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

[Salinda]

eta: @Salinda

Yeah, but they're not about to support Stannis. No one has sworn him their fealty. Manderly and the Mors have both made conditional pledges of support and both included legalistic loopholes.

You clearly don't understand anything about the north if you think that's how they'll see the issue.

Because some people care about stuff. Why should people accept Stan as the rightful King just because his oaf of a brother stove in somebody's breast plate and failed to realize he was being played?

Well if that was his intention, he failed (see: GNC I-V, Yeade's essay series, Lady G's GNC tracker, etc).

And it's a shame if they do betray the one competent person who cares about them and is doing productive things for the North

Yes, how foolish of me to think that a couple of trees aren't worth more than all the good Stannis is doing

Why should they care about a clearly destructive idea. They should accept a King who cares about the North not a King with the right last name who need I remind you, is a toddler.

The GNC seems like purely wishful thinking by the hardcore Stark fanbase. I don't have any belief in it

[Lord rosa]

Davos Seaworth is the hand of the king. He speaks with the Kings voice. What he promised the Manderlys( what The King promised Catelyn) is epic, honorable,and just. Those promises and the fact is that he is accomplishing it, damn how can u hate, for Northern Independence?

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

Davos Seaworth is the hand of the king. He speaks with the Kings voice. What he promised the Manderlys( what The King promised Catelyn) is epic, honorable,and just. Those promises and the fact is that he is accomplishing it, damn how can u hate, for Northern Independence?

What? Davos didn't agree to northern independence. He is accomplishing for His King Stannis, not for north's independence cause. If he got an idea about that he'll bring Rickon straight to Stannis and let the cat and mouse play begin.

[Chaircat Meow]

"Appreciation" presupposes a degree of understanding. Hence why I did not use the word "like" or "favor."

This is really getting nonsensical. If you are an English teacher and recognize Paradise Lost as better than your own work, it means you are capable of producing a work of literature on par with Milton's? Recognition of the superiority of Cicero's arguments to your own is to be taken as proof that you are as skilled in debate as Cicero?

I gave a pretty clear example where aesthetic appreciation differs radically from understanding the process of production. Your initial examples were all aesthetic. I think the example showed why the analogies were inappropriate to the case of Jon and Stannis.

On Milton and Cicero, people still studied Caesar's tactics in the middle ages, and I don't see that they represent the product of a level of skill and understanding many other commanders could not hope to match. It is military science, not epic poetry. I think there is less of a gap between mediocre generals, good generals and great ones than you are liable to find among the greats of literature and everyone else. There isn't the capacity to grade generalship as precisely as we do the canon of literature, either in RL or (even more so) in the books.

I don't really understand why you can't just recognize a general who accepts the best strategic advice, over his own prior plan, is being shown to have a decent level of strategic skill. That's really all I am saying.

Also, I never implied the bolded. Like at all. Am I claiming the scene in question shows Stannis is as talented as Jon? I'm not suggesting it tells us who is the best, and neither, apparently, are you. I think Cicero is more well known for his latin prose than his cogent arguments as well, btw.

[Lord rosa]

I was comparing, as in u would disregard Stannis and what he's done for independence, my b wasn't more clear

[Antler's Fury]

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.

But Stannis does anticipate interference. He recognizes that the Umbers would oppose him, which is why he wants to secure Mors' loyalty. Apart from them, I don't see any other interference considering that Stannis sees the Karstarks as loyal to him. He knows that Hornwoods and Cerwyns, who have lands near the Dreadfort, have sided with the Boltons, but he also knows that their men are at Barrowtown, so they are no threat to him. Even Jon doesn't see any other houses potentially opposing Stannis.

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.

He knows it will fall quickly since as he points out, Ramsay is going there to attack its Northern weak spot and let his father through. As far as he is concerned, Roose' return to the North is inevitable, but he thinks that he'll be able to take the Dreadfort before Roose can get there despite Ramsay's assistance. That's why he says "Roose Bolton may regain the north, but when he does he will find that his castle, herds, and harvest all belong to me." And despite Ramsay's besieging a bunch of emaciated, diseased Ironborn, he still has to resort to subterfuge to take the castle because even this pathetic garrison would have killed three times their own numbers if Ramsay attacked, despite his attacking from the North. So Stannis' assumption that the Boltons will be stuck there long enough for him to take the Dreadfort isn't as wrong as you think.

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.

No, Stannis is planning on attacking the Dreadfort before the Boltons return. That is why Jon cautions that the united strength of Roose and Ramsay will smash him against the walls of the Dreadfort. However, Stannis is confident that despite the castle's strength, its weak garrison will ensure that he will be able to use siege weaponry to take it before the Boltons come back.

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.

That's exactly why he summons Jon. He knows that Jon knows things that he personally wouldn't know, so Stannis clearly knows that there are other things he needs to understand.

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.

What superior numbers are there aside from the Umbers and Manderlys, who Stannis is already thinking of getting on his side? Everyone else with lands nearby has their forces at Barrowton.

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.

No, Stannis is the one who summons Jon to his war room in the first place specifically to ask for his counsel. He also takes advice from the Northerner Arnolf Karstark. It's precisely his recognizing the need for local intelligence that is evidence of his strategic thinking.

What you think happens when you move an army on to the territory of your enemy?

Nothing, if there is no enemy force there to oppose you, and there isn't in this case. All opposition is either at Moat Cailin or Barrowton.

Stannis didn't even think of that. If you think that you can move at a certain speed why would you think that somebody can't move at the same speed? Yet Stannis doesn't consider that.

Sure he does. He knows Roose's movement will be delayed by the siege of Moat Cailin.

Capturing the Dreadfort wouldn't shift the balance of power in the North no more than Theon's capture of Winterfell aided the cause of the ironborn (at least in that case he seized the Stark in the North, Stannis stood to gain no such hostage).

Theon's capture of Winterfell devastated the Stark cause, and Stannis' capture of the Dreadfort would do the same for Bolton. It would also give Stannis his food.

[Antler's Fury]

How is the question at all relevant? This is thread about whether or not the North will/should side w/ Stannis or a Stark King in the North. And "[The North] knows no king but the King in the North, whose name is STARK. "

You implied that the North would not accept a king that did not know anything about the North. Yet, they accepted 300 years of Southern kings, most of whom never set foot in the North.

There's a difference between having a keep or a command center and completely isolating yourself when your men are dying in droves and resorting to cannibalism.

How will not isolating himself help this situation? Will the men somehow stop starving and freezing if Stannis gives them a motivation speech or two and a pat on the back?

Asha repeatedly remarks not only on Stannis' seclusion but also the fact that he appears lost:

Of course he's lost. The situation is dire. Whether he moves forward or backward or stays where he is, his men will still freeze and starve. What exactly do you think he should have done? At least staring into the fire provides him with some hints.

Stannis knights/lords are left guessing at his intentions based on second hand gossip and rumors:

So? What does it matter what they gossip about? Stannis is still deciding what he's going to do.

So it's not like he's holding court or letting anyone into his command center.

Sure he is. We know from the TWOW spoiler chapter that he meets with the Iron Bank representative and the Karstarks in that tower, as well as Horpe and Massey.

And his own Queen's Men are talking shit about him:

Clayton Suggs talks shit about everybody. However, Asha also reports that "the common men seemed to have faith in their king" even though their lords had doubts.

It's generally a commanders job to feed his troops and make sure he has sufficient provisions for war especially before marching off to try and lay siege to one of the strongest castles in the Realm. His inability to adapt to harsh conditions of autumn's kiss doesn't bode well for his ability to deal with winter.

And what was he supposed to feed them with? All the food in the North is either gone or in the hands of his enemies. And even then, Stannis' food problems only reach dire straits because of the blizzard, which he could not control.

The fact that his men are dying in droves and that the Northerns hold them in contempt doesn't have any bearing - It's all just the weather's fault - really? The cultural differences between the North and the Queen's Men are not the weather's fault.

The weather is the reason they are starving, yes, because they are eating what food they have without moving anywhere. The weather is also why the Queen's Men and the Northmen are fighting. They both think that appeasing the right gods is the only way to end the storm, and disagree over how to do that.

For the Northerners this is just a mild storm, the bleak and terrible part of being in the crofter's village has more to do w/ Stannis and his cult than a little snow.

The Northerners are hungry too.

No, Stannis didn't starve like the rest of his men. For starters he's not dead like those who starved to death.

Plenty of non-lords didn't starve to death and didn't engage in cannibalism either. In fact, the vast majority of Stannis' rank and file neither starved nor resorted to cannibalism.

Furthermore he's not a commoner and there is a clear class division in Stan's camp where the "knights and lords" claimed the "loin's share" while "little and less remained for the common men" (The Sacrifice). While Stannis may or may not have been eating his meals he would have certainly be receiving meals that befit his status.

Yes, there is class division when it comes to food rations, but Stannis still isn't eating well. Asha reports that his eyes are sunken into his head, his jaw is bony and his cheeks are hollow.

[Antler's Fury]

The North didn't need Stannis to deal w/ Asha. Clearly they were keeping tabs on Deepwood Motte and were ready to spring into action blocking the Greyjoy retreat and capturing the Ironborn's most valuable asset (their ships), at moments notice without coordinating w/ Stannis.

If they're so great, what took them so long? Why is it that they sat with their thumbs up their asses until Stannis arrived?

Stan's failure to see what even his dumbass brother would have recognize was a huge tactical blunder and his men have starved and suffered as a result.

People seem to think that Robert would have taken Winterfell quicker, but how would he have accomplished that? His men would still be freezing and starving, and yet you seem to think that forcing them to march harder and longer would somehow gain them Winterfell? Jon doesn't know about the blizzard that Stannis is stuck in. How would Robert get through that? Where's he going to get the food from? If anything, Robert was reckless, while Stannis is cautious. Robert would probably have attacked the Dreadfort against Jon's advice instead of listening to him like Stannis.

Their continued loyalty to the Starks, and opposition to the Greyjoys/Boltons.

...none of which means they can't be loyal to Stannis.

Respect for cultural heritage. Protection for sacred sites.

Stannis won't threaten these if the Northerners bend the knee.

Their loyalty to the King in the North and the cause of independence.

You mean the cause that killed most of their men and got them into this mess in the first place?

Stannis burned the weirwood in Storm's End:

Storm's End isn't the North.

Worse, Stannis as self-declared king is foolish enough to require Jon to burn down the Weirwood as part of his offer:

Jon needed to be freed from his NW vows, which were sworn to the Old God. Stannis needed to free him from those vows to make him lord of WF, otherwise he'd be a deserter from the NW.

The North wasn't really afraid of the free folk. When Jon talks about letting the Weeper through the Wall the Flint and Norrey weren't worried at all. South of the wall raiders can't escape beyond the wall and they don't have any keeps. They have rudimentary weapons and basically zero martial tradition, they don't even inspire fear even the most petty of lords. And it's possible some of the northern most Northerners (ie the Mountain Clans) might know the Others are rising and that's why the Free Folk are on the march and hence why they haven't opposed their southward exodus.

Actually both Flint and Norrey are disgusted by the idea. Norrey contemptuously refuses it, saying "As well make peace with wolves and carrion crows." Norrey wants to put the Weeper in a dungeon, so the idea that the mountain clans would be okay with wildlings coming through is ridiculous. The Weeper is a man who blinds captives, and leaves their heads on display for his enemies. Of course the Northmen feared him and his men. The wildlings have a long history of pillaging, killing and raping. Even the Umbers are afraid of their incursions onto their territory, and Jon says they won't accept them going through even under Stannis' supervision.

And Stannis agrees w/ both Horpe and Massy:

He agrees that they are correct in saying that he should attack before Bolton increases in strength, but he knows that Moat Cailin will fall. He considers that Ramsay will abandon the siege, yes, but he specifically says that he'll have taken the Dreadfort by the time Roose enters the North.

Why should people accept Stan as the rightful King just because his oaf of a brother stove in somebody's breast plate and failed to realize he was being played?

They accepted Robert, why not Stannis?

instead of confronting Robert with his discovery of the twincest, he ran back to Dragonstone and left Jon Arryn to die. Lets not forget he killed his own brother and let Loras Tyrell slip through his fingers, which would cost him the Iron Throne later. Once and a while, you should take off your rose colored glasses and see that Stannis' shit stinks too.

No, Stannis left in response to Arryn's death, not before it. I'm sure you mean Stannis left Robert to die, but that was Robert's fault for not trusting Stannis, which could have avoided the delay that led to Arryn's death. As far as Loras is concerned, Stannis had no way of grabbing him. Loras is the one who beat Stannis' men to Bitterbridge and grabbed those men for himself.

[Nyrhex]

Why is this even a talking point?

Stannis made several major assumptions about his plan--

1. that moat cailin would take a long time to fall

2. that even though he was going into enemy territory, no one would interfere with his attack on the Boltons

3. that his forces could outlast a split siege and field attack against the Dreadfort, and that he could build catapults to take it.

Points 1 & 3 are assumptions that he has enough time. Roose hears that his plan failed, that Stannis is not marching on the Dreadfort, and has already taken Deepwood, in Barrowton. Stannis had enough time to go in goat tracks, gather a host that wasn't exactly standing by (they are all over the place), march on Deepwood Motte, build a ram, take the castle, and send word of it to Karstak, with orders to meet him on the way to Winterfell. Clearly, Stannis had the time and ability to take the Dreadfort.

In point 2, you honestly believe that Mors, with 20 boys, will do the damage that Jon claims? Realy?

Jon is a plot device to set Stannis to the Battle of the Ice. Jon should know that the North is vast and that Stannis is closer to the Dreadfort. He should also know that if the Greatjon took all the Umber soldiers, and Whorsbane took the rest that were left as garrison, so Crowfood can't have many left. Stannis should know how long it takes to build siege towers and catapults, as he just built some back in Clash in less than a couple of weeks.

In the same chapter, Jon tries to sound wiser with referencing the conquest of Dorne, and how goat tracks were an advantage. Stannis corrects him that ships won that war, and the goat tracks were a gimmick, but try and talk strategy with a kid who looks at the Young Dragon like a hero, completly ignoring that the guy led 60k men to a pointless death, and died young, leaving a book that takes another's credit for the short lived victory.

Jon later thinks that Stannis should go to Winterfell quickly, or not at all. If Stannis goes right at it, he can't bring much supply, and then he can't use the walls to last a siege, and will have to leave them to look for supplies. If Bolton gets there shortly after, he has a supply train, can wait it out, and will be there when Stannis needs to leave the walls. Go slowly, with a supply train, or not at all. Going like Robert, and you might end like Robert - Ashford or the Battle of the Bells. Only this time there is no second army to come and save you.

Stannis' assumptions were fair. Jon's were wild (Mors has more than 20 men, they will cut Stannis' host of ~1,200-1,400, the Dreadfort with 50 men will be too strong an opposition to an army of that size, Roose will be there before Stannis can take it). Stannis is not of the North, and takes Jon's word. Jon is a local, and gives Stannis some info that he thinks is more accurate (though not realy). It's a plot device to increase the armies, not clear strategy.

Please, don't turn off your BS-O-Meter when reading a POV. They can be flat out wrong even if they think that something is so clear it's a wonder why no one else sees it. Jon took half of AGOT, ACOK, and half of ASOS (somewhere between the parley with Mance before the Battle, and the next Jon chapter) to come to the realization that they need to bring the Wildlings south of the Wall, and make an alliance against the Others. Stannis arrived, defeated the Wildlings, heared from the Watchmen that the Others are real, and takes half a chapter (like, a day or two after defeating the Wildlings?) to get to that conclusion, and tell Jon that he intends to let them in. What was clear to Stannis right off the bat, took over a year for Jon to realise, after he already knows about the Others for close to a year.

[butterbumps!]

snip

snip

neither of these posts are really speaking to the arguments I was making.

The claim I was responding to was that Stannis is a far superior strategist to Jon. I said the passage in question does not show this to be true. Further, I didn't even claim that Jon was a better strategist than Stannis. I said the passage doesn't speak well for Stannis' skills as a strategist (note: this particular passage). Even still, I never claimed Stannis was incompetent at strategy, only that this passage doesn't evince him to be a strategic genius, particular gifted strategically or "laughably" superior to Jon as what certain posters had tried to claim. Further to this, I said it speaks highly of Stannis that he was able to recognize a better plan than his own and use it. With this in mind-- that I wasn't arguing Stannis' incompetence-- do you still disagree?

The rest of your points are things I've already addressed at some length.

[SerTonyStark]

My money would be on a reunited 7 kingdoms under a Targ, and Stannis as hand or far more likely dead.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

My money would be on a reunited 7 kingdoms under a Targ, and Stannis as hand or far more likely dead.

I think he will become king, though his seat will not be in the Red Keep but further north. Within the halls of the largest castle the Night's Watch ever built.

[Nyrhex]

neither of these posts are really speaking to the arguments I was making.

The claim I was responding to was that Stannis is a far superior strategist to Jon. I said the passage in question does not show this to be true. Further, I didn't even claim that Jon was a better strategist than Stannis. I said the passage doesn't speak well for Stannis' skills as a strategist (note: this particular passage). Even still, I never claimed Stannis was incompetent at strategy, only that this passage doesn't evince him to be a strategic genius, particular gifted strategically or "laughably" superior to Jon as what certain posters had tried to claim. Further to this, I said it speaks highly of Stannis that he was able to recognize a better plan than his own and use it. With this in mind-- that I wasn't arguing Stannis' incompetence-- do you still disagree?

The rest of your points are things I've already addressed at some length.

Are you kidding me?

The post I made clearly shows that Stannis has a better grasp of strategy than Jon. It also shows that Stannis' assumptions in the passage are fair. Stannis' plan makes sense. Jon's plan also makes some sense, and though his reasoning for why Stannis should not try and go with the Dreadfort plan is weak both with knowledge at the time, and more so when we have hindsight, his plan has a bonus - the Clans. Obviousely taking them, and then nearby Deepwood, is better than going to the Dreadfort with Wildlings of questionable lotalty, and a smaller overall host. The part that makes Jon's plan better is the Clans. Nothing else. And they were not on any map.

[E-Ro]

yea, brahs, bumps wasn't actually trying to say Stannis is a poor strategist, and pointing out the problems with his plan wasn't intended to say he was stupid or bad or anything. she's just saying that this one passage isn't proof he's good at it. That's why i let it slide (believe me, I would have been the first to put her in her place had she taken the stance that stannis is stupid)besides, the lemoncake is team Bolton anyway.

[RoamingRonin]

I think he will become king, though his seat will not be in the Red Keep but further north. Within the halls of the largest castle the Night's Watch ever built.

He's going to die. It will be a mercy. Once he learns Melisandre was wrong this whole time (and Aegon takes the throne before him), he's going to have a stroke.

[butterbumps!]

Are you kidding me?

The post I made clearly shows that Stannis has a better grasp of strategy than Jon. It also shows that Stannis' assumptions in the passage are fair. Stannis' plan makes sense. Jon's plan also makes some sense, and though his reasoning for why Stannis should not try and go with the Dreadfort plan is weak both with knowledge at the time, and more so when we have hindsight, his plan has a bonus - the Clans. Obviousely taking them, and then nearby Deepwood, is better than going to the Dreadfort with Wildlings of questionable lotalty, and a smaller overall host. The part that makes Jon's plan better is the Clans. Nothing else. And they were not on any map.

Um, part of your argument included calling Jon a "plot device" to get Stannis to the Battle of Ice, which sort of undermines any objectivity of what you're saying. Forgive me for not going through it point by point, especially given that there is nothing you've said that requires further address as my previous posts answer these points sufficiently.

Thing is, I'm not actually interested in whether Jon or Stannis is a better strategist holistically, and I never actually argued to that point. I was arguing against whether one specific passage showed Stannis to have outstanding strategic ability.

yea, brahs, bumps wasn't actually trying to say Stannis is a poor strategist, and pointing out the problems with his plan wasn't intended to say he was stupid or bad or anything. she's just saying that this one passage isn't proof he's good at it. That's why i let it slide (believe me, I would have been the first to put her in her place had she taken the stance that stannis is stupid)besides, the lemoncake is team Bolton anyway.

exactly. your support make me almost feel bad for hoping Roose kicks Stannis' ass (jokes, jokes).

[E-Ro]

He's going to die. It will be a mercy. Once he learns Melisandre was wrong this whole time (and Aegon takes the throne before him), he's going to have a stroke.

No, stannis is not a man to be undone like this. Most likely he wont even give a fuck if he ever finds out. Only ways he will die are either in battle against others, or in battle against dany.

[Thucydides]

Yes I suppose there is a risk that if Stannis doesn't punish the cannibals that his army will promptly begin eating one another and loose all semblance of order.

If Stannis let's up in one area, he'll be tested in others, and that will result in chaos. Look at Robb: There's no way Rickard Karstark would have dared break orders to kill the Lannister captives if Robb hadn't broken his own very high-profile agreement that cost his army dearly and basically granted a de facto pardon to his mother.

Go read Ernest Shackleton about how to keep men orderly in low-activity environments, and then we can talk.

On the basis of what GRRM shows us in ASOIAF Jon seems to be the better strategist of the two.

Being a great strategist doesn't mean that you always start out with the best ideas, but it does mean that you're more likely than others to end up with the best ideas.

Look at how reasonable Stannis is when discussing his Northern strategy with Jon, and then compare that to how unreasonable Jon is when discussing his Hard Home strategy.

You're grasping at straws, Lummel.

[Nyrhex]

Um, part of your argument included calling Jon a "plot device" to get Stannis to the Battle of Ice, which sort of undermines any objectivity of what you're saying. Forgive me for not going through it point by point, especially given that there is nothing you've said that requires further address as my previous posts answer these points sufficiently.

Thing is, I'm not actually interested in whether Jon or Stannis is a better strategist holistically, and I never actually argued to that point. I was arguing against whether one specific passage showed Stannis to have outstanding strategic ability.

exactly. your support make me almost feel bad for hoping Roose kicks Stannis' ass (jokes, jokes).

Looks at the bottom line

I refered to Jon's part in the passage, his advice, a plot device. Not to Jon the character. Stannis is going to fight Roose no matter what. We still needs to get the North united, and that will probably happen after the battle at Winterfell, for better or for worse. I get that you are team Bolton, but let's try and avoid ad hominem, and adress the points?

No, the passage does not show anything outstanding regarding Stannis' stratigic ability. It shows that Stannis has a good grasp of strategy, that Jon lacks one, and that Jon both over-estimates the Boltons and the Umbers, and under-estimates Stannis.

I disagree that the plan Stannis outlines was based on wild assumptions. With knowledge at the time, not hindsight, he made fair assumptions. The plan was reasonable. You took it to the other way, and tried to show that not only does the plan not show briliance, it shows poor judgement. That is what I have a problem with. Your reasoning is based on Jon's, and his is weak.

[AtomixIGN]

Stannis does have the best sense of humor. Tyrion has some Zonmgers, but Stannis man. He SLAYS me.