What was really stupid about Stannis' actions is that he's spent enough at the Wall to know about the coming threat and that the Night's Watch is severely undermanned, even when they shore up their forces with the Wildlings (which is a decision that's both unpopular and a risk in itself).
While Stannis' speech that staying at the Wall means they'll be there for the Winter (and who knows how long that'll last), he should realise by now that defending the Wall is far more important than his aspirations for the throne, as if the Wall should be fall to the army of the dead, then the Seven Kingdoms will be next.
Remember Jon Snow asking when he'd leave because the Wall doesn't have the supplies needed to keep feeding his men?
Yeah, that.
He could've just got back on his ships and sailed south I suppose. Except he loaned those ship to Jon Snow for his Rescue the Wildlings mission.
Come to think of it, he should've sailed south and attacked Winterfell from the south, bypassing some of the winter. He could've made landfall at Weeping Water and stomped the Dread Fort on his way (putting the screws to the Boltons) and then on to Winterfell. Or if that doesn't have a big enough harbor, I'm pretty sure White Harbor does. I'd link a map, but the one I have open is too big.
I can admit Stannis made some mistakes. But this was a tactical one. And once he lent his ships, he was commited to this course. Everything that happened afterwards could not have happened any other way (contrivances aside). Let he who is without derp post the first fail.
The snow melting is worthless unless he can take advantage of it. Assuming that the sacrifice was the reason, the same thing that allowed to him reach Winterfell also prevented him from taking it. Therefore it was for all practical purposes, useless. That's why ultimately what he was trying to do would have never worked.
Are you talking "suspect" from and in or out of universe perspective? I don't really care about the show one way or another so I'm not here to defend it, but I think the idea was that an already demoralized army sees a child being burned alive for seemingly no reason (most of the soldiers presumably don't believe in the Lord of Light) and figure there's no point in being here and leave. Stannis was never a guy with a lot of charisma. He never really inspired a great deal loyalty among his legions because he doesn't seem to empathize with their perspective beyond expecting them to do their duty like he does. That was demonstrated back in the Battle of Blackwater when that soldier protested his attack plan on account of the casualties and he dismissed that concern as long as they could take the city. The fact that he failed to account for the men and expected them to do their duty like he felt he was is presumably supposed to be his fatal blind spot, like honor is the Stark's.
No. I may have gone on a bit of a tangent but my point is the two are not related as is. The winter was the problem, the sacrifice solved it. You could say the dissent was there before and reached critical mass with the sacrifice. It's a reasonable assertion, though what I was contesting was the extent to which the second part of the assertion applied, i.e. half the army. But they're separate issues, even if one contributed to the other. I agree that duty was Stannis' fatal blindspot as much as it was his strength and he didn't really take the time to understand people's other motivations or address them. His mistake before the end then isn't the sacrifice, but rather not attempting to rally or inspire his troops. Which is another failing of the writing to be honest. Yes Stannis can be very stubborn and narrow-focused when it comes to loyalty and duty. But he's not completely oblivious. He does rally his men at the Blackwater after the wildfire. He's not exactly Bill Pullman in Independence Day or Commander Shepard but he does rally them. Here there's nothing. He burns Shireen then leaves.
Eh, it still seems like an unreasonable risk to keep him around. It doesn't sound like Ned Stark to have bought an excuse about him not being responsible for his subordinates. He did try to hold Tywin accountable for The Mountain's massacres in the Riverlands.
I also never really understood Theon's situation exactly, psychologically speaking. What would have been his motives for actively fighting Yara and sticking with Ramsey? I knoew that scene didn't happen in the books. The best explanation I can come up with is that he was so traumatized that he thought that Yara was somehow an illusion Ramsey conjured to test his loyalty.
I suspect the nature of that relationship makes a difference. The Mountain is Tywin's vassal and a knight in his own right. His actions by law reflect on his lord. A bastard on the other hand is symbolically a loss of control (though not necessarily a shameful one on the part of the father). Yes, Ned would've still gone after Bolton if Ramsay was out of control, but since he didn't we can only assume he wasn't out of Bolton's control and kept his "games" to himself and invisible peasants.
There's also the matter of Bolton's speech about keeping Ramsay. Weirdly enough I think there is some affection there. While Roose may not really be down with the pleasure Ramsay derives from his perversions I guess the results he gets are enough to earn his approval.
Torture victims never really escape their torture. Their self-esteem and confidence are irrevocably shattered. Their mind continues the torture even if removed from their captors, even if their captors are dead. Every decision, everything that seems alright could be just another trick, their mind makes them think the torturer put there just to screw with them further. Any happiness or escape is just bait that if they take, they'll be tortured even harder. The fear of pain becomes more effective than the pain itself.
Or at least those are the tropes associated with torture. Hopefully, no one here will ever get the chance to confirm for themselves.
Retour en haut
