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

[Lummel]

It is only the same strategy if you define strategy purely as defeating Roose. But that is the strategic objective. The strategy is the means of accomplishing that aim. Defeating Roose isn't on its own a strategy, it is an objective.

Stannis and Jon have different strategies towards that objective. However capturing the Dreadfort doesn't take Stannis closer to defeating Roose, therefore it is a poor strategy. Yes there is a propaganda value in taking in, but how many men would it gain him? Well how about none because anybody tempted to join him would have to cross hostile territory to reach him. Yes the purpose of strongholds is to hold territory, but they accomplish this through being bases that soldiers can strike out from and defend themselves in. So to hold down Bolton territory Stannis would have to leave a good sized contingent of men at the Dreadfort before advancing on Roose. So Stannis' has small number of troops, will gain none through this operation, will have some casualties, will have to leave a good sized garrison behind and so will have even fewer men than when he started out to attack Roose. In other words Stannis' strategy makes it more difficult for him to achieve his objective. It is a poor strategy.

By contrast Jon's strategy gains Stannis men and minimises his losses while placing him adjacent to Roose and his army - which is the strategic objective. It is a better strategy.

Alternatively are you suggesting that Stannis should adopt a Masada position by putting all his men in the Dreadfort and waiting to be surrounded and besieged by Roose? That sounds like such a great idea that it is incredible why nobody in the book suggested that they should all sacrifice themselves in that way.

[Lummel]

I don't think you understand this, Lummel.

This passage conclusively proves that Stannis is a strategic mastermind while proving Jon's completely lack of skill and understanding about strategy.

You see, Stannis thinks the plan Jon came up with on the spot is superior to his own, and chooses to go with that. But in reality, Jon's plan is incredibly stupid and not at all an example of strategic thinking. So when Stannis decides to go with Jon's (apparently inferior) plan, finding it superior, it shows Stannis to be a strategic mastermind because he's flexible enough to change his mind when a better plan is presented. Except......Jon's plan is incredibly stupid. So Stannis, in finding a stupid plan to be "good" and choosing to go with it doesn't in any way speak against his abilities in both being able to recognize a good plan, or come up with one of his own. Trying to say that Jon's plan was stupid or lacked understanding of strategy in no way speaks against Stannis' strategic abilities.

You know, I think you could be right. Stannis adopting a more stupid plan - which it must be because it wasn't a Stannis plan - can't be stupid because Stannis did it, therefore it must purely underline how brilliant Stannis is. Which actually is the entire purpose of ASOIAF. Foolishly I had thought it was a novel, but really, reading your post I am beginning to realise that it is just a way to subtly bring us all to a fuller understanding of Stannis and how Stannis Stannis is, because really Stannis is Stannis - and what more is there to say than that?

Eventually we will all understand this and life will be much more Stannis.

[E-Ro]

You know, I think you could be right. Stannis adopting a more stupid plan - which it must be because it wasn't a Stannis plan - can't be stupid because Stannis did it, therefore it must purely underline how brilliant Stannis is. Which actually is the entire purpose of ASOIAF. Foolishly I had thought it was a novel, but really, reading your post I am beginning to realise that it is just a way to subtly bring us all to a fuller understanding of Stannis and how Stannis Stannis is, because really Stannis is Stannis - and what more is there to say than that?

Eventually we will all understand this and life will be much more Stannis.

I'm glad you finnally get it.

Can this thread be locked now, it's causing me much duress.

[Lummel]

I'm glad you finnally get it.

Can this thread be locked now, it's causing me much duress.

I am Stannis to Stannising how Stannis Stannis Stannises, which is difficult because Stannis is really Stannis. So obviously non-Stannis simply isn't Stannis and so you have to Stannis to really Stannis. Or perhaps Stannis?

I don't know, it is all so Stannis.

[Nyrhex]

1. It is only the same strategy if you define strategy purely as defeating Roose. But that is the strategic objective. The strategy is the means of accomplishing that aim. Defeating Roose isn't on its own a strategy, it is an objective.

2. Stannis and Jon have different strategies towards that objective. However capturing the Dreadfort doesn't take Stannis closer to defeating Roose, therefore it is a poor strategy. Yes there is a propaganda value in taking in, but how many men would it gain him? Well how about none because anybody tempted to join him would have to cross hostile territory to reach him. Yes the purpose of strongholds is to hold territory, but they accomplish this through being bases that soldiers can strike out from and defend themselves in. So to hold down Bolton territory Stannis would have to leave a good sized contingent of men at the Dreadfort before advancing on Roose. So Stannis' has small number of troops, will gain none through this operation, will have some casualties, will have to leave a good sized garrison behind and so will have even fewer men than when he started out to attack Roose. In other words Stannis' strategy makes it more difficult for him to achieve his objective. It is a poor strategy.

3. By contrast Jon's strategy gains Stannis men and minimises his losses while placing him adjacent to Roose and his army - which is the strategic objective. It is a better strategy.

4. Alternatively are you suggesting that Stannis should adopt a Masada position by putting all his men in the Dreadfort and waiting to be surrounded and besieged by Roose? That sounds like such a great idea that it is incredible why nobody in the book suggested that they should all sacrifice themselves in that way.

1. Defeating Roose by increasing Stannis' prestige at his expense, recruiting locals, and taking the North away from him, castle by castle, keep by keep, village by vilalge if need be. Not a single Battle of Annihilation in the snow for complete dominance, that is only a last resort, as Stannis lacks the power ATM. The snow storm kind of changes things.

2. Same strategy. Different name of target, differnt locals joining. Taking the Dreadfort is the same as taking Winterfel. Propaganda value, and a defensive position. And Since the Dreadfort is bordering the Hornwood lands, he will have a land connection to likely allies in the people there, and in the Manderly controlled areas. Pretty much the eastern half of the North.

If Stannis starts with ~2,000 men, and can raise more from the sorrounding lands, he can leave strong garrisons as he slowly builds his force, while Roose is bleeding as long as he is not marching on Stannis in his defensive positions.

3. Jon's information of the clans was good. The people around Deepwood came by the hundreds. And the Mormonts, probably the weakest house in the North, joined Stannis. On the eastern side, the recruitment potential includes WH.

4. If Stannis holds the supply, Roose is dependant on Manderly's supply train. Stannis can raise more men, and can hold the Dreadfort with a sizable garrison while moving about with his main host. If Roose chooses to split his own host to a siege host, and a moving host to force Stannis' main one to engage, Stannis just opted to decrease his own host by 100 or so, while forcing Roose to leave behind plenty more for the siege to work. That adds to Stannis' side in the ratio of powers, by decreasing Roose' side more.

[butterbumps!]

I don't get it. If we both agreed that the passage does not show stratigic brilliance, why the strawman? Is it because I knocked down Jon's ability? Is it the scenario that Stannis goes according to Roose's plan, but in hindsight it backfires?

It's because in your desire to prove Stannis' superiority to another character by disparaging that other character's ability, you lost sight of the fact that in doing so, you are inadvertently disparaging Stannis' ability. If you want to present Jon's plan as lacking strategy and poor, then you are inherently criticizing Stannis's strategic ability as well, given that he, Stannis, found Jon's plan to be good and adopted it. To say Jon's plan was poor is to say that Stannis doesn't know what a good plan looks like given he chose that plan.

This is a good example in how resorting to trying to show one character's merit by negating another's (i.e. one is good, so the other must be bad) is self-defeating. The only way you can prop up Stannis' value here is by accepting Jon's strategic ability, since this is what Stannis did. I have no godly idea why it's always this ridiculous zero sum thing.

[Lummel]

How is Stannis going to take the north castle by castle and village by village with inferior numbers? Even if he can recruit Bolton men how reliable do you think they would be when it comes to fighting their own lord? And how many of Stannis' men would it take to keep them in the battleline? This is fanciful.

Yes taking the Dreadfort is the same as taking Winterfell, that is what I have been saying. It is militarily insignificant.

How can Stannis control the supply lines? To do that he has to use manpower - which is his weakness. You are already using his limited numbers to take the north castle by castle, village by village - presumably garrisoning them so that Roose with his superior numbers doesn't simply retake them and you are using Stannis limited numbers to recruit and keep in line Bolton men who probably are going to be mildly unenthusiastic about fighting Roose and Ramsey and doubtless have a sharp appreciation of the consequences of doing so.

So at this point how many dozen reliable men might Stannis have left to go into battle against Roose?

[Nyrhex]

It's because in your desire to prove Stannis' superiority to another character by disparaging that other character's ability, you lost sight of the fact that in doing so, you are inadvertently disparaging Stannis' ability. If you want to present Jon's plan as lacking strategy and poor, then you are inherently criticizing Stannis's strategic ability as well, given that he, Stannis, found Jon's plan to be good and adopted it. To say Jon's plan was poor is to say that Stannis doesn't know what a good plan looks like given he chose that plan.

This is a good example in how resorting to trying to show one character's merit by negating another's (i.e. one is good, so the other must be bad) is self-defeating. The only way you can prop up Stannis' value here is by accepting Jon's strategic ability, since this is what Stannis did. I have no godly idea why it's always this ridiculous zero sum thing.

I think that in your desire to disparage Stannis' ability, or to prove Jon's superiority to another character, you lost sight of the meaning of the words that are actually written in my posts.

I am not saying that the passage proves that Stannis is a brilliant general.

I am not saying that Jon's plan for the Clans and DM was poor.

I am saying that the passage shows that Stannis' plan and assumptions are sound.

I am saying that in hindsight they would have placed Stannis in a far better position than being stuck in the Crofter's Village.

I am saying that your claim, and the logic behind it, that Stannis' strategy was poor, was false.

I am saying that Jon's criticism of Stannis' Dreadfort plan was poorly reasoned.

I am saying that your claim that Jon's council provides a led to a different strategy is false.

I am saying that Stannis took new input that changes the priority of where to march, east or west.

I am saying that Jon had previosely shown to have a poor sense for strategy.

[E-Ro]

I am Stannis to Stannising how Stannis Stannis Stannises, which is difficult because Stannis is really Stannis. So obviously non-Stannis simply isn't Stannis and so you have to Stannis to really Stannis. Or perhaps Stannis?

I don't know, it is all so Stannis.

http://lfw.org/jminc/Stannis/http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/forum/20-general-asoiaf/