dany and sansa

[Gertrude]

47 minutes ago, Error-504 said:

Because it is not a small detail. Saying it is doesn't make it so. 

Saying it is a crucial detail doesn't make it so either. OK, so we disagree. Hopefully somewhere in the future we sill see who was right.

[Error-504]

2 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

Saying it is a crucial detail doesn't make it so either. OK, so we disagree. Hopefully somewhere in the future we sill see who was right.

Does this seem like a minor detail to you?

 

 

[Gertrude]

Dude, we disagree. You stating your opinion yet again isn't going to persuade me. I mean, if we're going off the show then Ellaria poisoning Myrcella is a big detail.

[Error-504]

1 hour ago, Gertrude said:

Dude, we disagree. You stating your opinion yet again isn't going to persuade me. I mean, if we're going off the show then Ellaria poisoning Myrcella is a big detail.

LOL, millennials. No one is ever wrong anymore, they just have different opinions. 

Here is the thing though, when you don't understand the story and what writers are trying to convey to you, it's not a difference of opinion. 

[Kajjo]

Obviously, there is a big arc through the whole series about the parentage of Jon Snow, connecting all the pieces. His is the Song of Ice and Fire. Jon Snow is the central figure.

It started in S1E1 with Robert's promise to Jon to reveal his true parentage when they will meet the next time. It continued with a lot of bastard talk, with the first clue at the Tower of Joy, then again with revealing his name, Sam discovering the annulment, then Bran greenseeing the marriage. 

On the flip side Viserys and Daenerys from S1E1 on claim the right to the throne. The claim to the throne is pivotal for the whole arc of Daenerys, too. And pretty early we were able to guess that this claim might be not so true after all.

However, we know that thrones can be conquered and Robert's rebellion clearly shows that "birthright" is not everything. The people accepted him as King. 

Thus, I agree that all this babble about parentage, annulments, marriages and so on is more important to the relation between Jon and Daenerys, most probably to Daenerys herself, than to who will rule Westeros in the end. The rightful claim to the ancestral throne was her main driving force of her whole life. If this motivation is eliminated, we don't know how she will react. 

[willowbark]

On 4/15/2019 at 12:31 AM, Nami said:

It's just D&D idea that women must bicker and be petty.

If we see them resolve their dispute in the next couple of episodes, then I agree with you.  If there is a narrative consequence for one or both of them, which I suspect may be the case, then it may be part of the GRRM end game plotting, just done in the writers way.  I think one of the issues that I have at times, is that GRRM writes with his world and characters in their context, but it feels like the show will write for the modern viewer.  

[willowbark]

On 4/15/2019 at 3:39 AM, Risto said:

 

  Hide contents

 

I am looking forward to see what "ice and fire" queens can do.  Funnily enough, we returned to what Baelish said in the books "The War of Three Queens"

Good Point about Littlefinger's quote - and the fact that he is also hoarding grain in the Vale, to manage during the winter, which Sansa sees.  This could very well mean that it really is Sansa's arc, per GRRM, to be the one that is managing and worrying logistics of food for the people in Winter.

[willowbark]

My thoughts:

Sansa was civil in the meeting and the beginning of the great hall.  It was particularly about the food that the snark came out.  Which to me, she wouldn't have publicly said that she didn't have enough food for all of the north people evacuated to WF, Dany's army, and the dragons, if she had known Dany didn't have enough food for her people and dragons.  Most people, I would think, would assume that Dany had enough food.  So the fact that Sansa brought it up, tells me that she was likely already informed she was expected to provide it.  If that is the case, then I get why that would be upsetting.  If Sansa hadn't been told, and just started complaining about feeding the army and dragons, then Dany or Tyrion could have publicly stated that they had their own food.  This is the food that the north grew, harvest, and brought to WF for their people to survive the winter.  And to have to worry that you might not have enough food, and possibly starve, because the army that came to save you has no food and needs to eat yours, might not feel so good.  It's really a mixed bag.  The north might die of the AOTD, or they might die of starvation in Winter.  It's not a great prospect either way, and leadership will be tested after the war by the food situation - most likely for the entire realm at this point.  The food shortage is in no way limited to the north.

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

The North is a place where men 'go hunting' so their women and children can survive winter. Food is a huge deal. Good job most of them will be dead soon anyway

[Gertrude]

9 hours ago, Error-504 said:

LOL, millennials. No one is ever wrong anymore, they just have different opinions. 

Here is the thing though, when you don't understand the story and what writers are trying to convey to you, it's not a difference of opinion. 

I'm gonna bet I'm older than you so that (is it supposed to be an insult?) kinda falls flat.

 

I changed my sig, Enjoy.

[starklover]

On 4/16/2019 at 12:29 AM, Rose of Red Lake said:

“[Sam] can see the trouble that she could spell, not only for Jon, but for the Seven Kingdoms in general. And also, you know, just the safety of his own family. Sam is always thinking about that. Sam is always thinking about the safety of Gilly and baby Sam. And what he was put on this earth to do is protect them. And he sees all of this put in jeopardy if we continue with this campaign of volatile, murderous, completely irrational behavior. So I think he’s very scared. He’s terrified of Daenerys after that. Terrified of what she’s capable of, and he wants to do all he can to put a stop to it.”

yeah i would be scared of someone who said they murdered my brother/fahter just because they didnt bend the knee. 

[Kajjo]

7 hours ago, princess brittany said:

yeah i would be scared of someone who said they murdered my brother/fahter just because they didnt bend the knee. 

So would I. No one can think differently, really. Get real.

[OldGimletEye]

 

On 4/15/2019 at 6:56 AM, SeanF said:

But then, without the North, the same fate awaits Dany (unless she flees to Essos) and she needs the North to help defeat Cersei.

The obvious offer to make Dany is that the North will support her claim to the Iron Throne against Cersei, in return for her recognising their independence.

I won't go so far as to say Jon made a bad decision to kneel to Dany, she did after all offer to help the North, without insisting Jon kneel first. And that is certainly a positive sign about her character.
But, aside from Jon in fact kneeling, because he at least he saw something positive in Dany's character, an interesting question is would he have to?
Let's play a game.
Jon's choices are to Kneel (K) or Not Kneel(NK)
Dany's choices Are To Cooperate (C) or Not to Cooperate(NC)
Lets say if Dany doesn't cooperate she gets a 0 no matter what Jon does and Jon gets a -1 if he  kneels (reflecting the fact not only he feels like a sucker, but the the North gets screwed as well):
Our payoff pairs might look something like (with Jon's payoff first):
K,NC = -1,0
NK,NC = 0,0 
NK, C = 5,3
K,C = 3,5
Things have been structured here so that if Jon doesn't kneel but gets the cooperation, he gets the highest payoff (the numbers are purely ordinal here. They could be changed so long as their rankings are kept.). And if Jon does kneel, Dany gets the highest pay off by cooperating.
How does this work out?  If Jon knows Dany is a rational actor, then he knows that she will always play cooperate. Once he knows this, then his best play to is to not kneel (assuming he doesn't have the motivation of love or lust or whatever).

Supposing instead, that Dany is capable of defeating the others by herself. Does this change the result of the game. Well only if, Dany were to get a higher payoff from defeating the others if Jon didn't kneel.

In short the payoff pair NK,NC would have too look something like 0,4. Is that realistic? Well I guess it depends on a few factors. But one of them would be whether Dany cares more about the fate of her subjects than the IT. If the others were to get into the more populous South, then it's likely they could create a lot more damage then they could in the relatively unpopulated north. So a basic question here would be, given a Dany victory over the others in the case of Dany not cooperating, how much does she value the IT versus the lives of the population she means to rule.
I suppose one could argue that Dany could defeat the Others with very little cost, causing her not to have to trade off the welfare of her subject for her desire for the IT, by not that much. But, I think that not likely.

Of course, human emotions can upend a whole analysis. 

[SeanF]

56 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

 

I won't go so far as to say Jon made a bad decision to kneel to Dany, she did after all offer to help the North, without insisting Jon kneel first. And that is certainly a positive sign about her character.
But, aside from Jon in fact kneeling, because he at least he saw something positive in Dany's character, an interesting question is would he have to?
Let's play a game.
Jon's choices are to Kneel (K) or Not Kneel(NK)
Dany's choices Are To Cooperate (C) or Not to Cooperate(NC)
Lets say if Dany doesn't cooperate she gets a 0 no matter what Jon does and Jon gets a -1 if he  kneels (reflecting the fact not only he feels like a sucker, but the the North gets screwed as well):
Our payoff pairs might look something like (with Jon's payoff first):
K,NC = -1,0
NK,NC = 0,0 
NK, C = 5,3
K,C = 3,5
Things have been structured here so that if Jon doesn't kneel but gets the cooperation, he gets the highest payoff (the numbers are purely ordinal here. They could be changed so long as their rankings are kept.). And if Jon does kneel, Dany gets the highest pay off by cooperating.
How does this work out?  If Jon knows Dany is a rational actor, then he knows that she will always play cooperate. Once he knows this, then his best play to is to not kneel (assuming he doesn't have the motivation of love or lust or whatever).

Supposing instead, that Dany is capable of defeating the others by herself. Does this change the result of the game. Well only if, Dany were to get a higher payoff from defeating the others if Jon didn't kneel.

In short the payoff pair NK,NC would have too look something like 0,4. Is that realistic? Well I guess it depends on a few factors. But one of them would be whether Dany cares more about the fate of her subjects than the IT. If the others were to get into the more populous South, then it's likely they could create a lot more damage then they could in the relatively unpopulated north. So a basic question here would be, given a Dany victory over the others in the case of Dany not cooperating, how much does she value the IT versus the lives of the population she means to rule.
I suppose one could argue that Dany could defeat the Others with very little cost, causing her not to have to trade off the welfare of her subject for her desire for the IT, by not that much. But, I think that not likely.

Of course, human emotions can upend a whole analysis. 

Fighting the Others in a sparsely-populated territory makes more sense than fighting them further South where they're going to kill far more people.  

IMHO, it's clear the North wants independence, and that's the deal I'd be offering Dany if I were Jon - an alliance against common enemies, in return for recognition of independence.  

[LucyMormont]

On 4/17/2019 at 8:45 AM, willowbark said:

My thoughts:

Sansa was civil in the meeting and the beginning of the great hall.  It was particularly about the food that the snark came out.  Which to me, she wouldn't have publicly said that she didn't have enough food for all of the north people evacuated to WF, Dany's army, and the dragons, if she had known Dany didn't have enough food for her people and dragons.  Most people, I would think, would assume that Dany had enough food.  So the fact that Sansa brought it up, tells me that she was likely already informed she was expected to provide it.  If that is the case, then I get why that would be upsetting.  If Sansa hadn't been told, and just started complaining about feeding the army and dragons, then Dany or Tyrion could have publicly stated that they had their own food.  This is the food that the north grew, harvest, and brought to WF for their people to survive the winter.  And to have to worry that you might not have enough food, and possibly starve, because the army that came to save you has no food and needs to eat yours, might not feel so good.  It's really a mixed bag.  The north might die of the AOTD, or they might die of starvation in Winter.  It's not a great prospect either way, and leadership will be tested after the war by the food situation - most likely for the entire realm at this point.  The food shortage is in no way limited to the north.

My opinion is that all this talk about food is irrelevant at this point. It would have been a valid concern BEFORE, but not know.

In season 7 ep 3 we see Sansa taking measures to stock enough food for all the people that will arrive at Winterfell (Northen houses and refugees), to face the AoD there, logical thing since Winterfell is  the most defensible site. She is informed they have only enough food for the current occupants (which at the time includes Vale knights and some other Houses people) for a year, to what she asks "How long was the longest Winter in the past 100 years?" ... and then she takes measures to stock enough food for MORE people, in a Winter that she thinks will last MORE than a year. 
But now, she perfectly knows that the Wall was breached, and the AoD is not years or months, but days ahead. So, why on earth is she worried about suplies, when in days they'd be very lucky if half of them are still alive? This is nonsense. 
It proves one of two:
1) She doesn't grasp the actual dimension and meaning of the AotD coming, although her 2 brothers are well aware and constantly tell her so. (Ok, technically, one that was once her brother and the other who is her cousin, but nevertheless the two people she should trust the most, along with Arya). Does she think they will resist there a long siege with the AotD outside Winterfell? Does she think they will win, and miracously all people will still be alive and in need of food??
or... 2) Just more bad writting, more inconsistency (sheer ignorance from the "smartest" person Arya has known, and rudness from the lady whose greatest strength is diplomacy, courtesy, good manners), and faux drama

[Mystical]

32 minutes ago, LucyMormont said:

My opinion is that all this talk about food is irrelevant at this point. It would have been a valid concern BEFORE, but not know.

I'm so tired of people saying this. Since when is food not a valid concern? Do they all magically know the AotD will be there a few days after Dany arrives? I thought most fans agree Bran can't see the future? Do they also magically know the fight will be over in a day instead of being an ongoing siege? And also...suddenly having 4-5 times the people (if not more) will deplete the food storage significantly and fast. Not to mention 2 dragons, who even on a light died eat what hundreds of people could live on for a month or two.

And have you ever heard of the phrase 'an army can't march on an empty stomach'? What good will this huge army be if they are all weakened from starvation? And what if they win against the AotD in WF (in their view)? The survivors will die anyway because there is no food. Food is very much a valid concern.

[Rose of Red Lake]

"Winter is coming" what did people think that meant? Just a few snow flurries? It means starvation. I think people are just mad that Dany can't burn her way out of this problem for the first time in forever.

[divica]

16 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

"Winter is coming" what did people think that meant? Just a few snow flurries? It means starvation. I think people are just mad that Dany can't burn her way out of this problem for the first time in forever.

The problem is that she knows that the enemy broke through the Wall and is very close to attacking winterfell. This isn t an army that is going to stay there for an indefinite amount of time. They are going to fight for the north within a couple of days and she is criticizing that they are going to eat their food!

Do you know who tinks like that? BOWEN MARCH! 

LOL sansa is bowen march in the show...

[LucyMormont]

26 minutes ago, Mystical said:

I'm so tired of people saying this. Since when is food not a valid concern? Do they all magically know the AotD will be there a few days after Dany arrives? I thought most fans agree Bran can't see the future? Do they also magically know the fight will be over in a day instead of being an ongoing siege? And also...suddenly having 4-5 times the people (if not more) will deplete the food storage significantly and fast. Not to mention 2 dragons, who even on a light died eat what hundreds of people could live on for a month or two.

And have you ever heard of the phrase 'an army can't march on an empty stomach'? What good will this huge army be if they are all weakened from starvation? And what if they win against the AotD in WF (in their view)? The survivors will die anyway because there is no food. Food is very much a valid concern.

They ALL might not know, but Sansa certainly knows. Whether Bran sees the future or not is on debate in other threads, but he doesn't need to, just seeing the present is enough, and he knows the AotD is days ahead, that's why in the moment Dany and Jon arrived he even doesn't let them say "Hi" before pointing that "there's no time for this". 

And yes, they should know that the fight will be over in a couple days at best, they can't resist more than few days if they don't win (and by win I mean taking down the NK). 

If they win, Danny will turn south with her armies and Dragons to deal with Cercei, and Sansa won't have to feed them anymore. They can march South with the stomach as full or empty as they had in their march to North. how Danny has fed her people till this moment is a mistery only known by the writers, I have no clue.

If theyl lose, then they will need no food. 

[willowbark]

2 hours ago, LucyMormont said:

And yes, they should know that the fight will be over in a couple days at best, they can't resist more than few days if they don't win (and by win I mean taking down the NK). 

If they win, Danny will turn south with her armies and Dragons to deal with Cercei, and Sansa won't have to feed them anymore. They can march South with the stomach as full or empty as they had in their march to North. how Danny has fed her people till this moment is a mistery only known by the writers, I have no clue.

If theyl lose, then they will need no food. 

Even if the battle only lasts a couple of days, and then the Armies march south, that still leaves the people of the north far less food than they had before, for what the Maesters have said is going to be the longest winter in some time.  And seasons last years in Westeros.  I think Arya was born in the long summer, and I'm not sure if she's seen a winter yet.  So having enough food for the north for one year is still scary.  Add to that thousands of soldiers, and 2 dragons, even for a matter of days - makes it worse.

Also, if Dany didn't bring food with her to feed her armies while they stay at winterfell, doesn't that also imply that she expects the north to resupply them before they march south?  Old Nan and Aliser Thorne have talked about Winters and starvation.  We saw the bread riots in Kindgs Landing in Season 2, and how Margary won over the people by bringing in food.  

Food Matters.