Discussing Sansa XXVII: Northern ways...

[El Guapo]

8 minutes ago, teej6 said:

That is book Ramsay. ShowRamsay destroyed seasoned commander Stannis' supplies with 20 good men and then proceeded to destroy Stannis and his army. 

And the whole game he played with Jon using Rickon was to lure Jon to attack, not just a sick game as you say. ShowRamsay is a brillant strategist who even managed to take out his cunning and astute father. 

I am sorry but I am laughing at this notion that Ramsey is some brilliant strategist. I mean seriously. There was no brilliant strategy involved in beating Stannis. He beat him because half his army deserted after he sacrificed his daughter and Stannis was outnumbered No brilliant strategy there. How the hell was killing Roose an example of brilliant strategy?  He killed him because Rooose's wife just had a son. Was it brilliant strategy too when he sicked his hounds on Fat Walda?  

The only good strategy shown by Ramsey was a his little covert action in Stannis camp. I will give you that one. But the only that logistically should have done is slowed Stannis's army down.Unless of course you think Ramsey foresaw that Stannis would react to this by burning his daughter.

[xjlxking]

6 minutes ago, Lord Godric said:

I fail to see how keeping the information from his can be considered treasonous when she was the reason they won the battle. A stupid decision, sure. Treason, no. 

If I stab someone then stitch them up, sure, I'm a hero, but I'm also treasonous.

she basically so a situation she could have avoided; she did not tell anyone despite being presented with multiple opportunities to do so 

that's treasonous. 

[Lord Godric]

Just now, xjlxking said:

If I stab someone then stitch them up, sure, I'm a hero, but I'm also treasonous.

she basically so a situation she could have avoided; she did not tell anyone despite being presented with multiple opportunities to do so 

that's treasonous. 

That's assuming she caused the situation in the first place. Unless you blame her for running away from Ramsey too. 

[Thor Odinson]

It was actually a wise decision. Jon walked into a trap. Having a bigger army from the outset doesn't change that it was a trap, and having the Knights of the Vale lined up and ready to go wouldn't have changed that Jon would've fallen for the trap just the same. Seriously, what would have changed had Sansa told Jon that she could get the Knights of the Vale and they'd waited for them to arrive? They would've done the same thing:

1) They would've lined up to face off against Ramsey's forces, with their battle plan drawn up.

2) Ramsey would've had Rickon run to Jon and start shooting at him.

3) Jon would've raced out to save Rickon.

4) Jon's army would've followed him in, just as they did.

5) Ramsey's army would've enveloped them and slaughtered them.

The only difference is that the slaughter would've taken longer. With the Knights of the Vale arriving later, though, Ramsey was caught completely flat-footed and his army was caught unprepared for them. That's not something that would've happened had Jon factored them into his plans from the start.

And yes, Rickon would be dead regardless. There was no way whatsoever that Rickon could have been saved.

[xjlxking]

5 minutes ago, Lord Godric said:

That's assuming she caused the situation in the first place. Unless you blame her for running away from Ramsey too. 

She choose to marry Ramsay. She was presented with a choice.

 

she swayed Jon to fight and save their brother. Once, peices were set, she blatantly said, out brother is dead. She didn't forget that she swayed Jon to fight. 

I call that borderline treasonous and mischievous. Now, she openly challenges him in court only to back out and say he is good at ruling. Sansa if anything is trying to play LF's game but she's just not as good

[xjlxking]

9 minutes ago, Thor Odinson said:

It was actually a wise decision. Jon walked into a trap. Having a bigger army from the outset doesn't change that it was a trap, and having the Knights of the Vale lined up and ready to go wouldn't have changed that Jon would've fallen for the trap just the same. Seriously, what would have changed had Sansa told Jon that she could get the Knights of the Vale and they'd waited for them to arrive? They would've done the same thing:

1) They would've lined up to face off against Ramsey's forces, with their battle plan drawn up.

2) Ramsey would've had Rickon run to Jon and start shooting at him.

3) Jon would've raced out to save Rickon.

4) Jon's army would've followed him in, just as they did.

5) Ramsey's army would've enveloped them and slaughtered them.

The only difference is that the slaughter would've taken longer. With the Knights of the Vale arriving later, though, Ramsey was caught completely flat-footed and his army was caught unprepared for them. That's not something that would've happened had Jon factored them into his plans from the start.

And yes, Rickon would be dead regardless. There was no way whatsoever that Rickon could have been saved.

Or the army could have arrived after Ramsay charged to create a Anvil and hammer tactic

we don't know how the battle would have occurred. All we can agree on is, if jon had that information, it would have been more valuable than not knowing. He could have stalled for a bit or god knows, but keeping it from him just made it worse. All it did was give Sansa credit for winning

 

it's why she apologized 

[teej6]

3 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

I am sorry but I am laughing at this notion that Ramsey is some brilliant strategist. I mean seriously. There was no brilliant strategy involved in beating Stannis. He beat him because half his army deserted after he sacrificed his daughter and Stannis was outnumbered No brilliant strategy there. How the hell was killing Roose an example of brilliant strategy?  He killed him because Rooose's wife just had a son. Was it brilliant strategy too when he sicked his hounds on Fat Walda?  

The only good strategy shown by Ramsey was a his little covert action in Stannis camp. I will give you that one. But the only that logistically should have done is slowed Stannis's army down.Unless of course you think Ramsey foresaw that Stannis would react to this by burning his daughter.

You can laugh all you want but the writers made it so that Ramsay was able to infiltrate the army of a seasoned commander (who should have sentries and watches posted around camp) and destroy his entire supplies witb 20 men. What do you call that other than planning and strategy. Also, Stannis defeat happened because he lost his supplies and horses and he and his men were stranded in the frozen cold. And IIRC it was sellswords who abandoned him after he burned Shereen who would have done so anyway. What do you think Ramsay destroyed Stannis supplies and horses for? For kicks? 

As to Roose, this is a man who is distrustful of everyone in the books and cunning as hell but Ramsay was smart enough to fool him into a false sense of security. He even had Umber in on the plan so it wasn't a spur of the moment decision. The show definitely does not show Ramsay as a mindless psychopath as you say. He's cunning, calculating, and is strategic. If he was a mindless nut he would have killed Rickon before the battle and not used him as bait. Nope, contrary to BookRamsay, D&D made ShowRamsay out to be a smart villain. And what would smart Ramsay do if he's overpowered, he'd keep Rickon as hostage. 

[Thor Odinson]

5 minutes ago, xjlxking said:

She choose to marry Ramsay. She was presented with a choice.

 

she swayed Jon to fight and save their brother. Once, peices were set, she blatantly said, out brother is dead. She didn't forget that she swayed Jon to fight. 

I call that borderline treasonous and mischievous. Now, she openly challenges him in court only to back out and say he is good at ruling. Sansa if anything is trying to play LF's game but she's just not as good

And reasonable people would call that something else. Ramsey HAD to be confronted. There was no getting around that. Saying it had to be done isn't treasonous, it's stating a blatant fact. And she was right, there was no way at all of saving Rickon. Another 100,000 men on that battlefield wouldn't have changed Rickon's fate one iota.

She didn't "back out." She was basing her comments off of the leadership he displayed afterwards. She was still critical of the initial choice, but was complimenting him on how he handled his choice. There's a difference between thinking someone made a bad choice and handled it badly versus someone making a bad choice but being able to make it look good. Her comments were in reference to the latter, in that he made a choice which she disagreed with and felt was detrimental to him, but he handled it well and didn't hurt himself with the way he was able to carry himself in front of the Northern lords.

[teej6]

2 minutes ago, Thor Odinson said:

And reasonable people would call that something else. Ramsey HAD to be confronted. There was no getting around that. Saying it had to be done isn't treasonous, it's stating a blatant fact. And she was right, there was no way at all of saving Rickon. Another 100,000 men on that battlefield wouldn't have changed Rickon's fate one iota.

Sansa was the one who convinced a reluctant Jon to go to battle to save Rickon. Didn't she know then what she knew a few episodes later that Rickon could not be saved? How and when did she come to this realization? And you are wrong. Ramsay himself said he had the larger army. Had he not the numbers he would have probably stayed inside WF and waited it out. On the other hand, he could just send out his 20 good men again to destroy the Stark/Vale army's supplies. Anyway all the arguments as to whether Sansa lied or betrayed Jon are moot since Sansa's character and storyline fluctuates so much sometimes within the same episode itself. There's no consistency. One minute she's the helpless loving sister, the next minute she'd the backstabbing, conniving player who's learned a lot from Cersei apparently. 

[Stark_in_Winterfell]

1 hour ago, Thor Odinson said:

 

 

The revelation will hurt Jon, not help him. It'll cost him his right to be King in the North, for one. As for the Iron Throne, I don't know if you've noticed, but that's pretty hotly contested right now. Trying to claim the Iron Throne would put him in conflict with both Cersei AND Daenerys, who absolutely would not tolerate someone getting in front of her to her claim to the throne.

What I suspect, though, is that if Jon loses his role as King in the North that Sansa, now knowing that Jon is her cousin and not her half-brother, will propose marriage. That way Jon can continue to rule the North through her claim and it'd have the added benefit in that Jon could take her name and become Jon Stark (Which has happened on occasion with the great houses of the First Men. When a great family has nothing but female heirs, a husband takes the daughter's name so that the family name could continue. I believe this happened with the Lannisters once way back in the day). There are countless advantages to this:

1) An unmarried Sansa is a threat to her entire family, because her husband would have the greatest claim to rule the North. Anyone who marries her will want to claim the North with her, putting Jon, Bran, and even Arya in danger.

2) Sansa would finally get to choose who she marries, rather than having the choice made for her, whether it's Joffrey, Loras, Tyrion, and Ramsey, or Littlefinger now trying to force her into marrying him.

3) Jon is exactly the sort of man she's always dreamed of marrying. And in a roundabout way, she'll end up getting what she wanted when this all started, to marry a prince.

4) Both Jon and Sansa want to spend the rest of their lives in Winterfell, and recreate the family they lost. This can only happen with each other.

And before anyone says it, Jon and Sansa have never had a real sibling relationship. As soon as she was old enough to know what a bastard was, she basically ignored his existence, and he spent next to no time with her. So there's no real sibling bond between them the way there is between them and the other Stark kids. And frankly, I suspect a young Jon had a secret crush on Sansa which he felt deeply ashamed over. Who did he almost lose his virginity to? Roz, a redhead. Who did he first fall in love with? Ygritte, a redhead. He obviously has a "type", and if you're willing to consider the possibility that his childhood crush was Sansa, then it's easy to see where his tastes came from.

I have wondered about this possible relationship too but not in such detail. 

I suspect the northerners will use the revelation to justify putting Jon on the iron throne. I think Jon will work out some agreement with Danny.

With Danny there are three dragons. The book says the dragon must have three heads indicating there must be three dragon riders. Jon is the obvious second, so who is the third? Or is this not going to be an issue in the   Tv series?

[Stark_in_Winterfell]

2 hours ago, teej6 said:

House Stark would be extinct? As far as I can tell, Jon SNOW, House Mormont, and the Wildlings were the ones being defeated in battle. There were no Starks in the battle except for Rickon who would probably be still alive if Sansa had deigned to tell Jon that she had written to LF to come to their aid with the Vale army. But no, the brilliant Sansa just made a lot of noise and told Jon the obvious about not attacking since they don't have enough men. When Jon asks her for a solution, she doesn't say that they might get reinforcements or offer a constructive solution, instead she just says I don't know and callously declares that her baby brother is a dead boy walking, the same baby brother she implored Jon to save a few episodes before. Yeah ShowSansa is a real heroine. 

Sansa definitely played her hand badly. She probably did not want to owe Balish and foolishly hoped she and Jon could pull it off without him. As for her lying and scheming around Jon, I think she is just doing what she thinks she learned in Kings Landing and doing it badly. and she has forgotten what it means to be a Stark, who are a lot more inclined to being honest than the scheming southerners.  She can't be treasonous when she is the head of her own house though and refuses to give information critical to their success just stupid.

[Future Null Infinity]

1 hour ago, Stark_in_Winterfell said:

With Danny there are three dragons. The book says the dragon must have three heads indicating there must be three dragon riders. Jon is the obvious second, so who is the third? Or is this not going to be an issue in the   Tv series?

In the show, there was never any mention of the three riders and clearly Daenerys can control the three dragons, in season 6, it was a theory that  Tyrion is the second rider but that theory is dead now, I think it is a plot simplification

[Thor Odinson]

54 minutes ago, Stark_in_Winterfell said:

I have wondered about this possible relationship too but not in such detail. 

I suspect the northerners will use the revelation to justify putting Jon on the iron throne. I think Jon will work out some agreement with Danny.

With Danny there are three dragons. The book says the dragon must have three heads indicating there must be three dragon riders. Jon is the obvious second, so who is the third? Or is this not going to be an issue in the   Tv series?

I don't think there will be an Iron Throne by the end of the series. As for Daenerys, there's no working anything out with her that involves some result other than her sitting the Iron Throne. She absolutely wouldn't tolerate anyone standing between her and the throne. As for Jon, he wouldn't want it. He wants to spend the rest of his life in Winterfell.

As for the dragons,

some spoilers released a while back blow a hole in that, in that the Night King successfully kills one of the dragons and reanimates it as his personal mount.

I'm sure Jon will end up riding Rhaegal, but I expect him and Daenerys to end up fighting each other, so each will have a dragon. Remember, just because they're dragon riders, that doesn't mean they have to be on the same side. We may see another Dance of Dragons.

[Lady Lovisa]

1 hour ago, Thor Odinson said:

I don't think there will be an Iron Throne by the end of the series. As for Daenerys, there's no working anything out with her that involves some result other than her sitting the Iron Throne. She absolutely wouldn't tolerate anyone standing between her and the throne. As for Jon, he wouldn't want it. He wants to spend the rest of his life in Winterfell.

As for the dragons,

  Hide contents

some spoilers released a while back blow a hole in that, in that the Night King successfully kills one of the dragons and reanimates it as his personal mount.

I'm sure Jon will end up riding Rhaegal, but I expect him and Daenerys to end up fighting each other, so each will have a dragon. Remember, just because they're dragon riders, that doesn't mean they have to be on the same side. We may see another Dance of Dragons.

The source of that spoiler/leak also mentions that 

Spoiler

Jon and Dany will have sex on a boat

which is pretty lame, predictable and boring.

[Thor Odinson]

1 hour ago, Lady Lovisa said:

The source of that spoiler/leak also mentions that 

  Hide contents

Jon and Dany will have sex on a boat

which is pretty lame, predictable and boring.

It's gross, but I don't expect that to be indicative of the final arc of the series. Rather, I think that'll serve as setup for a more poignant confrontation, as those two characters end up as enemies. Even after hearing that spoiler, I'm still of the belief that Jon and Sansa will end up together in the end in Winterfell, and that the Iron Throne, along with everyone who ever wanted it, will be no more.

[Gaz0680]

3 minutes ago, Thor Odinson said:

It's gross, but I don't expect that to be indicative of the final arc of the series. Rather, I think that'll serve as setup for a more poignant confrontation, as those two characters end up as enemies. Even after hearing that spoiler, I'm still of the belief that Jon and Sansa will end up together in the end in Winterfell, and that the Iron Throne, along with everyone who ever wanted it, will be no more.

Jon and Sansa make no sense together as a couple. It doesnt fit their characters in the books or the show and also Kit and Sophie have almost zero chemistry on screen together. Hell, Kit had waaay more chemistry with Ygritte and even Melisandre.

[Thor Odinson]

1 minute ago, Gaz0680 said:

Jon and Sansa make no sense together as a couple. It doesnt fit their characters in the books or the show and also Kit and Sophie have almost zero chemistry on screen together. Hell, Kit had waaay more chemistry with Ygritte and even Melisandre.

It very much fits their characters in both books and show. Do a Google search and you'll find a number of indepth articles where people analyze the topic in terms of both books and show. And you may think that, but others got the sense that they had a ton of chemistry last year, which is when the theory started to take off, due to the chemistry between the characters.

[Mladen]

Just to chime in the discussion about Jon v Ramsay. If Ramsay was a bad commander, one has to wonder how bad then Jon was. As for Sansa omitting to share the info about Vale army, this is beating a dead horse. Simply, show decided that it is irrelevant and we should treat it as such. It is illogical, but it is what it is. It wasn't dumb nor smart, it was just... that. So entire debate or even arguing that Sansa was treasonous is pointless as the show canon simply doesn't recognize the act as such.

Just now, Gaz0680 said:

Jon and Sansa make no sense together as a couple. It doesnt fit their characters in the books or the show and also Kit and Sophie have almost zero chemistry on screen together. Hell, Kit had waaay more chemistry with Ygritte and even Melisandre.

Well, we know the reason why Kit had such a good chemistry with Rose

Just now, Thor Odinson said:

It very much fits their characters in both books and show. Do a Google search and you'll find a number of indepth articles where people analyze the topic in terms of both books and show. And you may think that, but others got the sense that they had a ton of chemistry last year, which is when the theory started to take off, due to the chemistry between the characters.

Whenever Sansa crosses a path with a man, or Jon with a woman, there is a theory about marrying them. So... They could be great allies, but I don't see the marriage here. It would serve no purpose.

[divica]

28 minutes ago, Gaz0680 said:

Jon and Sansa make no sense together as a couple. It doesnt fit their characters in the books or the show and also Kit and Sophie have almost zero chemistry on screen together. Hell, Kit had waaay more chemistry with Ygritte and even Melisandre.

Lets be honest, it would be almost impossible to have chemistry with this new sansa... she doesn t make sense and is always in her monotonic voice being cold...

 

However politically their marriage makes sense. First, danny is suposed to be barren, then there is no one fit for his marriage in dorne or the reach and jon and sansa marriage would give them both good relations with thw north, kl (danny), the vale and riverlands (by blood(sansa)) and the iron islands (theon and their fealty to danny). Their son would be in a very good position to inherit thw iron throne...

Emotionally, I think they will always see each other as siblings. However jon obecession for redheads and sansa's thrist for power could tie them.

[Future Null Infinity]

4 hours ago, Gaz0680 said:

Jon and Sansa make no sense together as a couple. It doesnt fit their characters in the books or the show and also Kit and Sophie have almost zero chemistry on screen together. Hell, Kit had waaay more chemistry with Ygritte and even Melisandre.

Yes it make no sense and you know why? :

• Deanerys' story is entangled with Cersei's
• Bran's story is entangled with  white walker's
• sansa's story is entangled with littlefinger's

which make the little precious jon without an actual story waiting for the white walkers to come in, so D&D decided to cram him in the story of sansa and littlefinger to give him some story time as fan service, they can't afford his absence in this season, the fans would be so angry