Northern Lords declaring for Stannis then refusing to march south

[rotting sea cow]

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, that doesn't *really* count as support, more as defending their own home turf and environment. No crannagman joined 'King Robb' in his campaign.

They did. They were charged to defend the Neck and they fulfill their mission as best they could.  Crannogmen are terribly unsuitable for conventional warfare. Let the Hobbits to stab Trolls in LOTR

 

Quote

 

It is also crystal clear who Howland Reed and his children consider to be the true heir and Stark of Winterfell - Brandon Stark.

And his children call him "Prince", indicating that crannogmen recognized Robb kingship.

 

Quote

The idea that Howland stabs Bran in the back is pretty ridiculous if you ask me. I don't think Bran will ever leave that cave or return to Winterfell to do something as ridiculously mundane as rule over quarrelsome mortals, but Howland, presumably, doesn't know this - and if he does know that, he should also know that both Brandon and Rickon survived, so Jon Snow is out of the game again.

Unless Howland is a greenseer, he doesn't know that Bran and Rickon are alive. He may not even know that his own children are alive. And then, you fall in a plot hole. Why Howland does nothing when Winterfell is taken? These kind of questions are fair, but do not help to resolve the mysteries of the story or make predictions for future installments.

 

Quote

A true Stark loyalist would *never* want to see the bastard in Winterfell while he or she had ample evidence that Brandon and Rickon are still alive. And they should even favor the girls over a bastard who took the black. Such people are out of the game, especially in the North.

I didn't say that Howland Reed would favor Jon. I said that Howland will see troubles (beyond bastardy,  NW, blablabla) in supporting Robb's will. But on the other hand, what options are left? Sansa Lannister? The whole thing is being set up to have a succession crisis once the different claimants show up. With some of the North lords supporting Robb's will and others claiming it's moot, etc. And do not forget that Stannis should also have a say.

 

 

 

 

[Lord Varys]

58 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

They did. They were charged to defend the Neck and they fulfill their mission as best they could.  Crannogmen are terribly unsuitable for conventional warfare. Let the Hobbits to stab Trolls in LOTR

'King Robb' never interacted with them or did give them any commands. They acted on their own.

58 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

And his children call him "Prince", indicating that crannogmen recognized Robb kingship.

In Winterfell. And them acknowledging what their liege did doesn't mean Howland approves of that, or is going to continue that folly.

58 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

Unless Howland is a greenseer, he doesn't know that Bran and Rickon are alive. He may not even know that his own children are alive. And then, you fall in a plot hole. Why Howland does nothing when Winterfell is taken? These kind of questions are fair, but do not help to resolve the mysteries of the story or make predictions for future installments.

I think you underestimate the importance of the Reed plot here. Howland Reed trained with the Green Men on the Isle of Faces. We don't know what all that entailed. More importantly, we do know that Jojen has green dreams - it would have been him convincing his father to go to the chained wolf and cut him loose. We don't know whether Jojen told his father when and how he'll die, but he might have. Even if he didn't do that, he may have told him where he and Meera would be taking Bran. And that was clear even before the Reeds came to Winterfell. It was always clear they would take Brandon Stark to Bloodraven.

58 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

I didn't say that Howland Reed would favor Jon. I said that Howland will see troubles (beyond bastardy,  NW, blablabla) in supporting Robb's will. But on the other hand, what options are left? Sansa Lannister? The whole thing is being set up to have a succession crisis once the different claimants show up. With some of the North lords supporting Robb's will and others claiming it's moot, etc. And do not forget that Stannis should also have a say.

If there was a grand conspiracy then Reed should know by now about Bran and Rickon - not just because of the Jojen thing I laid out above, but also simply because of what Manderly and Glover learned from Wex.

In light of that Robb's will is totally irrelevant until they all start believing Brandon and Rickon are truly dead.

And thinking about the Rickon plan - did people actually realize that Wyman indicates he wants to set sister against brother in this plot? He wants Rickon and his direwolf to challenge Bolton's 'Arya'. Since he has no idea that 'Arya' is not Arya that's putting brother against sister, a lesser version of the stupid Myrcella scheme Tyrion was smart enough to realize as folly.

We should all hope the Northmen are more focused on revenge and payback and less determined to favor/support certain Stark claimants against the others. Else Rickon or 'Arya' or even Sansa might end up being used as pawns against their own siblings.

[rotting sea cow]

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

'King Robb' never interacted with them or did give them any commands. They acted on their own.

"If he comes so far, but no one thinks he will," Robb said. "I've sent word to Howland Reed, Father's old friend at Greywater Watch. If the Lannisters come up the Neck, the crannogmen will bleed them every step of the way, but Galbart Glover says Lord Tywin is too smart for that, and Roose Bolton agrees. - Catelyn VIII, AGOT

 

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

In Winterfell. And them acknowledging what their liege did doesn't mean Howland approves of that, or is going to continue that folly.

What folly? Defending the Neck?

 

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I think you underestimate the importance of the Reed plot here. Howland Reed trained with the Green Men on the Isle of Faces. We don't know what all that entailed. More importantly, we do know that Jojen has green dreams - it would have been him convincing his father to go to the chained wolf and cut him loose. We don't know whether Jojen told his father when and how he'll die, but he might have. Even if he didn't do that, he may have told him where he and Meera would be taking Bran. And that was clear even before the Reeds came to Winterfell. It was always clear they would take Brandon Stark to Bloodraven.

It may well be that Howland gets greendreams or something similar, but he is not a greenseer. Still, it is unclear what he knows and what not.

 

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

If there was a grand conspiracy then Reed should know by now about Bran and Rickon - not just because of the Jojen thing I laid out above, but also simply because of what Manderly and Glover learned from Wex.

What grand conspiracy?

 

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

In light of that Robb's will is totally irrelevant until they all start believing Brandon and Rickon are truly dead.

It depends on the content of the will and how the lords will interpret it. Some will wish to abide to it, some other not.

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And thinking about the Rickon plan - did people actually realize that Wyman indicates he wants to set sister against brother in this plot? He wants Rickon and his direwolf to challenge Bolton's 'Arya'. Since he has no idea that 'Arya' is not Arya that's putting brother against sister, a lesser version of the stupid Myrcella scheme Tyrion was smart enough to realize as folly.

We should all hope the Northmen are more focused on revenge and payback and less determined to favor/support certain Stark claimants against the others. Else Rickon or 'Arya' or even Sansa might end up being used as pawns against their own siblings.

I think it is bound to happen, but they will get out of it.

[Tagganaro]

On 9/18/2018 at 7:25 PM, Rufus Snow said:

That's a bit rich, considering that 'what isn't in the books' is the actual contents of Robb's will. We know what he was thinking about before setting pen to paper; we absolutely DON'T know what his final decision was. And I think GRRM has given enough hints to remind us of that, as though he was warning us against making assumptions.....

Needless to say, but I disagree.  I was specifically responding to @Lord Varys's use of a GRRM ssm as compared to what's in the books.  In any case, I certainly think at this point it is a fairer assumption that Robb's will names Jon his successor, although I agree there is reason to doubt that simply because it isn't made that explicit.

On 9/18/2018 at 7:59 PM, Lord Varys said:

But the contents of Robb's will *are not in the books*.

yes, that is true, they are not.  But Robb's will and the substance behind it are in the books, and I do think there is a reason for that.  The will will come up again, and until we get evidence to the contrary I think it is certainly fair to stick by the idea that it names Jon Robb's successor.  There are not really reasonable alternatives that I can come up with at the time Robb wrote it.

Quote

I'm actually not really trying to build a theory here. I toss around ideas, but I don't try to stitch together a great theory out of various unrelated pieces - unless, of course, things are really marked as clues. At times I miss those - I missed the Frey pies hard on the first read, and really needed somebody to point that one out.

I completely whiffed on Frey pies too on first read ...I wonder if that one ever would have even been figured out if GRRM didn't speak up about it, although once you know what to look for it is kind of obvious.

Quote

Seeing a grand design in the works when easier and less convoluted theories do make more sense is simply not a good or productive idea.

This is perfectly fair.  I can agree with this to a certain extent.  My response early on is still what I'm defending- that there are elements of the GNC which make a lot of sense to me and you don't have to buy every last bit of it.  In other words you can pick and choose certain parts of it.  

Quote

I most definitely can see people abandoning the Boltons to a man the moment the tide turns against them, and I can see people having made plans to restore the Stark children (not Jon Snow) to Winterfell, not just because there is textual evidence for all that. What I can't see is people plotting in favor of man most of them do not only not know but they cannot *really* see as a possibly claimant to anything, never mind what Robb Stark's will says.

Oh I mean, I think it's pretty obvious people will abandon the Boltons to a man the moment the tide turns, as I think Roose pretty much says himself.  Roose is certainly aware of the lack of loyalty towards him and particularly his son.  I do agree with you that excluding Robb's will, Jon would definitely not be an option.

Quote

Jon Snow might end up in the game of thrones but not by way of people not knowing plotting in favor of him. That's fanboyism projecting plots on the characters. Jon might rise to prominence and power eventually, but he'll have to earn that. He'll have to meet people and win their trust, etc. And he has not done that yet. There are some steps in that direction in ADwD but nowhere near enough. We don't even know yet whether the Karstark marriage thing worked. It could still backfire on him. Perhaps the people of Karhold do not want a savage from beyond the Wall to become their new lord? Perhaps Harrion Karstark returns and the Karstark and Thenn men butcher each other?

I don't think it's "fanboyism" to project Jon playing a leadership role in the North onto Jon's plot.  Maybe it's not even fair to say a "leadership role" but at the very least, Jon is taking on a prominent role in Northern politics while at the Wall.  I mean a big aspect of it is behind the scenes, but he is essentially planning Stannis's war.  But even excepting that, obviously Jon has taken on that role with Karhold.  You are right to question whether that may backfire but it is certainly a step in that direction.  I also believe that Jon has impressed or at least would have impressed the clansmen at the Wall during their discussion atop the Wall, but maybe they're not so impressed anymore after Jon got stabbed .

Quote

I'd say they would actually also accept 'the Ned's little girl' as their young lady. They would not die for a girl they would push aside later on for some bastard wearing black.

I think they would regardless.  As you have said, these guys seem perfectly fine with dying.  Ned seems to have won their respect and whether 'Arya' will be pushed aside or not, I think they do seem to feel that they "owe" Ned this.  Just going by their words.

Quote

The idea that such a grand conspiracy could work is stupid. The idea that they would go that way despite the fact that it might be much easier to ignore Stannis/kill him and his pitiful army and then just kill the Boltons, too. A conspiracy as vast as this GNC includes pretty much every important Northmen. If this men all had their ducks in a row - hidden, behind the scenes, like the greatest political minds of Westeros - then they sure as hell should also be able to find a way to rid themselves of the Boltons.

I disagree.  Roose is not a man to be undone, to quote the boss himself.  The North has suffered severe losses in TWO5K, Roose pretty much made sure to cripple potential opposition even before the Red Wedding.  Now Roose has the backing of the Iron Throne and the manpower of the Freys behind him, not to mention the hostages, which I think it is fair to say at least prevented probably the 2 most other powerful (or at least 2 among the more powerful remaining) Northern houses from acting in opposition to him until now (Manderley and Umber)

Quote

In any realistic scenario it would be very risky to trust so many people with such schemes.

No doubt it is risky.  That's why I don't necessarily buy the grand unified plotting aspect...I think there are a bunch of more minor individual plots which may add up to something major in the end.

Quote

It would simply make no sense for him to save Rickon if he wants a King Jon. A King Jon could marry Wynafryd or Wylla, by the way, and then Wyman's great-grandchildren will inherit Winterfell, not some legitimate son of Lord Eddard's who would have to be dealt with, anyway, to ensure he doesn't challenge the bastard line once he has come of age.

I wouldn't say "no sense" but yes I agree it certainly is a deficiency in the theory.  I was playing more devil's advocate because the theory does try to address that by making the 2 points I made above (Rickon as Jon's successor and/or Wyman intending to die so this promise dies with him).  I'm not sure those suitably address it.

For me personally like I said I buy certain bits and pieces of the GNC but don't believe in some kind of unified plot to the extent the theory supposes it.  As far as Manderley goes, I think it would make more sense that he was not aware of the contents of Robb's will and is probably playing a different sort of game than, say, the Mormonts for example.

Quote

A 'King Jon' or 'Lord Jon' would never be secure in Winterfell while any of Ned's children yet lived. And if Jon can leave the Watch, so could any of them, too, which means Jon should better take all their heads.

Better take all their heads who?  The Night's Watch men?  I disagree on that, if Robb's will names Jon I think there will be enough popular support that Jon could leave.  Stannis planned to do something along similar lines when he wanted Jon as his man.  And I think Robb certainly has more support among the North, even dead, than Stannis did at the end of ASOS/beginning of ADWD.

Quote

Because it would be utter stupidity to not make common case with Stannis in a 'revenge and Stark restoration' scenario that doesn't include a continuation of the King in the North nonsense.

Well, again I don't think it's "nonsense" but yes, I agree with you excepting the King in the North idea it would probably make more sense to make common cause with Stannis.

Quote

And unlike a significant number of readers 'the independent North' isn't a concept that comes up in the novels all that often. The smallfolk of White Harbor still look to the Targaryens as their rightful kings. They speculate about dragons who may have survived, not direwolves hiding in the woods waiting to get their crowns back.

I don't think the "smallfolk of White Harbor" are really a good indication of the deeper North and their feelings.  As I have said above, I think the fact that Robb was named King in the North speaks for itself generally about how the North feels about this, and I think loyalty to Ned/Robb may indeed keep this concept alive.

Quote

In that case the will could be with anyone, and what's more important it might also be with people who are elsewhere, causing an even greater issue with the question why the hell nobody informed Jon Snow about it.

Yes, I mean there is a lot of speculation about where the Will is and who has access to it.  It's even a possibility that the will is lost/destroyed as Robb may have had someone with it at the Twins/Red Wedding.  But as I have argued, I do think the Will will pop up again and become at least a plot point.  The Grand GNC speculates that it's somewhere in Hag's Mire and there's a much larger conspiracy involving the Riverlands and even Lady Stoneheart who know the contents of Robb's will.  I don't buy that for obvious reasons as Stoneheart would probably never scheme to help put Jon in charge of Winterfell even if it was Robb's last will.  I've seen speculation that it may be in Oldtown somewhere but I'm not sure that gets you anywhere either.

Quote

You do know that Roose and Ramsay wouldn't be at Winterfell right now if 'King Jon' had gone there first, long before Roose actually returned from the south, right?

"King Jon" isn't just something that would happen because the will named him King.  As I have said from the beginning, there are a number of dominoes in place that need to fall before the Boltons/Freys can be defeated, chief among them the freeing of the hostages allowing Manderley and Umber to act as well as the unmasking of the 'Arya' ruse.  Even assuming Jon is named king in the will and many Northern lords have knowledge of it, they wouldn't just immediately publicize it if it would result in them and Jon both being killed right away.  In that respect, Stannis is a bit of a perfect storm as well, because as the theory supposes the Northmen want Stannis and Bolton to weaken and destroy each other before making their move.

Quote

The idea that they can maintain their independence against the Iron Throne, the idea that they could win a war when they antagonize everyone but the Riverlands with their independence thing, and, of course, the most important thing: the idea that they could win against the Others with just the North fighting against them.

But they could maintain their independence, as the Greatjon says.  It was the dragons they bowed to and the dragons are dead (as far as they know).  There are certainly echoes of real-world Russia in the North's vast landmass, sparse population, and harsh winters which would make it all but unconquerable by an army that doesn't have dragons.  

But yes I agree obviously they couldn't take on the Others by themselves, which is pretty much what I'm expecting to happen.  The Others will reach further south before the entirety of Westeros is mobilized against them.

Quote

Robb basically killed himself the moment he was proclaimed. Would Balon have dared invade the North if Robb had been allied with Renly and the Reach? Or Stannis and his sellsails? Or would he then rather decided to attack the West, like Dalton Greyjoy did, expecting that the Lannisters would not, in the end, prevail?

I mean sure, but there were a whole lot of ensuing mistakes that also doomed Robb.  Had Balon accepted Robb's offer things also could have gone a lot differently, we can play the hypothetical game all day with different outcomes where Robb could have survived at least long enough to see the Lannisters dead and then go from there.

Quote

Robb's crown made him a lonely boy, and the kingship made him push away even the few allies he had left after the Blackwater.

Robb would have been a 'lonely boy' regardless of whether he was wearing the crown or not with the mistakes he made both leading up to, and after the Blackwater.  Certainly the Karstark and Freys could have been maintained as allies if Robb hadn't blundered as he did.

Quote

What can be dismissed entirely is the Jon Snow part. There is no shred of evidence that any Northman views him as a king-to-be (evidence for that would have to be more than just some old clansmen coming to the Wall). Even if for the sake of argument I'd grant you the idea that there might be something afoot with plenty of Northmen, there is no indication that anybody actually actively plots in favor of Jon.

Yeah, I agree with this for the most part, again excepting Robb's will and knowledge of it.  I can see "shreds of evidence" for it among the Karstarks (well really Alys who turns to Jon but that is probably more out of desperation than anything else), Mormonts, and clansmen.  But yes, I can certainly agree that there is something afoot among the Northmen, and that involves revenge on the Boltons/Freys and possibly installing the Starks back in power.

Quote

That part is obviously wishful thinking. And unnecessary wishful thinking at that, because there are so many scenarios how Jon could actually become a lord or king in the North without that kind of stuff. A more natural and step-by-step way, after Stannis and Rickon are dead and there is a real power vacuum and he has been out of the NW for a considerable amount of time, long enough that the Northmen have actually learned to accept that fact.

Fair.  I don't necessarily disagree with this.

Quote

Oh, that could actually be a mistake in the books. Or Maege's sisters were joined Maege and the army off-screen. Dacey is the one hanging out with Robb, but Cat doesn't spend much time with anyone in ASoS. She mostly keeps to herself and Brienne.

It could be...or it couldn't (I've said this too many times ).  It certainly is something that can be speculated on either way.  Maybe it is a mistake or maybe it is something more?  I think that's fair to say.

Quote

Well, do you really think the 'this man should be our king' idea is the best explanation for what they are doing? I mean, come on. They know he took the black, they know is the Lord Commander of the NW. 

I mean, I think 'this man should be our king' is among the better explanations for what they are doing (although perhaps I'd state it differently and say they are checking out Jon).  I don't find any of the explanations you've put forth particularly compelling to the point that I'd dismiss 'this man should be our king'.

Quote

I was using hyperbole there. But I really think Bran may understand Stannis much better than he understands himself. Remember, he would have seen the past of the man as well as his more recent actions. It is also quite clear, one imagines, that Bran will have see literally beyond the trees or else his visions won't be of much use plot-wise. We won't to see some tower of joy scenes in his chapters, no?

Possibly Bran may understand Stannis but I'd still think Bran would care more for his family, and to the extent, if any, that Stannis is against them Bran won't be much inclined to help him, especially if Bran thinks Stannis's top priority is not the battle against the Others but to win the Iron Throne.

I don't understand your last sentence...do you think we will or won't see Tower of Joy scenes in his chapters?  I'm not really sure of this as we don't know whether there is a weirwood at the TOJ, at least in the books.

Quote

They don't complain. They cut faces into the trees and go about their business. They don't curse Stannis all the time, nor do they show any real hostility towards him.

There's not really much they can do nor do we have any real insight into whether they are cursing Stannis all the time since we don't really spend time with them.  I don't quite remember, but I do believe Jon sees the weirwoods with the angry faces carved into them and thinks to himself that Stannis has a lot to answer for or something along those lines on his way to Mole's Town.

Quote

It certainly can be an issue, but the way things stand right now Mel/Stannis would lose a struggle against Bran/Bloodraven and the Northmen over religious nonsense. They might be stupid, but Stannis is not that stupid.

Stannis might not be but Melisandre and the Queen's men are probably that stupid.  And Stannis has a history of standing by on that front.  I think we are agreed that it "can be an issue" so I'm not sure there's much more to talk about on this question.

Quote

I expect more interesting conflicts - actual disagreements about how to best try to fight the Others. How to prevent them from attacking the Wall, how to attack them beyond the Wall and stop them there, how to strengthen the spells in the Wall, etc.

I'm torn on this just because I think the Wall will fall before much of this can happen.  I think much of the North might even be overrun before much of this talk can happen.  I could see a scenario where again, the stupid "Game of Thrones" really interferes with this battle at the beginning at least.  

Quote

The idea that 'religion' as such is going to be a major issue now that winter has come is not very likely if you ask me. Proper worship - sacrifices and to whom, say - might become an issue, though, as might be interpretations of the information on the true enemy they might hopefully gather in the future.

I disagree to the extent that religion has always been a major issue with regards to Stannis, and it seems to be becoming more prominent at least in King's Landing.  And as the more magical elements get further explored with the Others, Jon's probable resurrection, Azor Ahai etc., I still see religion being a prominent issue, one that may or may not lead to conflict between Stannis and Bran.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

Needless to say, but I disagree.  I was specifically responding to @Lord Varys's use of a GRRM ssm as compared to what's in the books.  In any case, I certainly think at this point it is a fairer assumption that Robb's will names Jon his successor, although I agree there is reason to doubt that simply because it isn't made that explicit.

The issue is that we don't really know what the will does - especially not what caveats are attached to the whole thing. I, for one, find it more likely that the will might play a role in the bastard thing - with it containing a legitimization decree - rather than the succession thing. Unless the Rickon and the girls are all dead by then. Sansa Stark is not going to sit on her ass and allow her bastard turncloak half-brother to steal Winterfell and the North.

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

yes, that is true, they are not.  But Robb's will and the substance behind it are in the books, and I do think there is a reason for that.  The will will come up again, and until we get evidence to the contrary I think it is certainly fair to stick by the idea that it names Jon Robb's successor.  There are not really reasonable alternatives that I can come up with at the time Robb wrote it.

We get Robb's intentions and thoughts before he drafted the will, not the will as such. So, no, we don't know what happened in the end. And that's a very deliberate choice on the author's part.

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

I do agree with you that excluding Robb's will, Jon would definitely not be an option.

Even including it, it is wishful thinking to assume the anyone will care about the will while the other Stark boys and girls are still out there and alive (and that fact is made public). Jon is not only a bastard which makes him poor lord/king material, he has also taken the black - Jon could be Aegon the Conqueror reborn on Balerion, and the Northmen would still not want him to rule them after he has taken the black.

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

I don't think it's "fanboyism" to project Jon playing a leadership role in the North onto Jon's plot.  Maybe it's not even fair to say a "leadership role" but at the very least, Jon is taking on a prominent role in Northern politics while at the Wall.  I mean a big aspect of it is behind the scenes, but he is essentially planning Stannis's war.  But even excepting that, obviously Jon has taken on that role with Karhold.  You are right to question whether that may backfire but it is certainly a step in that direction.  I also believe that Jon has impressed or at least would have impressed the clansmen at the Wall during their discussion atop the Wall, but maybe they're not so impressed anymore after Jon got stabbed .

A guy proving that he is smart and competent doesn't mean anything if he wears black. 

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

I think they would regardless.  As you have said, these guys seem perfectly fine with dying.  Ned seems to have won their respect and whether 'Arya' will be pushed aside or not, I think they do seem to feel that they "owe" Ned this.  Just going by their words.

Perhaps. But my point is that they are actually wanting to free her, which makes little sense if they do not also want to use her. If they wanted Jon to be king, why not prop him up as a pretender against 'Arya'. That would help, to be sure. And they can still take her away from the Boltons, etc.

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

I disagree.  Roose is not a man to be undone, to quote the boss himself.  The North has suffered severe losses in TWO5K, Roose pretty much made sure to cripple potential opposition even before the Red Wedding.  Now Roose has the backing of the Iron Throne and the manpower of the Freys behind him, not to mention the hostages, which I think it is fair to say at least prevented probably the 2 most other powerful (or at least 2 among the more powerful remaining) Northern houses from acting in opposition to him until now (Manderley and Umber).

Again, if there were schemes there, then they simply could undo him. Roose is just one guy. What about a suicide squad taking him and Ramsay out? They would need, what, a couple of dozen men? Perhaps not even that much.

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

No doubt it is risky.  That's why I don't necessarily buy the grand unified plotting aspect...I think there are a bunch of more minor individual plots which may add up to something major in the end.

Manderly and Glover are up to something, that's it. And perhaps Lady Barbrey is more complex than she pretends to be. But the others don't have anything going that means much. Aside from Arnolf Karstark, of course.

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

I wouldn't say "no sense" but yes I agree it certainly is a deficiency in the theory.  I was playing more devil's advocate because the theory does try to address that by making the 2 points I made above (Rickon as Jon's successor and/or Wyman intending to die so this promise dies with him).  I'm not sure those suitably address it.

I'd say they don't. The Manderly thing makes no sense in this regard. He must have informed his people about both the Rickon plan and the Davos part of the plan. Vice versa, his men riding out right now must know about that, too, or else they will have to fight both Stannis and the Freys, because Stannis is not going to work with traitors who supposedly murdered his Hand.

And if the Manderlys fight with Stannis at the lake, they will either be his men ... or they will be scheming traitors with no honor.

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

For me personally like I said I buy certain bits and pieces of the GNC but don't believe in some kind of unified plot to the extent the theory supposes it.  As far as Manderley goes, I think it would make more sense that he was not aware of the contents of Robb's will and is probably playing a different sort of game than, say, the Mormonts for example.

I don't think Manderly would give a fig about Robb's will knowing that Brandon and Rickon Stark are still alive. Robb's will is irrelevant in that case.

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

Better take all their heads who?  The Night's Watch men?  I disagree on that, if Robb's will names Jon I think there will be enough popular support that Jon could leave.  Stannis planned to do something along similar lines when he wanted Jon as his man.  And I think Robb certainly has more support among the North, even dead, than Stannis did at the end of ASOS/beginning of ADWD.

Oh, I meant the trueborn Starks - Brandon, Rickon, Sansa, and Arya Stark. They would all have to go if the bastard truly tried to rule and establish his own dynasty.

Robb is a dead king, Stannis was a living king at the Wall. That is a difference. Paper means pretty much nothing in this world, and I daresay that the North would not have looked kindly on 'Jon Stark'. Especially not once the trueborn Starks had stepped forward.

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

I don't think the "smallfolk of White Harbor" are really a good indication of the deeper North and their feelings.  As I have said above, I think the fact that Robb was named King in the North speaks for itself generally about how the North feels about this, and I think loyalty to Ned/Robb may indeed keep this concept alive.

I don't think you can dismiss the Northmen when the author allows them to speak.

Robb is not a king of the people, he is a king made by a couple of noblemen couldn't come up with a better plan.

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

Yes, I mean there is a lot of speculation about where the Will is and who has access to it.  It's even a possibility that the will is lost/destroyed as Robb may have had someone with it at the Twins/Red Wedding.  But as I have argued, I do think the Will will pop up again and become at least a plot point.  The Grand GNC speculates that it's somewhere in Hag's Mire and there's a much larger conspiracy involving the Riverlands and even Lady Stoneheart who know the contents of Robb's will.  I don't buy that for obvious reasons as Stoneheart would probably never scheme to help put Jon in charge of Winterfell even if it was Robb's last will.  I've seen speculation that it may be in Oldtown somewhere but I'm not sure that gets you anywhere either.

This is the reason why I never actually bothered to read all the fantasy involved in the making of the theory. It seems to be even worse than I previously thought.

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

"King Jon" isn't just something that would happen because the will named him King.  As I have said from the beginning, there are a number of dominoes in place that need to fall before the Boltons/Freys can be defeated, chief among them the freeing of the hostages allowing Manderley and Umber to act as well as the unmasking of the 'Arya' ruse.  Even assuming Jon is named king in the will and many Northern lords have knowledge of it, they wouldn't just immediately publicize it if it would result in them and Jon both being killed right away.  In that respect, Stannis is a bit of a perfect storm as well, because as the theory supposes the Northmen want Stannis and Bolton to weaken and destroy each other before making their move.

That doesn't make much sense to me because they allowed Roose to get to Winterfell and establish himself there. He is in a strong position now.

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

But they could maintain their independence, as the Greatjon says.  It was the dragons they bowed to and the dragons are dead (as far as they know).  There are certainly echoes of real-world Russia in the North's vast landmass, sparse population, and harsh winters which would make it all but unconquerable by an army that doesn't have dragons.  

Oh, they could be beaten in line again, if one actually allowed winter to work in favor of the conquerors. Attack late in summer and autumn. Destroy the crops and winter provisions, raze the castles, burn the villages, destroy the cities and harbors. And then have them chew on winter. And continue that until they kiss your feet.

The North doesn't stand a chance if the other six kingdoms war against it. And they actually do know that.

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

I mean sure, but there were a whole lot of ensuing mistakes that also doomed Robb.  Had Balon accepted Robb's offer things also could have gone a lot differently, we can play the hypothetical game all day with different outcomes where Robb could have survived at least long enough to see the Lannisters dead and then go from there.

The key mistake was the crown. It closed many doors that might have remained wide open if he had not taken that path.

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

Robb would have been a 'lonely boy' regardless of whether he was wearing the crown or not with the mistakes he made both leading up to, and after the Blackwater.  Certainly the Karstark and Freys could have been maintained as allies if Robb hadn't blundered as he did.

Karstark deserved to die after what he had pulled. The Freys could have been ignored if Robb had had the potential to make an alliance with other people.

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

Yeah, I agree with this for the most part, again excepting Robb's will and knowledge of it.  I can see "shreds of evidence" for it among the Karstarks (well really Alys who turns to Jon but that is probably more out of desperation than anything else), Mormonts, and clansmen.  But yes, I can certainly agree that there is something afoot among the Northmen, and that involves revenge on the Boltons/Freys and possibly installing the Starks back in power.

Why doesn't anyone then actually gives any indication of this will thing in the chapters? Some opaque reference would all I need to acknowledge that is some actual evidence for this. Instead, people glue things together that either mean nothing or can really many anything.

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

I mean, I think 'this man should be our king' is among the better explanations for what they are doing (although perhaps I'd state it differently and say they are checking out Jon).  I don't find any of the explanations you've put forth particularly compelling to the point that I'd dismiss 'this man should be our king'.

Checking out the LC should be a nice idea in any scenario, don't you think? Especially in light of a possible wildling and/or Others attack.

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

Possibly Bran may understand Stannis but I'd still think Bran would care more for his family, and to the extent, if any, that Stannis is against them Bran won't be much inclined to help him, especially if Bran thinks Stannis's top priority is not the battle against the Others but to win the Iron Throne.

Bran should know what Stannis' true priority is. And Bran simply has no one better to work with. Jon Snow is not going to help him convince people down in the south about the threat.

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

I don't understand your last sentence...do you think we will or won't see Tower of Joy scenes in his chapters?  I'm not really sure of this as we don't know whether there is a weirwood at the TOJ, at least in the books.

I think we'll get such scene and that there is no reason for a tree to be there because Bran doesn't really need those trees when he is a strong enough greenseer.

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

There's not really much they can do nor do we have any real insight into whether they are cursing Stannis all the time since we don't really spend time with them.  I don't quite remember, but I do believe Jon sees the weirwoods with the angry faces carved into them and thinks to himself that Stannis has a lot to answer for or something along those lines on his way to Mole's Town.

They are, more or less, refugees. They won't do anything to anyone. They are not even good fighters. They are pretty much done.

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

Stannis might not be but Melisandre and the Queen's men are probably that stupid.  And Stannis has a history of standing by on that front.  I think we are agreed that it "can be an issue" so I'm not sure there's much more to talk about on this question.

Mel is a POV now. She is not stupid. She is a religious fanatic, but she understands how people think.

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

I'm torn on this just because I think the Wall will fall before much of this can happen.  I think much of the North might even be overrun before much of this talk can happen.  I could see a scenario where again, the stupid "Game of Thrones" really interferes with this battle at the beginning at least.  

I think there has to be proper buildup for that, and ADwD gave us literally nothing on the Others. Nothing at all. So I think there will be a proper buildup for that in the next book.

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

I disagree to the extent that religion has always been a major issue with regards to Stannis, and it seems to be becoming more prominent at least in King's Landing.  And as the more magical elements get further explored with the Others, Jon's probable resurrection, Azor Ahai etc., I still see religion being a prominent issue, one that may or may not lead to conflict between Stannis and Bran.

Stannis never religiously persecuted anyone. He burned some trees he owned, and he burned some statues he owned. He only took actions against men who defied their king's commands and attacked his loyal men. He doesn't care what you believe as long as you fucking do what he tells you to.

He recognizes Mel's power, but he doesn't believe in her god - or any gods for that matter. His belief in the gods died with his parents. And it didn't come back with the red witch.

[Tagganaro]

56 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The issue is that we don't really know what the will does - especially not what caveats are attached to the whole thing. I, for one, find it more likely that the will might play a role in the bastard thing - with it containing a legitimization decree - rather than the succession thing. Unless the Rickon and the girls are all dead by then.

Certainly this is a possibility.  As is the will naming Jon the King with no caveats.  

Quote

Sansa Stark is not going to sit on her ass and allow her bastard turncloak half-brother to steal Winterfell and the North.

I don't see it that way at all.  I think Sansa would be more than happy to support Jon if it meant safety for her and her brothers and Winterfell restored.  

Quote

We get Robb's intentions and thoughts before he drafted the will, not the will as such. So, no, we don't know what happened in the end. And that's a very deliberate choice on the author's part.

You may be right, but I just don't see the alternative yet.  Robb thinks Arya, Bran, and Rickon are all dead and crosses off Sansa as well.  That doesn't leave a lot of alternatives.  Perhaps there is something there in the will that I can't foresee, or perhaps the will never even comes up again.  But I certainly think that it is more than plausible for now to believe the will will come up again, and that it names Jon Robb's heir.  You are welcome to disagree with that, but I would disagree with you saying that is not plausible or possible.

Quote

 

Even including it, it is wishful thinking to assume the anyone will care about the will while the other Stark boys and girls are still out there and alive (and that fact is made public). Jon is not only a bastard which makes him poor lord/king material, he has also taken the black - Jon could be Aegon the Conqueror reborn on Balerion, and the Northmen would still not want him to rule them after he has taken the black.

A guy proving that he is smart and competent doesn't mean anything if he wears black. 

 

Again i would disagree with this to the extent that the will names Jon King and has popular support.  Like Stannis was willing to do, I would imagine if there was enough popular support, Jon would be allowed to leave the Wall, as Robb discussed when he named Jon.  

Quote

Perhaps. But my point is that they are actually wanting to free her, which makes little sense if they do not also want to use her. If they wanted Jon to be king, why not prop him up as a pretender against 'Arya'. That would help, to be sure. And they can still take her away from the Boltons, etc.

I think we can take the clansmen words at face value here...they want to kill Boltons and rescue 'Arya', I don't see why this doesn't make sense unless they want to use her- they may just want to rescue her and kill Boltons.

Quote

Again, if there were schemes there, then they simply could undo him. Roose is just one guy. What about a suicide squad taking him and Ramsay out? They would need, what, a couple of dozen men? Perhaps not even that much.

I don't really know how to respond to this...hypothetically I guess it's possible but that is boring and simplistic writing IMO.

Quote

Manderly and Glover are up to something, that's it. And perhaps Lady Barbrey is more complex than she pretends to be. But the others don't have anything going that means much. Aside from Arnolf Karstark, of course.

I think it's plausible to say there is a conspiracy among Manderley, Glover, Dustin, and Stout inside Winterfell along with maybe Umber.  There is compelling evidence that supports that idea (the snowmen that look like the Lords, Stout talking to Umber,  Umber's communication with Manderley on building Robb's fleet, Dustin going to the crypts after this convo and her "the North remembers" line, etc.)  It may be nothing, but it is certainly plausible no?

Quote

I'd say they don't. The Manderly thing makes no sense in this regard. He must have informed his people about both the Rickon plan and the Davos part of the plan. Vice versa, his men riding out right now must know about that, too, or else they will have to fight both Stannis and the Freys, because Stannis is not going to work with traitors who supposedly murdered his Hand.

Maybe they know, maybe they don't.  I'd imagine his men would follow whatever orders they are given i.e. if they have a chance to stab the Freys in the back they will and then if they come face to face with Stannis's men they will surrender/turn their cloaks.

Quote

I don't think Manderly would give a fig about Robb's will knowing that Brandon and Rickon Stark are still alive. Robb's will is irrelevant in that case.

I can agree with this...like I said I think it is more plausible that Manderley doesn't know about Robb's will, just playing devils advocate as far as that aspect of the GNC goes.

Quote

Oh, I meant the trueborn Starks - Brandon, Rickon, Sansa, and Arya Stark. They would all have to go if the bastard truly tried to rule and establish his own dynasty.

I don't think Jon nor his siblings would ever fight like that.  I don't think Jon would ever try to establish his own dynasty and take Winterfell from them.  

Quote

Robb is a dead king, Stannis was a living king at the Wall. That is a difference. Paper means pretty much nothing in this world, and I daresay that the North would not have looked kindly on 'Jon Stark'. Especially not once the trueborn Starks had stepped forward.

Paper means nothing I agree, but popular support/military might means everything.  I agree that the North would not look kindly on a Stannis-supported "Jon Stark" that burns the Heart Tree at Winterfell, which is why Jon denies his offer.

Quote

I don't think you can dismiss the Northmen when the author allows them to speak.

The author also has many Northmen profess their love for the Starks so you can't dismiss those either.  Dustin, Liddle, Manderley, Mormont, and the clansmen all express extreme loyalty and love for the Starks.

Quote

Robb is not a king of the people, he is a king made by a couple of noblemen couldn't come up with a better plan.

Ok...neither is Stannis or anyone else for that matter.  That's how Kings are made in ASOIAF. 

Quote

That doesn't make much sense to me because they allowed Roose to get to Winterfell and establish himself there. He is in a strong position now.

He's in a strong position before he gets Winterfell, especially before Stannis makes his move.  There is little resistance any of the Northmen can even offer when you consider the hostage situation of Manderley and Umber.

Quote

Oh, they could be beaten in line again, if one actually allowed winter to work in favor of the conquerors. Attack late in summer and autumn. Destroy the crops and winter provisions, raze the castles, burn the villages, destroy the cities and harbors. And then have them chew on winter. And continue that until they kiss your feet.

They could maybe if you had all 6 kingdoms aligned against the North.  But that is not the current situation.  And that is not how attacks on Russia have worked historically.

Quote

The North doesn't stand a chance if the other six kingdoms war against it. And they actually do know that.

I agree. See above.

Quote

The key mistake was the crown. It closed many doors that might have remained wide open if he had not taken that path.

No I disagree.  The key mistake was probably Westerling, but there are so many others to choose from (sending Theon to Pyke, not keeping a closer eye on Roose and allowing Duskendale to happen, Karstark/Catelyn situation, not telling Edmure of their plans which would have screwed Tywin, etc.)  Perhaps if any one of these or few of these things does not happen, things go very very differently, if we're getting into the hypothetical game here.

Quote

Karstark deserved to die after what he had pulled. The Freys could have been ignored if Robb had had the potential to make an alliance with other people.

I don't disagree...Catelyn forced Robb's hand here unfortunately despite her good intentions.  I don't think the Freys could have been ignored due to their strategic location and Robb's own honor after betraying their marriage contract.

Quote

Why doesn't anyone then actually gives any indication of this will thing in the chapters? Some opaque reference would all I need to acknowledge that is some actual evidence for this. Instead, people glue things together that either mean nothing or can really many anything.

Because GRRM is saving it up for a big reveal?  Or it means nothing and will never be mentioned again?  I really don't know and neither do you, I certainly think it is fair to speculate on the will and it can't be dismissed as a possibility?  Or do you disagree?

Quote

Checking out the LC should be a nice idea in any scenario, don't you think? Especially in light of a possible wildling and/or Others attack.

I completely agree, it makes sense in any scenario.  I just think it makes the most sense in light of them checking out Jon as a potential leader, whether as King or as Stannis's ally/Warden of the North or just out of interest in Ned Stark's son who maybe they forgot about until Stannis came to them.  I don't know, there's a lot it could be...but I definitely think in the end, the most plausible explanation for them being there is to check out Jon in some capacity.

Quote

Bran should know what Stannis' true priority is. And Bran simply has no one better to work with. Jon Snow is not going to help him convince people down in the south about the threat.

Well, apparently neither is Stannis, who as you yourself have said probably won't be marching south anytime soon and is pretty much reviled throughout King's Landing, the Reach, and won't even have his ancestral Storm's End home when Faegon has his way.

Quote

I think we'll get such scene and that there is no reason for a tree to be there because Bran doesn't really need those trees when he is a strong enough greenseer.

ok, I was just clarifying what you were saying since your sentence was not complete there.  I'm not really sure either way.  Certainly think that is plausible.

Quote

They are, more or less, refugees. They won't do anything to anyone. They are not even good fighters. They are pretty much done.

I agree but there's no doubt this was unnecessary act by Stannis that further antagonized them, and it could come up again in the future.

Quote

Mel is a POV now. She is not stupid. She is a religious fanatic, but she understands how people think.

Apparently not as she wanted Jon to burn the Heart Tree at Winterfell...that was a miscalculation for sure.  I think Mel comes across as pretty sympathetic but also misguided and in error in her POV.

Quote

I think there has to be proper buildup for that, and ADwD gave us literally nothing on the Others. Nothing at all. So I think there will be a proper buildup for that in the next book.

I hope so.  It is time for the Others to make their move if GRRM ever wants to finish these books.

Quote

Stannis never religiously persecuted anyone. He burned some trees he owned, and he burned some statues he owned. He only took actions against men who defied their king's commands and attacked his loyal men. He doesn't care what you believe as long as you fucking do what he tells you to.

I don't know about you, but I consider it religious persecution to burn places of worship.  That is an attack on one's religion.  While it is an indirect case, it is certainly awful that Stannis burns the sept at Dragonstone, which causes Lord Sunglass to renounce his support for Stannis, and then imprisons and eventually burns Sunglass.  If I am picking who is in the right and who is in the wrong there, it is certainly Sunglass who is in the right and Stannis who is a scumbag.

Quote

He recognizes Mel's power, but he doesn't believe in her god - or any gods for that matter. His belief in the gods died with his parents. And it didn't come back with the red witch.

He does kind of seem to believe in her god...he is described as staring into the flames constantly which is kind of like a form of worship for Rhlorr.  Even worse, as I said above he idly sits by while he allows Mel and Selyse to attack other people's religions for no good reason and does nothing to prevent it or protect devoted followers of said religion.  

[Varysblackfyre321]

On September 18, 2018 at 5:04 PM, Lord Varys said:

 

Robb's last will is even more controversial than Viserys I's decision to name his daughter his heir considering it involves the disinheritance of at least one of Robb's sisters, the legitimization of a motherless bastard (i.e. of uncertain/obscure birth), and the naming of an heir (if that's what happened) that has taken the black.

If half the Realm rose against Rhaenyra, one can guess how many Northmen would declare for the oathbreaking bastard-pretender turncloak.

True, Robb's plan to release Jon from his will is short-cited. It's very possible that many vassals would not honour based on principle-or could at the very least abandon Robb's failed campaign after Robb died as the pretext without looking bad;why should they honor the will of of a man who cares not for oaths to the gods? 

[divica]

1 hour ago, Tagganaro said:

Certainly this is a possibility.  As is the will naming Jon the King with no caveats.  

I don't see it that way at all.  I think Sansa would be more than happy to support Jon if it meant safety for her and her brothers and Winterfell restored.  

You may be right, but I just don't see the alternative yet.  Robb thinks Arya, Bran, and Rickon are all dead and crosses off Sansa as well.  That doesn't leave a lot of alternatives.  Perhaps there is something there in the will that I can't foresee, or perhaps the will never even comes up again.  But I certainly think that it is more than plausible for now to believe the will will come up again, and that it names Jon Robb's heir.  You are welcome to disagree with that, but I would disagree with you saying that is not plausible or possible.

Again i would disagree with this to the extent that the will names Jon King and has popular support.  Like Stannis was willing to do, I would imagine if there was enough popular support, Jon would be allowed to leave the Wall, as Robb discussed when he named Jon.  

I think we can take the clansmen words at face value here...they want to kill Boltons and rescue 'Arya', I don't see why this doesn't make sense unless they want to use her- they may just want to rescue her and kill Boltons.

I think it's plausible to say there is a conspiracy among Manderley, Glover, Dustin, and Stout inside Winterfell along with maybe Umber.  There is compelling evidence that supports that idea (the snowmen that look like the Lords, Stout talking to Umber,  Umber's communication with Manderley on building Robb's fleet, Dustin going to the crypts after this convo and her "the North remembers" line, etc.)  It may be nothing, but it is certainly plausible no?

Maybe they know, maybe they don't.  I'd imagine his men would follow whatever orders they are given i.e. if they have a chance to stab the Freys in the back they will and then if they come face to face with Stannis's men they will surrender/turn their cloaks.

I can agree with this...like I said I think it is more plausible that Manderley doesn't know about Robb's will, just playing devils advocate as far as that aspect of the GNC goes.

I don't think Jon nor his siblings would ever fight like that.  I don't think Jon would ever try to establish his own dynasty and take Winterfell from them.  

Paper means nothing I agree, but popular support/military might means everything.  I agree that the North would not look kindly on a Stannis-supported "Jon Stark" that burns the Heart Tree at Winterfell, which is why Jon denies his offer.

The author also has many Northmen profess their love for the Starks so you can't dismiss those either.  Dustin, Liddle, Manderley, Mormont, and the clansmen all express extreme loyalty and love for the Starks.

Ok...neither is Stannis or anyone else for that matter.  That's how Kings are made in ASOIAF. 

I completely agree, it makes sense in any scenario.  I just think it makes the most sense in light of them checking out Jon as a potential leader, whether as King or as Stannis's ally/Warden of the North or just out of interest in Ned Stark's son who maybe they forgot about until Stannis came to them.  I don't know, there's a lot it could be...but I definitely think in the end, the most plausible explanation for them being there is to check out Jon in some capacity.

Well, apparently neither is Stannis, who as you yourself have said probably won't be marching south anytime soon and is pretty much reviled throughout King's Landing, the Reach, and won't even have his ancestral Storm's End home when Faegon has his way.

I agree but there's no doubt this was unnecessary act by Stannis that further antagonized them, and it could come up again in the future.

First. As long as the will legitimizes jon (which is the least it has to do) isn t he automatically robb's heir? Because he is his oficial older brother! Even if bran and rickon are alive if jon is legitimized then he is robb's heir. And wether people like it or not I can t see loyal northerns going against the word of their king. The real problem is the night watch's vow, but if several northern lords (the ones present at the will and who else they might have told by now) accepted the will then the northerns might not have such a big problem with jon breaking his vows.

Now, people might argue that robb thought that his siblings were dead (except sansa) when he made the will. But does it matter? As long as it legitimizes jon will people argue that the will is null because it was made under false pretenses? do people think like that is asoiaf? Can it be used to nullify an oficial document?

The only real argument is that if manderley crowns rickon king then jon won t fight him for it. 

It basically seems like there are 2 northern conspiracies. One that knows about the will and other that doesn t know and both are in a race to get rid of the boltons. In either case which seems very likely is that they don t care for stannis. And after the disastrous march where we  starting seeing the conflicts between the northerns and southerns it is even more unlikely that they will recognise stannis as their king when they have 2 better candidates than a Southern that burns weirwood trees and people, doesn t believe in their gods, wants their help to march south and conquer the IT, has no holdings and a very small army, his daughter and heir is marred with greyscale, isn t likeable…. At this point stannis has very few things in his favour.

 

[Bernie Mac]

On 9/18/2018 at 1:44 PM, Blackfish Tully said:

how do you know what Stannis has and has not done ?

He was clueless about the Dreadfort lands until Jon clued him up, had he done what you suggested these scouts would have been able to tell him. 

To make his way to Winterfell he had to borrow scouts from House Glover, so clearly he did not have his own scouts. 

On 9/18/2018 at 1:44 PM, Blackfish Tully said:

Also Stannis is an experienced General so you really think that he is not sending out scouts on a regular basis , that would just be Stafford Lannister level of stupid .  

There is sending out scouts to where an close by enemy army, that is logical. what you were suggesting is not. Westeros is the size of south america, sending off dozens, perhaps closer to hundreds, thousands of miles away in winter to the Vale, Riverlands, Reach etc. during winter is just crazy. 

You are suggesting a full time garrison at Moat Cailin, Stannis retaking the rest of the North and now sending out multiple scouting expeditions thousands of miles away for shits and giggles. That is not logical, not when he has so few men. 

On 9/18/2018 at 1:44 PM, Blackfish Tully said:

 

Once he takes Winterfell (if he takes it ) he will have all the men and horses he will need .

How? The 3,500 men who returned with Roose will magically switch sides? These same men who killed their fellow northmen at the red wedding will be welcomed back by the northmen with Stannis?

Whether Stannis takes Winterfell or not, he is not gaining all those men nor does he retain his army. It is naive to think that Srannis will take more casualties from the trip to winterfell than he will in the battle for it. 

On 9/18/2018 at 1:44 PM, Blackfish Tully said:

 

Sending men to Moat Calin to secure it and finding out what's happening in the Southern part of Westeros (whether by scouts, messages or information gathered at White Harbor) is just common sense

no, it is not. I guarantee it will not happen, that after Winterfell he will not march on Moat Cailin not will he send a force to secure it. 

Name a charity and name an amount, this is how certain I am. 

 

[Blackfish Tully]

13 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

no, it is not. I guarantee it will not happen, that after Winterfell he will not march on Moat Cailin not will he send a force to secure it. 

Name a charity and name an amount, this is how certain I am. 

 

So there is one and only one way into the North by land and all it would take is a reasonable size garrison to secure that route completely but you are this sure that Stannis ,the experienced general that he is ,is just going to completely ignore securing it , not to mention the fact that he still wants to be King on the Iron Throne and Moat Calin is the only land route for him to return to the southern part of Westeros and securing it now will make that easier when the time comes to return back South .

 

[Bernie Mac]

49 minutes ago, Blackfish Tully said:

So there is one and only one way into the North by land

How did Stannis and his army get into the North? How did the Ironborn?

It is winter, no royal army is going to be travelling by land to get into the North. Kings Landing to the Wall is over 2,500 miles, no Southern army is making that journey in the middle of winter, they would decimate their army. They'd be making it easier for Stannis to win the throne, not harder. 

49 minutes ago, Blackfish Tully said:

 

and all it would take is a reasonable size garrison to secure that route completely

at least 400 men, plus food and fresh water to supply them for a few years.

Stannis neither has the men or supplies to spare, not for something that is logically not going to happen. 

49 minutes ago, Blackfish Tully said:

 

but you are this sure that Stannis ,the experienced general that he is ,is just going to completely ignore securing it , not to mention the fact that he still wants to be King on the Iron Throne and Moat Calin is the only land route for him to return to the southern part of Westeros and securing it now will make that easier when the time comes to return back South .

The author has just created a northern navy at White Harbor, Stannis is not returning South by land but by sea (if he does at all). 

 

 

[Blackfish Tully]

7 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

How did Stannis and his army get into the North? How did the Ironborn?

It is winter, no royal army is going to be travelling by land to get into the North. Kings Landing to the Wall is over 2,500 miles, no Southern army is making that journey in the middle of winter, they would decimate their army. They'd be making it easier for Stannis to win the throne, not harder. 

 

the seasons in Westeros are impossible to predict , winter could last 10 years or it could be over in 10 months , why would Stannis just ignore the one land route into the North when he could easily send a small garrison there ? 

[Rufus Snow]

50 minutes ago, Blackfish Tully said:

the seasons in Westeros are impossible to predict , winter could last 10 years or it could be over in 10 months , why would Stannis just ignore the one land route into the North when he could easily send a small garrison there ? 

The seasons may be difficult to predict, but even the smallfolk have twigged that long winters tend to follow long summers, and that Westeros has just enjoyed the longest summer known to history. Even if Stannis didn't believe in the Others and the army of the dead, he'd still know that this wasn't ever going to be a ten-month winter.

It is not 'easy' to send that garrison to MC. He's been bogged down to a crawl, if not a downright halt by the snows already. The weather is not likely to improve when winter finally arrives in the North. Stannis deciding not to station a garrison is not the same as 'ignoring' the route. He is experienced and smart enough to judge that any expedition from the south is very unlikely in the first place, would take a long while to arrive even if it did happen, and would be even less prepared for the Northern winter than Stannis' own forces, even if it did manage to reach the north.

By the time Stannis gets back to the Wall where he needs to be, he'll be even further away from any possible Southron invaders, and once he learns that the south is embroiled in in-fighting following the GC landings and so on, he'll be pretty confident that no-one's going to be coming up behind him for a long while yet, because they'll be too busy fighting for survival in the south.

[Blackfish Tully]

2 hours ago, Rufus Snow said:

The seasons may be difficult to predict, but even the smallfolk have twigged that long winters tend to follow long summers, and that Westeros has just enjoyed the longest summer known to history. Even if Stannis didn't believe in the Others and the army of the dead, he'd still know that this wasn't ever going to be a ten-month winter.

I

how does he know that? all the sudden Stannis is an expert of Westeros winters? as a General you have to plan for every eventuality or you end up like Stafford or Jaimie Lannister , dead or one handed . 

 

2 hours ago, Rufus Snow said:

 

It is not 'easy' to send that garrison to MC. He's been bogged down to a crawl, if not a downright halt by the snows already.

  that's because he has a ton of Southerners with him . The Northmen are not having any trouble getting around in the snow , hell even the Iron Born with the Iron Banker had no trouble getting from Deepwood Motte to  Winterfell to Stannis , a couple of hundred Northmen with proper supplies would have no trouble getting to Moat Calin , frankly the further South they go the less severe winter they would have to deal with . 

[Rufus Snow]

21 hours ago, Blackfish Tully said:

how does he know that? all the sudden Stannis is an expert of Westeros winters?

He lives there, duh. Do you really think you need to be some sort of 'expert' to know what the weather on your home planet is like? There are plenty of instances in the text where everyone from maesters down to pig-shit shovellers show they understand that long summers are followed by long winters. I know Stannis has his head up his arse most of the time, but even he didn't miss that memo, though you clearly did.

I leave you to your fantasy world, I prefer George's.

[Blackfish Tully]

4 hours ago, Rufus Snow said:

He lives there, duh. Do you really think you need to be some sort of 'expert' to know what the weather on your home planet is like? There are plenty of instances in the text where everyone from maesters down to pig-shit shovellers show they understand that long summers are followed by long winters. I know Stannis has his head up his arse most of the time, but even he didn't miss that memo, though you clearly did.

I leave you to your fantasy world, I prefer George's.

He lives in the South , has he ever been in the North before? especially in winter? I live on the planet earth that does not mean i have any idea what the weather is like in  countries i have never been to and my planet has a reasonable weather pattern . Westeros has winters that last one year or 5 years or 10 years etc.. not to mention the false springs that pop up sometimes .

George has stated that the weather pattern in Westeros has a magical nature so there is no way that Stannis or anybody would have any idea of when winter will end but you clearly know how long it's going to last so please enlighten us on how long this winter will last.

George R. R. Martin has stated that the explanation for the world's unusual seasons is not scientific in nature and would be revealed by the end of the series

[Rufus Snow]

22 minutes ago, Blackfish Tully said:

George has stated that the weather pattern in Westeros has a magical nature so there is no way that Stannis or anybody would have any idea of when winter will end but you clearly know how long it's going to last so please enlighten us on how long it will last.

Magical and unpredictable doesn't mean totally random; George has written a clear pattern within the weirdness to set the stage for the wars to come. Here's the text that shows what people in-world believe, including the very maester who raised Stannis almost as his own son. Why should Stannis have any expectation of a short winter of a few months when everything he and everyone else believes is telling him a long hard winter is descending?

Quote

 A Game of Thrones - Tyrion III

"When I was a boy, it was said that a long summer always meant a long winter to come. This summer has lasted nine years, Tyrion, and a tenth will soon be upon us. Think on that."

 

 A Game of Thrones - Eddard V

"The smallfolk say that the last year of summer is always the hottest. It is not so, yet ofttimes it feels that way, does it not? On days like this, I envy you northerners your summer snows." The heavy jeweled chain around the old man's neck chinked softly as he shifted in his seat. "To be sure, King Maekar's summer was hotter than this one, and near as long. There were fools, even in the Citadel, who took that to mean that the Great Summer had come at last, the summer that never ends, but in the seventh year it broke suddenly, and we had a short autumn and a terrible long winter. Still, the heat was fierce while it lasted. Oldtown steamed and sweltered by day and came alive only by night. We would walk in the gardens by the river and argue about the gods. ...."

 

 A Game of Thrones - Jon VII

The old men called this weather spirit summer, and said it meant the season was giving up its ghosts at last. After this the cold would come, they warned, and a long summer always meant a long winter. This summer had lasted ten years. Jon had been a babe in arms when it began.

 A Clash of Kings - Prologue

"Will it get cold now?" Shireen was a summer child, and had never known true cold.
"In time," Cressen replied. "If the gods are good, they will grant us a warm autumn and bountiful harvests, so we might prepare for the winter to come." The smallfolk said that a long summer meant an even longer winter, but the maester saw no reason to frighten the child with such tales.

 

 

[Blackfish Tully]

56 minutes ago, Rufus Snow said:

Magical and unpredictable doesn't mean totally random;

 

maybe not but if you are Stannis can you take the risk ? why not just send a hundred men or so to secure Moat Calin and build up it's defenses?

know matter how long the winter lasts and as you say it's magical and unpredictable , it could be one year or 10 years or 6 months (only George knows ) it will end some day and at that time it would be very helpful to already have Moat Calin secured .

When you are a General fighting a war you cannot afford to just assume or hope that something will happen the way you want it to , why is that so hard to understand ?

I'm sure that Stafford Lannister was pretty damn sure his army was safe and secure in the Westerlands just as Jaimie was sure that his army was safe at Riverrun. Now one is dead and the other has one hand .  As a General you have to plan for every eventuality and worse case scenario. Even if the chances of a short Winter are small Stannis has to make plans in case that happens and sending some men to secure the one land route into the North seems to be a pretty easy decision in case the winter is short .

 

[Rufus Snow]

9 minutes ago, Blackfish Tully said:

When you are a General fighting a war you cannot afford to just assume or hope that something will happen the way you want it to , why is that so hard to understand ?

I understand it perfectly. But I also understand you have to make a judgment as to what is the mostly likely course of events, and the most effective use of the resources at your disposal. It's also necessary to keep the strategic goals in mind -  right now, seizing MC is so low down the list of priorities that it is not worth weakening the main force by devoting resources to it. Stannis is already pressed for men. He can make better use of them in a unified force right now. You cannot afford to spread your forces too thinly either.

24 minutes ago, Blackfish Tully said:

why not just send a hundred men or so to secure Moat Calin and build up it's defenses?

Because he might find himself 99 men short of what he needs at Winterfell, for one thing. For another, he doesn't control the land in between, who knows if they'll get there, because there is also a risk involved in trying to take MC. It is a judgment call, and being as this thrust against Winterfell and Bolton is pretty much a last-ditch effort, the judgment I would make is to concentrate all possible force on the task at hand, and worry about other threats if they materialise.

If Winterfell is won he occupies a much more valuable position than MC. If he doesn't win Winterfell, then Stannis' cause is dead anyway. It's an all or nothing shot for him, and sending 100 men away on an uncertain mission reduces the odds on the primary objective. He can't afford to lose today's battle through preparing for tomorrow's.

His focus is defending the realm from the threat from beyond the Wall. He has said so in black and white on the page, that is 'the enemy he was born to fight'. To that end he needs a modicum of stability in the North to protect his rear and to get that he needs to break Bolton's hold, and then get back to the Wall as fast as possible. The enemy to his north is much closer than his enemies to the south. Those from beyond the wall get stronger as winter progresses, those in the south get weaker.

If he breaks Bolton, he stands a fair chance of rallying the north to defend the Wall and the Neck. And if he can do it at all, it will be done long before any army can come up the causeway. And as @Bernie Mac pointed out, Stannis is fully aware that there are other routes into the north, notably the sea. My suspicion is that Manderley's galleys are going to be more useful than Moat Cailin in the longer run, because the futility of marching against MC is such a 'given' that no-one who seriously intends to invade the north is going by land.

 

[Foot_Of_The_King]

On 9/6/2018 at 7:12 AM, Lord Varys said:

Stannis has no intention to march to KL at this point.

Nailed it with the first reply.