Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Davrum

How would Davos know what happened to Shireen?

Recommended Posts

Seeing a few people complain that Davos is acting un-Davoslike by not going at Mel's throat, except ...

... I don't remember any scene with Mel or anyone else telling Davos what happened to Shireen. Didn't she just say they lost the battle and were all killed or something along those lines? Davos doesn't know Mel had Shireen sacrificed as far as I can remember.

What did I miss?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Davrum said:

Seeing a few people complain that Davos is acting un-Davoslike by not going at Mel's throat, except ...

... I don't remember any scene with Mel or anyone else telling Davos what happened to Shireen. Didn't she just say they lost the battle and were all killed or something along those lines? Davos doesn't know Mel had Shireen sacrificed as far as I can remember.

What did I miss?

Nothing. There's absolutely no way he could know unless she told him herself. It's quite possible she will tell him, but he certainly doesn't know now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this was implied when he asked her about the princess... still, he's rather calm about it all, probably realizing he was at the wrong guy's side anyway - I'm guessing he'll be a Jon-supporter now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC in the last finale we saw Melisandre say to Davos that Stannis and Shireen were dead, and then the scene was cut. So even if we didn't hear Mel explain it, the logical assumption would be that she would have explained it to Davos. Bear in mind that Stannis' death was within the realm of the possibility (at least in the show, were he commands the battles from the front), but Shireen and her mother should have been watching everything from distance and ready to flee. Their death would have been a very strange event and Davos should have obviously inquired about what happened.

One could argue that Melisandre could have lied to Davos and concocted some made up history to account for her deaths. But it would make no sense. Shireen was burned with thousand of witnesses, and precisely half of Stannis army deserted the day after. The news of how Stannis burned her daughter alive should be public knowledge in all the North by now, or at least they would have reached Davos/the Wall.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davos' attitude towards Mel regarding the Baratheons makes mostly sense. He doesn't know (yet?) that she burnt Shireen. 

Davos' attitude towards Mel regarding Jon doesn't make sense. He doesn't like Mel. He never considered to ride back with her to reanimate Stannis' corpse. Why in seven hells would he want to bring Jon back in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, messem said:

Davos' attitude towards Mel regarding Jon doesn't make sense. He doesn't like Mel. He never considered to ride back with her to reanimate Stannis' corpse. Why in seven hells would he want to bring Jon back in the first place?

Have to agree on this. The fact that Davos asked Mel this didn't make much sense. She should've figured it out herself with some flashbacks about Thoros or something. Davos hates her red god, and why would Davos in any way think that Jon is so important? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

IIRC in the last finale we saw Melisandre say to Davos that Stannis and Shireen were dead, and then the scene was cut. So even if we didn't hear Mel explain it, the logical assumption would be that she would have explained it to Davos. Bear in mind that Stannis' death was within the realm of the possibility (at least in the show, were he commands the battles from the front), but Shireen and her mother should have been watching everything from distance and ready to flee. Their death would have been a very strange event and Davos should have obviously inquired about what happened.

One could argue that Melisandre could have lied to Davos and concocted some made up history to account for her deaths. But it would make no sense. Shireen was burned with thousand of witnesses, and precisely half of Stannis army deserted the day after. The news of how Stannis burned her daughter alive should be public knowledge in all the North by now, or at least they would have reached Davos/the Wall.

 

On the show it seems clear that Davos doesn't know.

Logically yes all the deserters would carry the tale but it would carry by word of mouth and rather slower than a woman riding straight to castle black, so, thus far, it makes sense Davos doesn't know.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe that Davos has an idea what Mel did. But here's the thing: killing her would make him no different than Olly. He needs Mel. Yes, she killed Shireen. But she thought she was doing the right thing just like Mance Rayder did. Mel has powers, she wants to fight against the White Walkers. It would be stupid of Davos to doom the entire world for revenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JagLover

But,

1) It would not make sense that out of some thousands of deserters, at least a single one would have retreated to Castle Black? Considering that it was their last base, one of the few Northern castles that would support them, and the where the Hand of his king is dwelling? I'm not saying that this should be what most deserters would do, but considering that Davos was a friend and Shireen and had openly opposed Melisandre and her dark magic, one could imagine that at least some soldiers would try to go there. It's not like some recruits from the Stormlands have many more places to go in the North, and during winter.

2) If you agree that Davos would know sooner or later... why would she lie to Davos? It would be worse later. I would buy it if Melisandre had tried to flee away from Davos at the first oportunity she had. But she stayed there as if nothing happened.

But most of all, IF Melisandre had lied to Davos about Shireen's fate, that would have been a significant scene that should have been shown or alluded to on-screen. It's something significant for character development of two protagonists, and required to understand their behaviours later one. Not including it is just as weak as having Davos forget about Shireen. Either way, it's bad writing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

IIRC in the last finale we saw Melisandre say to Davos that Stannis and Shireen were dead, and then the scene was cut. So even if we didn't hear Mel explain it, the logical assumption would be that she would have explained it to Davos. Bear in mind that Stannis' death was within the realm of the possibility (at least in the show, were he commands the battles from the front), but Shireen and her mother should have been watching everything from distance and ready to flee. Their death would have been a very strange event and Davos should have obviously inquired about what happened.

One could argue that Melisandre could have lied to Davos and concocted some made up history to account for her deaths. But it would make no sense. Shireen was burned with thousand of witnesses, and precisely half of Stannis army deserted the day after. The news of how Stannis burned her daughter alive should be public knowledge in all the North by now, or at least they would have reached Davos/the Wall.

 

It doesn't make any logical sense at all that Mel would tell Davos of her part in Shireen's death. She's not an idiot and she needs Davos not to be her enemy as much as possible.

It does make sense that word would have traveled far and wide with the deserters though. Good call on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, messem said:

Davos' attitude towards Mel regarding the Baratheons makes mostly sense. He doesn't know (yet?) that she burnt Shireen. 

Davos' attitude towards Mel regarding Jon doesn't make sense. He doesn't like Mel. He never considered to ride back with her to reanimate Stannis' corpse. Why in seven hells would he want to bring Jon back in the first place?

Whether he likes her or not has no bearing on whether he feels she could be useful to him.

As for Stannis, even if Davos had wondered about Red God Resurrection before why would he think he and/or she could get access to the corpse of a defeated king? Jon's right there. And Davos clearly considered Jon a good man and leader. Why in seven hells wouldn't he want her to try to bring Jon back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

@JagLover

But,

1) It would not make sense that out of some thousands of deserters, at least a single one would have retreated to Castle Black? Considering that it was their last base, one of the few Northern castles that would support them, and the where the Hand of his king is dwelling? I'm not saying that this should be what most deserters would do, but considering that Davos was a friend and Shireen and had openly opposed Melisandre and her dark magic, one could imagine that at least some soldiers would try to go there. It's not like some recruits from the Stormlands have many more places to go in the North, and during winter.

2) If you agree that Davos would know sooner or later... why would she lie to Davos? It would be worse later. I would buy it if Melisandre had tried to flee away from Davos at the first oportunity she had. But she stayed there as if nothing happened.

But most of all, IF Melisandre had lied to Davos about Shireen's fate, that would have been a significant scene that should have been shown or alluded to on-screen. It's something significant for character development of two protagonists, and required to understand their behaviours later one. Not including it is just as weak as having Davos forget about Shireen. Either way, it's bad writing.

 

I guess we should just assume that so far, none of the deserters, or any survivors of the battle, have reached Castle Black,  But, I'm sure that some of them are bound to get there.

Perhaps it's being set up as a major point of contention.  When Davos finds out, he'll surely want to kill Melisandre.  Jon will see her as being essential to the defence of the Wall (as well as being grateful to her for bringing him back to life).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davos knew damn well that Stannis sent him to the wall in order to have free hands to burn shireen. 

All the camp drama scenes were about him trying to prevent this.

 

So him not asking, and not suspecting is absolutly out of character. 

Logic Davos would gave a frack about Jon Snow and would be all about Stann/Shireen probably trying to choke melissandre.

 

But show Davos goes all "Sorry mylady" ... the show treats us as dumb people. We are not dumb. Lets have some respect for ourselves and stop being so apologetic about this crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Davrum said:

It doesn't make any logical sense at all that Mel would tell Davos of her part in Shireen's death. She's not an idiot and she needs Davos not to be her enemy as much as possible.

It does make sense that word would have traveled far and wide with the deserters though. Good call on that.

I'm not sure it makes sense that the remnants of Stannis' army would head towards Castle Black. Yes Davos is there, but how many of them would know that? Secondly, if you look at a map of Westeros, Castle Black is further (and colder) than White Harbour for example. Heading further North would also keep you in Bolton territory, south is a lot safer.

As for the scene with Davos and Melisandre. That was clumsily done. It had the look of a rushed edit about it. As if there had been more interaction but it was cut to save time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if he knows, the show runners could spin it either way, but to me neither makes sense.

If he knows: there should be no way he is treating Mel like he is treating her now and not only should he be mad, but burning Shrieen and having Stannis still fail, should make him doubt her abilities, so that he wouldn't just go to her for help.

If he doesn't know: wouldn't he have asked what happened? Was he not trying to protect Shireen because he always saw what Mel planned? Weren't there even men abandoning Stannis due to the burning, some of which might have gone back for Castle Black? And even if Mel told him nothing upon him asking or even lied about doing it, he is still seeing her coming back to Castle Black unharmed and apparently not having done all too much with that magic that suddenly seems so powerful to Davos to protect or save the heir of Stannis and maybe bring her back with her. It simply seems that trusting someone with resurrecting a dead guy, when she couldn't even protect the one true king Stannis or at least his one true heir, is a weird thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, messem said:

Davos' attitude towards Mel regarding the Baratheons makes mostly sense. He doesn't know (yet?) that she burnt Shireen. 

Davos' attitude towards Mel regarding Jon doesn't make sense. He doesn't like Mel. He never considered to ride back with her to reanimate Stannis' corpse. Why in seven hells would he want to bring Jon back in the first place?

Because Davos feels there may be something with Jon or could be trying to fulfill Stannis's wishes of taking him from Castle black.  Davos was there when Stannis asked Jon to rule Winterfell and leave the wall.  I also believe the Davos at the end of the day doesn't have a choice in the matter.  Go through all the crap he has went through and try to make it back home or continue to fight what he believes in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Clash said:

I'm not sure it makes sense that the remnants of Stannis' army would head towards Castle Black. Yes Davos is there, but how many of them would know that? Secondly, if you look at a map of Westeros, Castle Black is further (and colder) than White Harbour for example. Heading further North would also keep you in Bolton territory, south is a lot safer.

As for the scene with Davos and Melisandre. That was clumsily done. It had the look of a rushed edit about it. As if there had been more interaction but it was cut to save time.

Weren't Stannis's men north of the Boltons though? If they go south they run straight into the Boltons then. Makes more sense that they'd go back north, away from the Boltons.

I get what you're saying though I think, but I also think news travels and word gets around, especially word on something as dramatic as that. I guess it would depend on how much time has passed between the desertion and now, and the passage of time is often unclear on the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Davrum said:

Weren't Stannis's men north of the Boltons though? If they go south they run straight into the Boltons then. Makes more sense that they'd go back north, away from the Boltons.

I get what you're saying though I think, but I also think news travels and word gets around, especially word on something as dramatic as that. I guess it would depend on how much time has passed between the desertion and now, and the passage of time is often unclear on the show.

It's a massive distance though. Some guys have spent a lot of time mapping out distances in Westeros and although they don't take into account the curvature of the earth, they have estimated the distance from Winterfell to Castle Black at 650 miles whereas the distance to White Harbour is estimated at 340 miles. When Tyrion went there in the first book with Jon, it took a very long time.

We don't know where the battle took place, though in the book, the suggestion is that they started out west of Winterfell in Deepwood Motte. That would give any remnants of his army a relatively clear run south, in a worst case, either route would present equal danger.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SeanF said:

I guess we should just assume that so far, none of the deserters, or any survivors of the battle, have reached Castle Black,  But, I'm sure that some of them are bound to get there.

Perhaps it's being set up as a major point of contention.  When Davos finds out, he'll surely want to kill Melisandre.  Jon will see her as being essential to the defence of the Wall (as well as being grateful to her for bringing him back to life).

I think this is the right play. Have them bond now over Jon and then serve the truth and see what Davos does

Another point is that  TV and books are different. You cannot assume with TV, like you can with books, that certain events happened or are bound to have happened, they have to be shown, that is the medium. In books and ASOIAF many of the events take place without us seeing it first hand and are merely told to us by third parties. I find this a poor way of storytelling but it is accepted in the book medium, and so a lot of readers are encouraged to assume and put the pieces together themselves whether they are the author's intention or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×