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

[butterbumps!]

Looks at the bottom line

...................

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'm sorry you don't understand the difference between compromised objectivity in arguing a point versus making a personal joke that's clearly a joke.

On the bolded, glad we agree.

On the rest, it's fairly ridiculous that you claim the passage reveals Jon lacks strategic ability in light of the fact he came up with a strategic plan on the spot that Stannis recognizes as good enough to follow. If you want to disparage Jon's skill on this, then it means you are disparaging Stannis' abilities too, being as how he thought Jon's plan was a good one.

[Lady Beyond the Wall]

Jon's entire arc supports he is a very good strategist. There are so many examples.

[Antler's Fury]

I don't see why there needs to be a fight about this. There's plenty of evidence that both Jon and Stannis are very good military strategists. Why does being a fan of one character necessarily mean hating another?

[Warden of the Cheesy]

I don't see why there needs to be a fight about this. There's plenty of evidence that both Jon and Stannis are very good military strategists. Why does being a fan of one character necessarily mean hating another?

Because when you play the Game of Thrones you win or you die, and because of R+L=J many people want Jon to play the Game and win it all, while there are many fans that are for Stannis despite that theory. So, the fans of Stannis are like; "Well Jon would get trumped strategically" (which he would, except in the North where he knows the land much better) and the fans of Jon are like; "Nuh-uh! because this one time that Jon had a better strategy!"

Well I guess if that's the Jon-fan argument, than Robb was a shit commander for listening to the counsel of all the bannermen that sat on his war council. >.>

EDIT: I might add that all great commanders listen to the counsel of their bannermen before making a final decision and usually get all of the credit when the battle is over and rightfully so because they were not too hot-headed to heed council in the first place.

[Antler's Fury]

Because when you play the Game of Thrones you win or you die, and because of R+L=J many people want Jon to play the Game and win it all, while there are many fans that are for Stannis despite that theory. So, the fans of Stannis are like; "Well Jon would get trumped strategically" (which he would, except in the North where he knows the land much better) and the fans of Jon are like; "Nuh-uh! because this one time that Jon had a better strategy!"

Well I guess if that's the Jon-fan argument, than Robb was a shit commander for listening to the counsel of all the bannermen that sat on his war council. >.>

Sure, but even if you would prefer that one character win over the others, why is it so hard to acknowledge that characters you don't like had positive qualities?

[By the Old Gods Not theNew]

Salinda, on 15 Jan 2014 - 3:57 PM, said:

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

He's not competent, just read Antler Fury's post. Stannis is completely incompetent and has no capacity to manage his tiny host as he blunders into a minor storm and is left completely at the mercy of the elements. Or check butterbumps! posts questioning Stan’s capacity to engage in critical thinking and strategic planning. Or the passage I cited from the text in which teenage Jon predicts Stan’s inability to mount a swift and decisive march on WF. Stan’s overly cautious and his legend is largely do to his own mythologizing.

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

Yeah pretty much. They refused to allow the Andals to destroy their cultural heritage for thousands of years. All the good he is doing for them is predicated on them accepting cultural genocide and forced assimilation into a foreign religion.

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.

A King who cares…about his own self-interest. He's only there to get vassals. And part of being one of his vassals means accepting the destruction of your ancient cultural heritage and the forced imposition of a foreign religion and customs, i.e. cultural genocide. And if you had actually checked out the GNC thread you'd know there's more then one Stark in the running.

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


That’s cool, you’re obviously a StanStan. I don't particularly like the Starks (Bran and Arya are great and aren’t really part of the GNC, Sansa's grown on me, Jon, Ned, Rob, and Cat are all kind of irritating) I'm mostly down w/ the Free Folk and the Old Gods, but I still believe in the GNC.

[Warden of the Cheesy]

Sure, but even if you would prefer that one character win over the others, why is it so hard to acknowledge that characters you don't like had positive qualities?

Can't answer that for you bud. I think the best thing about GRRM is that even if you despise the actions of each POV character in the book (and some we spend enough time with, like Stannis, Mel, Robb, Edmure the list goes on) you at least understand why they are making the decisions they are. I absolutely hated Catelyn, but at least I understood her actions had good intentions.

Stannis clearly is very dutiful and doing what he thinks is right. I don't think his tactics are honorable therefore he isn't and I don't like him on the IT at all.. But he has some enviable traits.

[Warden of the Cheesy]


That’s cool, you’re obviously a StanStan. I don't particularly like the Starks (Bran and Arya are great and aren’t really part of the GNC, Sansa's grown on me, Jon, Ned, Rob, and Cat are all kind of irritating) I'm mostly down w/ the Free Folk and the Old Gods, but I still believe in the GNC.

See, and that's just it, you have to put your bias aside when you are trying to understand what's going on, not only in this story but really all things. So I give you a round of applause for that. I love the Starks, and when first told (verbally) about the GNC, I didn't believe it for a second, but in my second reread of the chapters and coming here to the forums I've come to respect the theory entirely. It's still by no means confirmed, but just like R+L=J, there is plenty of textual evidence to support it (albeit not as much).

[Antler's Fury]

Stannis is completely incompetent and has no capacity to manage his tiny host as he blunders into a minor storm and is left completely at the mercy of the elements. Or check butterbumps! posts questioning Stan’s capacity to engage in critical thinking and strategic planning. Or the passage I cited from the text in which teenage Jon predicts Stan’s inability to mount a swift and decisive march on WF. Stan’s overly cautious and his legend is largely do to his own mythologizing.

How does one "blunder" into a storm? Stannis had no way of knowing that the storm would come when it did. Also, part of the reason he attacked Winterfell was because the Northmen demanded it, which puts part of the blame on them, if anyone can really be blamed for bad weather. Butterbumps three criticisms of Stannis are clearly wrong, as Nyrhex and I have pointed out in multiple posts. Stannis' assessment of when Moat Cailin would fall was not unreasonable given that even it's dying Ironborn garrison would have given Ramsay a good fight had he not tricked them. Stannis did indeed anticipate resistance to his attack on the Dreadfort and reached out to the Umbers and Manderlys for this reason; all other potential enemies were at Barrowton and could not stop him. His belief that he could take the castle using siege weaponry before the Boltons' arrival was not unwarranted, given that Roose only heard of what Stannis had done until after he himself reached Barrowton. There was no way that Stannis could have marched quickly to Winterfell given that the storm hit. Jon's assessment does not take this into consideration. For all of Jon's contrasting Robert and Stannis, there is no way Robert could have moved any quicker, as he'd suffer from the same food shortage and weather delays.

All the good he is doing for them is predicated on them accepting cultural genocide and forced assimilation into a foreign religion.

And part of being one of his vassals means accepting the destruction of your ancient cultural heritage and the forced imposition of a foreign religion and customs, i.e. cultural genocide.

No, this is a common misconception. Stannis has never forced a single Northman to accept his religion. He hasn't forced any followers of the Seven to accept it either, which is why faithful vassals like Davos and Rolland Storm worship as they please. If anything, he refuses his men's requests to burn an innocent infidel precisely because the Northmen would not like it.

And if you had actually checked out the GNC thread you'd know there's more then one Stark in the running.

Part of the reason the GNC is ass-backwards is because it does not take into consideration the fact that Jon has no desire whatsoever to be king.

[Lady Fevre Dream]

Nah man dont you know that invading russia was one of the most dumbass moves in history?/sarcasm

Also funny, and I forgot to respond to this one.

You are aware that Hannibal lost battles too right?

I'm aware of lots of things, thank you. I'm pretty sure you are not aware of what I may or may not know about Napolean or Hannibal, or anything else for that matter. It was called a critique and a bit of joke to point out that Napolean was not perfect. No, Hannibal wasn't either, but he was sexier, or the Hannibal in my mind was, LOL

I'm going to call it a good night, to all.

[E-Ro]

Butterbumps three criticisms of Stannis are clearly wrong, as Nyrhex and I have pointed out in multiple posts. Stannis' assessment of when Moat Cailin would fall was not unreasonable given that even it's dying Ironborn garrison would have given Ramsay a good fight had he not tricked them. Stannis did indeed anticipate resistance to his attack on the Dreadfort and reached out to the Umbers and Manderlys for this reason; all other potential enemies were at Barrowton and could not stop him. His belief that he could take the castle using siege weaponry before the Boltons' arrival was not unwarranted, given that Roose only heard of what Stannis had done until after he himself reached Barrowton.

That wasn't what she criticized brah. she pointed out that his entire plan as based on the assumption Moat Cailin wouldn't fall and that he hadn't thought to question whether it might fall sooner. she pointed out that his lack of even questioning that when the whole plan depended on it not falling is why she said this passage doesn't show stannis strategy skills well.

[Antler's Fury]

That wasn't what she criticized brah. she pointed out that his entire plan as based on the assumption Moat Cailin wouldn't fall and that he hadn't thought to question whether it might fall sooner. she pointed out that his lack of even questioning that when the whole plan depended on it not falling is why she said this passage doesn't show stannis strategy skills well.

But that's just it. Stannis knew it would fall. He says it will fall and Roose will come north, but that he will have taken the Dreadfort before then. He knew it would fall soon too, since that's the whole reason Ramsay left the Dreadfort in the first place: to help his Roose come North by taking Moat Cailin from its Northern weak point. He believed that even Ramsay's "accelerated" taking of the castle would leave him enough time to take the Dreadfort because he thought that with siege weaponry, he would overwhelm its token garrison.

[KingRhaegar]

You should. Let Stannis be the King of a ugly chair in the South, the title of King in the North has been carried by a Stark and only a Stark for millenniums I think the Northern Lords would like to keep it that way.

And, as the OP siad, how has that worked out? Tradition is nice and all, but let's be real: Stannis has done more for the North than Robb did and would be a much better ruler.

[Warden of the Cheesy]

The point made earlier about Stannis heeding Jon's advise is nil.
1. Jon knows the North better than Stannis, of course he will have good counsel.
2. Stannis is a competent enough commander to listen to other ideas, this actually enhances his strategic abilities rather than deflating them.

Stannis is an overall better commander than Jon, but in the North, especially now that winter has come; Jon would have the upperhand. He just knows the lands better, he has been taught how to handle the poor conditions (likely by someone at WF, but also during the ranging as well). Stannis is ill-prepared for the winter, he did not equip his men correctly.

However, nobody can predict the weather, not even in our world with all of our technology do we always get the weather right. If you can point out one person in Westeros who knows exactly when a storm will hit I'll give you a cookie.

Stannis is a very good commander in his own right and Jon I'm sure will prove competent in time, but as it stands Jon has one battle against wildlings that he has won, ONE battle does not make you a great commander. As much was said after Robbs one victory, but he in time proved more than capable and never lost a single battle in the field.
As it stands Stannis>Jon. Although again, Stannis vs Jon in the North, I'll lean on Jon because he knows the land.

[butterbumps!]

But that's just it. Stannis knew it would fall. He says it will fall and Roose will come north, but that he will have taken the Dreadfort before then. He knew it would fall soon too, since that's the whole reason Ramsay left the Dreadfort in the first place: to help his Roose come North by taking Moat Cailin from its Northern weak point. He believed that even Ramsay's "accelerated" taking of the castle would leave him enough time to take the Dreadfort because he thought that with siege weaponry, he would overwhelm its token garrison.

Stannis came to the discussion believing the opposite of these things was true. Most especially he was unaware of the fact that Cailin had a weak point to the North. He did not think Cailin would fall-- he thought that at worst Ramsay would abandon it and attack him, leaving Roose' forces on the other side.

What I pointed out as speaking against this passage presenting Stannis as a good strategist is the fact that his entire plan relied on Cailin not falling, despite his not knowing anything about it's strength. I'm speaking to the fact that he made an assumption-- Cailin wouldn't fall-- and didn't think to question whether he could depend on this assumption for the rest of his plan. Basing a plan around reliance that a fortification he knows little about will not fall or might have a weak point is no a sign of inspired strategizing.

ETA: just so this doesn't get out of control again, I'm not actually trying to claim that this shows Stannis isn't a good strategist in some general sense. Just that this passage is not presenting him as such.

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

-snip-

So what is your general conclusion? Is Stannis better strategist than Jon or Jon is?

[Antler's Fury]

Stannis came to the discussion believing the opposite of these things was true. Most especially he was unaware of the fact that Cailin had a weak point to the North. He did not think Cailin would fall-- he thought that at worst Ramsay would abandon it and attack him, leaving Roose' forces on the other side.

Of course he knew that it had a weak point in the North. He specifically says that Ramsay went south "to open the way for his lord father to return to the north." The reason Ramsay, not Roose, is doing the opening in Stannis' mind is because he knows Moat Cailin is weak there and can accelerate Roose's return. There's no other reason to leave the Bolton seat so undefended. Stannis thinks that the Moat won't fall if Ramsay abandons the siege, which is entirely correct, meaning that he knows it can be taken from the North, but not the South, hence making Ramsay's presence there crucial. He also says "Roose Bolton may regain the north, but when he does he will find that his castle, herds, and harvest all belong to me." So he clearly knows the Moat will fall. He just thinks he'll be able to take the Dreadfort before Roose can stop him after his return.

I'm speaking to the fact that he made an assumption-- Cailin wouldn't fall-- and didn't think to question whether he could depend on this assumption for the rest of his plan.

No, Stannis believed that even if the Moat fell and Roose entered the North, he would have already taken the Dreadfort and with it, Roose's food.

[butterbumps!]

So what is your general conclusion? Is Stannis better strategist than Jon or Jon is?

Um.....who cares which one is better? Why must there always be these extreme either or positions on Stannis?

Here's how this started: Stannis supporters claimed that this passage presented Stannis as being a very good strategist, and much better than Jon. It was stated that the thought that Jon could be better than Stannis at strategy was "laughable." I.e. disparaging another character to boost Stannis by using a passage that by no means actually showed this.

I don't care who's a better strategist as part of the ongoing pissing contest of Stannis v everyone else. This particular passage shows Jon to be competent at coming up with strategy, and Stannis at his ability to recognize and implement a better plan than the one he came up with himself. It doesn't, however, prove Stannis is a good strategist as was being claimed. Which means, Stannis might be a good strategist, but this passage doesn't show that.

No, Stannis believed that even if the Moat fell and Roose entered the North, he would have already taken the Dreadfort and with it, Roose's food.

No, he actually didn't. Hence why he thinks the danger is in merely Ramsay's abandoning the campaign.

[By the Old Gods Not theNew]

How does one "blunder" into a storm? Stannis had no way of knowing that the storm would come when it did. Also, part of the reason he attacked Winterfell was because the Northmen demanded it, which puts part of the blame on them, if anyone can really be blamed for bad weather. Butterbumps three criticisms of Stannis are clearly wrong, as Nyrhex and I have pointed out in multiple posts. Stannis' assessment of when Moat Cailin would fall was not unreasonable given that even it's dying Ironborn garrison would have given Ramsay a good fight had he not tricked them. Stannis did indeed anticipate resistance to his attack on the Dreadfort and reached out to the Umbers and Manderlys for this reason; all other potential enemies were at Barrowton and could not stop him. His belief that he could take the castle using siege weaponry before the Boltons' arrival was not unwarranted, given that Roose only heard of what Stannis had done until after he himself reached Barrowton. There was no way that Stannis could have marched quickly to Winterfell given that the storm hit. Jon's assessment does not take this into consideration. For all of Jon's contrasting Robert and Stannis, there is no way Robert could have moved any quicker, as he'd suffer from the same food shortage and weather delays.

No, this is a common misconception. Stannis has never forced a single Northman to accept his religion. He hasn't forced any followers of the Seven to accept it either, which is why faithful vassals like Davos and Rolland Storm worship as they please. If anything, he refuses his men's requests to burn an innocent infidel precisely because the Northmen would not like it.

Part of the reason the GNC is ass-backwards is because it does not take into consideration the fact that Jon has no desire whatsoever to be king.

He blundered into a storm by failing to take a page out of his brother's book and ride hard and fast to Winterfell, like the Northern's really wanted, and which was the first thing that came to Jon's mind when he heard the news. His choice to travel w/ his entire host at an incredibly ponderous pace instead of taking the Van on an all night forced march was a mistake (i.e. a blunder) that resulted in him getting stuck in a storm.

Part of Stan's offer to Jon was conditioned on him renouncing (turning my back on) the old gods. Forcing the Free Folk to burn parts of the weirwood and pledge fealty, that i believe included some religious stipulations, is a form of cultural genocide. Terrorizing people of other faiths is part of an overall genocidal campaign to destroy the north's cultural heritage. May Stan hasn't personally forced anyone to convert or give up their gods, but he doesn't discourage religious terrorism by his followers against opposing faiths, and he does kill people once they defend their faiths, which is inevitable when they're under attack. Jon's intervention on the side of religious tolerance, even to the extent of supporting the intolerant, in ADwD is a refreshing and marked difference from Stan's weird manipulation of faith.

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

He blundered into a storm by failing to take a page out of his brother's book and ride hard and fast to Winterfell, like the Northern's really wanted, and which was the first thing that came to Jon's mind when he heard the news. His choice to travel w/ his entire host at an incredibly ponderous pace instead of taking the Van on an all night forced march was a mistake (i.e. a blunder) that resulted in him getting stuck in a storm.

Umm how can anyone know when a Storm is coming? Is he a god?

He is in an unfamiliar territory and he is going for a siege not a battle.