Put away the GNC, we already have a new King in the North

[Antler's Fury]

The point about strategy isn't having better knowledge but the analytical ability to find the best course of action to achieve your goals in a given situation. What the scene between Jon and Stannis shows is that Stannis lacks that.

In planning to advance on the Dreadfort Stannis is relying on pure luck - ie that he can advance deep into enemy territory, surround the Dreadfort, build siege engines and seize the Dreadfort all while retaining the element of surprise...in hostile territory. If Stannis had more troops that might have been a risk he could afford to take but not really with his claim to the throne dependant on the circa fifteen hundred men that he has.

No, it relies on the weakness of the Bolton's garrison and the Boltons' main force being engaged at Moat Cailin, which would indeed put the numbers in Stannis' favor. Hardly luck. Jon's contribution to the discussion is his better understanding of the Northern houses, their capabilities, history, etc which is only to be expected given that he's a native of the area. In this case, he knows the desires and capabilities of the Umber lords, how fast Ramsay can move to get back to the Dreadfort before Stannis takes it, the Dreadfort's own defenses, etc.

[butterbumps!]

Sure but the navy contributed more, which is something that Stannis knew and Jon did not. The point is, you can't take one instance of one character knowing more than another as proof that he's a better strategist.

We don't actually know whether the goat track or navy contributed more to the victory, though. Stannis scoffs at Jon's request to woo the Mountain Clans, Jon tried to bring up the fact that goat tracks can be important (he doesn't even claim it was the sole reason for the Dorne conquest victory), and Stannis response is as much about disdain for winning wars goat track style over naval battle as it is about the facts of that particular war.

I'm not actually trying to suggest Jon is a better strategist, but felt inspired to address the notion that Jon skills as a strategist is "laughable" compared to Stannis. I agree that one singular passage is not enough, but would, perhaps argue that the way Stannis thinks is more tactical rather than strategic.

Sure he does. For instance, he knows that the Manderlys will side with the Boltons unless he convinces them otherwise, which is why he sends Davos over to do that. He knows that the mountain clans will not side with him unless he endures their time-wasting feasts, so he puts up with them. He knows that the Hornwoods, Cerwyns, Ryswells, Dustins, and Tallharts all declared for the Boltons. He only assumes the Northern lords will automatically follow him if he has a son of Ned Stark on his side, which is not an unreasonable assumption to make, since Manderly believes the same thing.

The Wall is based upon the opposite model; it's harder to take from the North than from the South. Moat Cailin is harder to take from the South than from the North. That said, Stannis does know that the Moat is easier to take from the North than from the South; he specifically says that Ramsay wants to open up the way for Roose to return. Ramsay would be the one helping Roose, and not the other way around, only if the Moat was weaker in the North than the South. It is Justin Massey who doesn't know the difference between attacking the Moat from the North versus the South.

In the seige of the Dreadfort, the Boltons would not outnumber him, which is exactly why he wants to attack it while Ramsay is away: it's garrisoned by fifty old men, boys, and servants. They'd only outnumber him after Roose and Ramsay joined forces. However, Stannis is confident that he can take the castle before their arrival because he believes that the Dreadfort's defensive strength is countered by the weakness of its garrison, which he thinks can be overcome by seige weaponry. Even then, I don't see how Jon is correct when he says that the Boltons would be able to cut Stannis off from food or refuge; the Boltons are coming from the South, so Stannis could easily retreat North to the Wall or the Last Hearth considering that he'd have won over Mors to get to the Dreadfort. The plan to take the Dreadfort would fail because of the Karstark betrayal; Ramsay left the castle intentionally weak as bait so that Stannis would attack it and be backstabbed by the Karstarks

The North doesn't become a stepping stone to the Iron Throne simply because Stannis sees it that way. It's a stepping stone precisely because its on fire so of course he would piss on it.

1. It still stands that Stannis assumed he'd take a major fort in the north without interference/ without the northmen warning the Boltons. Sorry if I didn't make this more clear. He's making a major assumption that he'll be relatively free from interference....in enemy territory.

2. Yes, the Wall is based on the opposite model. Again, I'm not taking issue with the fact that Stannis doesn't know the specifics of this, but that being as how Stannis has experience with both sieges and the Wall, which operate on the model that one end is more defensible than the other, that the prospect it might fall quickly should have been at least considered. His entire plan was based on Cailing not falling; given this, you'd think he'd be a bit more curious in general about how long it would reasonably take.

3. Look at this a moment. Stannis now knows that Moat Cailing will fall quickly and that the combined Bolton Frey forces will beat him there. In light of this, he wants to go ahead with this and take his changes with a siege, but doesn't even question the strength of the castle he's insisting he will attack. Stannis is convinced he should go ahead with a plan in which he attacks the Dreadfort with returned Bolton forces inside, taking his chances against them, and a split force that will undoubtedly hammer him into the anvil, and prevent his retreat.

I understand that they needed to get past the wall. I just think force should have been a very last resort. Mance could have done way more to at least try to go south peacefully.

And, as it happens, Mance tried to do that. He used force as his last resort. There's some hint that he was under considerable pressure from Others attacks, and time was of the essence.

[Chaircat Meow]

The point about strategy isn't having better knowledge but the analytical ability to find the best course of action to achieve your goals in a given situation. What the scene between Jon and Stannis shows is that Stannis lacks that.

You need the information in order to find the best course of action, something Stannis did not have until Jon gave him it.

In planning to advance on the Dreadfort Stannis is relying on pure luck - ie that he can advance deep into enemy territory, surround the Dreadfort, build siege engines and seize the Dreadfort all while retaining the element of surprise...in hostile territory. If Stannis had more troops that might have been a risk he could afford to take but not really with his claim to the throne dependant on the circa fifteen hundred men that he has.

He thought the Boltons would be tied up to the south.

What Jon's strategy has given Stannis is the chance of fighting a battle in which the odds are more in Stannis' favour. What's more Stannis has been put into a situation that plays to his tactical ability.

Sure. But if you want to make a point about strategic ability you are going to have give Jon and Stannis the same info and see who comes up the better/correct solution. People bringing up the information issue are saying you can't do that, and so can't make (much of) a point about strategic ability.

[Lummel]

Luck because Stannis is relying on getting to the Dreafort and being able to besiege the Dreadfort and supply his forces in hostile territory without his opponents being able to bring superior numbers against him.

Assuming that the enemy won't - on their own territory - become aware of his movements and assuming that the enemy will move too slowly to be a hazard shows poor strategic thinking.

To Stannis' credit at least he recognises that Jon is correct and abandons his initial plan.

[Tywin Smokin a Blunt]

Yeah, tywin smokin a blunt, you really seem to know what your talking about!

Why, because I don't buy Stannis' bullshit justifications for his actions? Or is it because I had the audacity to realize the only thing the man has actually accomplished in 5 novels is a sneak attack on an already broken force of undisciplined Wildings?

[Lummel]

...But if you want to make a point about strategic ability you are going to have give Jon and Stannis the same info and see who comes up the better/correct solution. People bringing up the information issue are saying you can't do that, and so can't make (much of) a point about strategic ability.

No. The point here is that Stannis doesn't even ask anybody familiar with the North for advice. He formulates his plan with his fellow southerners. He can't conceive of the need to seek local intelligence. This shows that he isn't a strategic thinker. Luckily for him Jon chooses to point out the weaknesses of his plan.

[butterbumps!]

No, it relies on the weakness of the Bolton's garrison and the Boltons' main force being engaged at Moat Cailin, which would indeed put the numbers in Stannis' favor. Hardly luck. Jon's contribution to the discussion is his better understanding of the Northern houses, their capabilities, history, etc which is only to be expected given that he's a native of the area. In this case, he knows the desires and capabilities of the Umber lords, how fast Ramsay can move to get back to the Dreadfort before Stannis takes it, the Dreadfort's own defenses, etc.

Which is a huge assumption!

What I'm criticizing here is not that Stannis did not know the truth of this, but rather, his making pretty big assumptions about the way things operate in a territory he's unfamiliar with and treating them as accomplished facts. A more analytical mind would not merely assume Cailin wouldn't fall; it would first ask whether there's a chance it could fall before the Boltons could return to defend it.

That's the difference. The fact that Stannis is in unfamiliar territory and makes these uncritical assumptions about the way it operates. Not that he doesn't know the answers, but that he thinks he doesn't even have to ask about them.

[Lady Fevre Dream]

I fail to see what the big deal is about Ser Gawen Wylde. Stannis was going to execute a man for desertion by catapulting him from the castle? Everybody knows that Stannis has a weakness for meeting out death in novel and outlandish ways -- shadowbabies, burning alive, and yes, trebuchets. That's supposed to be news that colors our view of Stannis?

Ser Gawen Wylde didn't get eaten, but only because Davos arrived to save the day. It quite clear that Stannis was willing to eat the guy. What's the big deal about that? Practically everybody eats people in ASoIaF. Seriously, there's more characters who eat people in ASoIaF than in most vampire novels. If we started hating characters in ASoIaF based on whether they'd eaten someone, we'd hardly have any characters left to chose from.

As long as it's anything but roast Goat!! :lmao:

~pardon the interruption, carry on up here on page 11, I'll never catch up :crying: ~

[E-Ro]

This Jon stannis strategist debate is the most hilarious thing ever.

It's like if you teach one kid a subject for 17 years, then get another kid with no prior knowledge of said subject and test them on it. Then when the kid with 17 years of training does better you go on and on about how the kid with 17 years of training is so much smarter then the other one.

Sorry, but it doesn't work like that.

Why, because I don't buy Stannis' bullshit justifications for his actions? Or is it because I had the audacity to realize the only thing the man has actually accomplished in 5 novels is a sneak attack on an already broken force of undisciplined Wildings?

Well both of your posts have been full of nonsense tywin smokin a blunt but I'll bite.

Justification for what actions? Could you be more specific? Hard to debate with so little information on what you are bitching about.

Second, breaking those wildlings more then likely saved westeros from extinction. The nw is destroyed or the wall falls and the others come in unchecked. His attack on the wall saved Jon, and the nw. It's far more of an accomplishment then your post admits.

He also manages to change his views on kingship and how he should go about ruling. You know the whole cart before the horse save the realm thing? That's an accomplishment in and of it's self.

My advice to you, would be to think before you post.

[Chaircat Meow]

No. The point here is that Stannis doesn't even ask anybody familiar with the North for advice. He formulates his plan with his fellow southerners. He can't conceive of the need to seek local intelligence. This shows that he isn't a strategic thinker. Luckily for him Jon chooses to point out the weaknesses of his plan.

Searching out information is very important.

But no, Stannis's failure to do the rounds in Castle Black and ask (supposedly neutral) Nightwatchmen if they agree with his scheme, or if they could check its assumptions, does not show he isn't a strategic thinker. It's an oversight certainly, although a certain level of decisiveness is necessary in a commander, and he can't pick over the details of a scheme for ever.

[butterbumps!]

This Jon stannis strategist debate is the most hilarious thing ever.

It's like if you teach one kid a subject for 17 years, then get another kid with no prior knowledge of said subject and test them on it. Then when the kid with 17 years of training does better you go on and on about how the kid with 17 years of training is so much smarter then the other one.

Sorry, but it doesn't work like that.

Jon did have training-- all the boys received military education.

But that aside, I think Jon might be a bit more analytical than Stannis given what we see. Stannis tends not to question assumptions, or understand the concept of "know what you don't know," meaning, he always assumes he he's not missing crucial information, or questioning whether he has the right information. I think it's actually a fair criticism given that questioning knowns is more of a character trait in Jon based on what we see, the obvious exception being the reaction at the end of DwD.

[Lady Fevre Dream]

It does no such thing. Stannis must maintain discipline and order among thousands of men trapped on ice. And at this point in the Crofter's Village, it hasn't reached a point that justifies cannibalism. There's no principle at stake here. At this point, Stannis must execute them for cannibalism for the same reason he has to execute them for desertion.

I do agree. If it gets to the point where cannibalism must be considered, it should be considered by the man in charge and in this situation, that is Stannis. That said, I don't agree with burnings for the punishment, especially since Stannis doesn't seem to be now holding to only Mel's hungry red god. If he was still going with only Red Rahloo then it would at least make sense, but I think Stannis and his utilizing of The Mountain Clans and Northmen in general has shown him that adhering to just one religion won't serve his purposes, nor help the kingdom that he says has bled enough. Well, it might have almost burned enough too, at least for Red Rahloo. These are things Stannis seems aware of, that he is accepting followers that are not followers of the Red, so it's time to stop the executions by fire, IMO.

[Lummel]

This Jon stannis strategist debate is the most hilarious thing ever...

You were the one who laughed over the idea that Jon was the better strategist which is what has kicked off this particular diversion.

Strategy is an ability that you can learn, but it is not simply the application of geographical knowledge. If that were the case we wouldn't need the word strategy, we'd just call it applied geography instead.

What we can see from the incident from his assumptions that Stannis' ability to think strategically is poor. This is what GRRM shows us. What GRRM tells us is that Stannis has good tactical ability and until we are shown something that shows us the opposite, we have to accept that.

[grand old duke of stark]

No it was Robert who couldn't run a Kingdom and let it go to shit by letting scum, murderers, and monsters grab power in his court and it's part his fault that there is a war called TWot5Ks than he drags Ned into his mess because he is incapable of acting like a person with responsibilities.

And no the Starks are in better shape at surviving than the Baratheons there is only Stannis, Shireen and a couple of bastards that aren't even part of the story

At least the Starks have Jon(I hope he's still alive), Sansa, Arya, Bran, and Rickon still standing

And Nymeria,, Ghost, Summer, and Shaggydog. The direwolves show power of their own and at times are players in the Stark story.

Stannis is an admirable figure: conscientious, capable, brave, frequently wise, generally loyal, confident but capable of jealousy. Of course--he's older, experienced, and has learned from the lessons of others, including Robert. But he's put himself in the hands of an unstable, unreliable religious bigot who induces him to burn not just weirwood and statues of the Seven, but people as well. He must pay for that and will.

As to the Starks, they are the founding family of the North, not just another wannabe dynasty from gods know where. They are magically tied to the place, viz. the Wall and Winterfell and tradition. Even Robb, though just a lad and making dubious decisions, was doing all right until he was betrayed. Yes, he brought it about in a way, but what happened was so unthinkable, so blasphemous that he could not have anticipated it (we did, but we are out of universe). After the dire consequences of the meddling with Southrons, I doubt the North will accept anyone but a Stark again. Nor should they.

[Lady Fevre Dream]

So napolean lost tons of battles, what's your point? Do you deny that napolean was brilliant?

Yup, that walk into the land of Russian Winter was brilliant, LOL

Brilliance was Hannibal Barca, but he shows that military brilliance is not enough.

[Lummel]

Searching out information is very important.

But no, Stannis's failure to do the rounds in Castle Black and ask (supposedly neutral) Nightwatchmen if they agree with his scheme, or if they could check its assumptions, does not show he isn't a strategic thinker. It's an oversight certainly, although a certain level of decisiveness is necessary in a commander, and he can't pick over the details of a scheme for ever.

Sorry, but how can you form a strategy without gaining military intelligence? Do you think that countries have their military staff formulate war plans without taking into consideration the forces that their enemies have and their ability to mobilise? Or lets ask the question different what kind of a strategist makes up a plan without gaining information about the situation they are operating in?

[Salinda]

And Nymeria,, Ghost, Summer, and Shaggydog. The direwolves show power of their own and at times are players in the Stark story.

Stannis is an admirable figure: conscientious, capable, brave, frequently wise, generally loyal, confident but capable of jealousy. Of course--he's older, experienced, and has learned from the lessons of others, including Robert. But he's put himself in the hands of an unstable, unreliable religious bigot who induces him to burn not just weirwood and statues of the Seven, but people as well. He must pay for that and will.

As to the Starks, they are the founding family of the North, not just another wannabe dynasty from gods know where. They are magically tied to the place, viz. the Wall and Winterfell and tradition. Even Robb, though just a lad and making dubious decisions, was doing all right until he was betrayed. Yes, he brought it about in a way, but what happened was so unthinkable, so blasphemous that he could not have anticipated it (we did, but we are out of universe). After the dire consequences of the meddling with Southrons, I doubt the North will accept anyone but a Stark again. Nor should they.

They'll have a Stark, as Warden of the North and Lord of Winterfell

What they shall never have is another Stark King

[Roddy the Ruin]

Yup, that walk into the land of Russian Winter was brilliant, LOL

That is probably one of the most insane dumbass military moves in history

[Lord rosa]

Jon is not a better strategist than Stannis he just knows the North and is Ned's son(and robbs bro, what robb learned so did Jon and one could argue that Jon was a more adept pupil). The fact that Stannis took the advise of Jon shows how quickly the man recognizes stratesic advantage. Jon's knowledge of the North via his Stark upbringing is what allowed him to give such great advise.

[Chaircat Meow]

Sorry, but how can you form a strategy without gaining military intelligence? Do you think that countries have their military staff formulate war plans without taking into consideration the forces that their enemies have and their ability to mobilise? Or lets ask the question different what kind of a strategist makes up a plan without gaining information about the situation they are operating in?

Of course you can't but Stannis did have information. He and his men didn't think they were at sea in the north. They knew the Dreadfort garrison was weak, Roose was on the other side of the Moat and Ramsay was going to meet him. If they had grilled people at Castle Black for intelligence they would have gained more accurate information about some aspects of the situation (like the Moat's defences), admittedly.

Obviously I don't think military staff formulate plans without knowledge of the enemy. Where did I even imply that? And Stannis did take the Bolton's strength into account too, so ... What he actually failed to glean was that MC's defences were weak to the north, which, as I said, was an oversight. I simply don't think this oversight shows he lacks strategic ability. Indeed, I find the claim rather absurd.

edit: and let's not forget formulating plans with a lack of accurate intelligence in all particulars is hardly something Stannis alone is guilty of ... (Jon, anybody?)