you know what I mean? So narrative time doesn't flow like linear time.

So if we say Dany took a month to travel to Dragonstone, why did only a week or day pass in other parts of Westeros, I would ask, are we sure this is being relayed as information; or are you assuming a timing structure that the narrative structure isn't intending? Does that make sense? This then causes a situation where I'm asking, when does this really need to be addressed in a story? Using the Dany taking X time to cross to Dragonstone, what is the information you're using to, cite this instance as a contradictory timing situation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...