darmody Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 5 hours ago, El Guapo said: I seem to recall Ser Alliser Thorne rallying the Nights Watch to fight. Yes, but Thorne was wounded by Tormund and command fell to Jon, who was already in charge up on the Wall. Jon carried the night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illiterati Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 I think Jon is a great natural leader, who others are compelled to follow. He is obviously also an accomplished fighter. I see, however, no indication that he is a military strategist of any worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lakin1013 Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 8 hours ago, Haskelltier said: Because the Lord of Light demands it! Oh, sorry, wrong line, I mean, because the plot demands it! I think this can be extended to a lot of characters. Tyrion's "clever plots" are rather bad. Jaime charging a dragon is the action of a madman. Jaime diving like a fish in full plate to not get caught. Arya and Sansas talks and behavior in Winterfell and so on. That's all bad storytelling and it's only done to get exiting scenes and shocking moments, while the main characters and the viewer's favorites wear thick plot armor. One of the themes that I think Martin stressed in his books is that people behave in complex and confusing ways and often display shades of grey. Because D&D are writing for tv and because they seem to aim low, I think this is their idea of applying complexity to the characters they are now in charge of. In the start, they had Martin's words, people, and worlds. Now they are on their own and they have a hard time maintaining complicated characters. All of the examples you mention are from this season - completely handled by D&D. In some cases, we should probably give thanks for plot armor or all our favorite characters would be dead and it would be boobs and battles and over the top Euron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster_Under_the_Bed Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, Illiterati said: I think Jon is a great natural leader, who others are compelled to follow. He is obviously also an accomplished fighter. I see, however, no indication that he is a military strategist of any worth. I also think he is a good leader. He doesn't have much experience as a big battle commander, but it seems that potential is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watcher of the night Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 44 minutes ago, Illiterati said: I see, however, no indication that he is a military strategist of any worth. Name one person in the show who is a "military strategist of any worth" based on the actions of that person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plastic throne Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 1 hour ago, watcher of the night said: The problem is that you are completely misguided yourself. You are not criticising the show; you are (i) labelling and name calling people who dare to disagree with you, (ii) hating Jon Snow. This is obvious from other threads, as soon as I saw your name I was sure that you will do your best to drag Jon into the mud. If you were really critical of the show you would have realized that: (i) the whole BoB was a giant plot device to allow Littlefinger (Sansa) to ride in with the Knights of the Vale and save the day; (ii) showrunners do not know anything about medieval military tactics and formations. This later is clear from the positioning of Ramsay troops (they were postioned as a Total War player would do them, not as a medieval commander), or from the other battles like the field of fire 2.0 where Randyl Tarly did all the noob mistakes depsite being the "greatest commender" in westeros. I don't see where do I call people names exactly. Words such as "idiot", "fool" and such words are not in my vocabulary here. At least not when talking/describing other users; think I did use such bad word once describing Jon though. But - no hard feelings - since I'm sure fictional character does not care about that. Also, you should know that Jon and the Wildlings are my favorite 'folks' from ASOIAF. And I am criticizing the show for taking unbelievable steps just to satisfy their need for "drama". For your arguments though... Just what are you trying to accomplish here really? So if showrunners don't know jack sh*t about the medieval battles (they do get payed quite a lot though) and they write them as such - I have to ignore how completely useless Jon from the show is as a commander? Writing should have consequences on a character and his abilities, or we have to assume 'something' here again like it is suggested in other threads? Unlike you, I gave exact arguments why I feel this way. Actual ones, not meta. And since we're debating what they "tried to show with BoB", I'll tell you right here as an extra on top of this "vale saving the day". Ever since he was resurrected he wasn't himself, melancholic, even pleaded Mel to never again try to ress him again, so we have this really suicidal Jon at the beginning of the battle (his charge). However during the course of battle, at the one - lowest point suffocating - when he is just about to give up, he finds the strength in him to live and symbolically climbs/claws his way up to take a deep breath. Really good idea but poor execution because in process to get there they made him a terrible commander. They had this scene in their heads first and then they resolved everything around it to move him there. They did the same in the latest episode with that frozen lake; they even said/confirmed it so. 1 hour ago, watcher of the night said: Name just one battle, ONE where the truly inferior side won. The side with inferior men, equipment, training and position. In all battles where the so called "inferior" side won -which people usually mean the side with less men- this "inferior" side had either better equipment, training or positining or a combination of the three. Jon had inferiority in everything: troop numbers, equipment ,training, position. No general could have won this battle unless the other side made some stupid mistake. Of course, Jon (or any sane general) should have declined to fight under these conditions but we know this fight had to happen for show reasons outside Jon. Also the composition of Jon's troops made it impossible to carry out any complicated manouvers. More than half of his army were wildings in fur armed with spears and long knives. It is utterly impossible that he could have carried out a double envelopment like Hannibal. That manouvre needs highly disciplined troops that can hold the centre and retreat in order, at leats not break under heavy pressure. Also it needs troops that can win the flanks. Hannibal had both: he had superior cavalry to the romans, and he had his well armed, battle tested veterans in the centre. Jon had none. If there is anyone to blame it is Sansa, who could have told Jon that the KotV are near, that would have been a game changer. Sigh. FIrst of all - there is no professional army here, its commoners; and Ramsey had no veterans. One battle (against Stannis) hardly makes you a veteran. Let's say they were better equipped (just like the Romans against Hannibal btw). Unlike Free folks, who are the actual veterans here. And giants,... I don't know for you but that's a game changer right there (hint: you have to equip it though and that bow he had at The Wall shooting ballistas - yea). Name one battle? I'm not kidding but you can use Google yourself. Battle of Cannae is such battle though regardless you saying otherwise (don't know why though, because it is widely accepted as the victory against the odds, showing geniousity of Hannibal). And btw, Romans were better quipped and rested, Hannibal had better cavalry though and his folks battle tested. Nonetheless, you have Napoleon, his usual tactics of breaking the enemy into smaller, more manageable groups then killing one by one with his main group. You have Russian - Afghan war in modern history, Siege of Vienna, Mongols regularly fought outnumbered, Oda Nobunaga's famous victories (battle of Okezama; 40,000 vs. 2000). Spartacus at Mount Vesuvius (inferiority on all accounts). However one thing is common with those men; they were all cunning, smart and resourceful, true generals and this is a debate - is Jon such? And this is not taking positions/"teams", but for me, this is a fact - verified by actual scenes from the show. Oh, and sure - we can't know how the battle plans would develop during the course of battle because - you know - someone special discarded all the plans and went full YOLO on the enemy. Remind me now, who that was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illiterati Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, watcher of the night said: Name one person in the show who is a "military strategist of any worth" based on the actions of that person. Daario. Jorah. Tarly. (In fairness, a DRAGON!) Larry, for that matter. He rope-a-doped Dany at Casterly Rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Okra Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 48 minutes ago, Illiterati said: I think Jon is a great natural leader, who others are compelled to follow. He is obviously also an accomplished fighter. I see, however, no indication that he is a military strategist of any worth. John had a decent plan at the Battle for the Wall and the Battle of the Bastards. The wall battle....he was ignored. This is actually some justification for him doing the stupid wight hunt. He's already seen what can happen if you can't convince people and he needs to convince the South that WW are real. Not saying the mission wasn't stupid as the show's characters on the mission call it stupid.....everybody knows it was stupid but desperate times call for desperate measures. Now, the Rickon thing was just him letting his emotions trump his decent battle plans. Trenches to defend from cavalry......make him come at me hard.....etc. It was also showing us that Sansa isn't naive or stupid anymore. She warns Jon....clearly.....that he will be baited into doing something stupid if he isnt careful......eh, he got played by Ramsey. Anyway, his battle strategies were ok. They just weren't well executed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watcher of the night Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Illiterati said: They didn't win CB, and they knew they hadn't won CB. How come? The nightwacth had the wall, the gate, they had CB. You have a very strange idea of losing. The future was not looking very bright, but they won the previous day of fighting without the slightest doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plastic throne Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Just now, watcher of the night said: Name one person in the show who is a "military strategist of any worth" based on the actions of that person. Until plot needs it otherwise - Tarly, Stannis, Ned should be ok-ish at least, Danny's council is suppose to be good. But never Jon, never. Actually, come to think of it, Danny is THE BEST general in the show, she won every single battle (unlike Jon who did the opposite) and that particular one against slave masters of Astapor - that was some cunning sh*t she pulled there, real Sun Tzu, A+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Dingleberry Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, plastic throne said: Sigh. FIrst of all - there is no professional army here, its commoners; and Ramsey had no veterans. One battle (against Stannis) hardly makes you a veteran. Let's say they were better equipped (just like the Romans against Hannibal btw). Unlike Free folks, who are the actual veterans here. And giants,... I don't know for you but that's a game changer right there (hint: you have to equip it though and that bow he had at The Wall shooting ballistas - yea). This was my issue, everything we knew about the giants (stories and the battle of the wall) were completely ignored at the BoB. I mean there wasn't even a conversation that maybe WunWun just didn't like wearing armor or using a bow or anything. We are supposed to assume that WunWun was capable of becoming the last surviving Giant, then capable of swimming the in the Frozen Sea to the magically be placed on a ship, and then he threw all caution to the wind in the whatever time period he had to prepare for the BoB. Its just lazy writing in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illiterati Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, watcher of the night said: How come? The nightwacth had the wall, the gate, they had CB. You have a very strange idea of losing. The future was not looking very bright, but they won the previous day of fighting without the slightest doubt. Perhaps you need to rewatch. They survived first wave. They knew they couldn't survive second wave. That's why Jon went after Mance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watcher of the night Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 7 minutes ago, Illiterati said: Daario. Jorah. Tarly. (In fairness, a DRAGON!) Larry, for that matter. He rope-a-doped Dany at Casterly Rock. When did Dario or Jorah commanded an army or lead a battle? They are good fighters -just as Jon- but they were never in charge of an army. Larry, who's army was roasted next day, Larry who was saved the most unbelievable way? Tarly failed so miserably it is painful to list: no scouts, no pikes, infantry in thin lines, using archers against the dragon instead of the unarmoured dothraki, forgetting about the ballista (where were the crew?) and where were the cavalry? They had no cavalry, no rearguard? Again, I do not blaim Tarly, it is clear that these fighting scenes are written by people who have never seen a fight or never read a book on medieval warfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illiterati Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Larry and Tarly failed because Dragons. What was decimated WAS the rear guard. They got the gold into KL, which was their mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watcher of the night Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 13 minutes ago, Illiterati said: Perhaps you need to rewatch. They survived first wave. They knew they couldn't survive second wave. That's why Jon went after Mance. Tell me how could they survive the first wave if they did not win? I am not arguing about their changes later on, it was clearly bad, but to argue that they did not win fight on the first day is just insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illiterati Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, watcher of the night said: Tell me how could they survive the first wave if they did not win? I am not arguing about their changes later on, it was clearly bad, but to argue that they did not win fight on the first day is just insane. Winning a wave is not winning a battle. Some of them survived the first wave. Even they had no optimism to survive the next one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watcher of the night Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 3 minutes ago, Illiterati said: Larry and Tarly failed because Dragons. What was decimated WAS the rear guard. They got the gold into KL, which was their mission. Why were no scouts, no cavalry with the rearguard? Why did they deploy the men in thin lines? Why did they forget to bring pikes? Why did they forget the ballista, their "secret" anti-dragon weapon? Why were they there on the first place, if that was "just" the rearguard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watcher of the night Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 Just now, Illiterati said: Winning a wave is not winning a battle. Some of them survived the first wave. Even they had no optimism to survive the next one. Well in this case winning the first wave was enough to win the battle. Nobody new and nobody expected this way, but it was enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illiterati Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 1 minute ago, watcher of the night said: Why were no scouts, no cavalry with the rearguard? Why did they deploy the men in thin lines? Why did they forget to bring pikes? Why did they forget the ballista, their "secret" anti-dragon weapon? Why were they there on the first place, if that was "just" the rearguard? You don't know that there were no scouts that were overrun by the hoarde. They had cavalry, they had no time to mount it. They barely had time to scramble a shield wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illiterati Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 1 minute ago, watcher of the night said: Well in this case winning the first wave was enough to win the battle. Nobody new and nobody expected this way, but it was enough. Nope. In my estimation, without Stannis, they were all dead. That's the very definition of a deus ex machina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.