Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri May 24 18:42:59 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / Game of Thrones: Pascal/Turing
jergul
large member
Wed May 01 15:31:05
Hood
Yah, I noted that caveat when I first raised the theory (in assuming the death of king does not change the winter).

It might be a moot point, but the characters will have to act as if winter will last for a while until spring indeed does arrive.

The practical difference until then remains unchanged (famine due to lack of supplies should have already begun in King's Landing. Stockpiles remain stockpiles by starving people early).
Forwyn
Member
Wed May 01 15:38:25
The North should be fine food-wise, not a lot of people left to feed.
Seb
Member
Wed May 01 16:22:05
Hood:

Mea culpa, Deus Ex Machina so close to Arya from nowhere made me think you were including her as one. I see now what you mean.

TBF, much of the truly odd stuff was more bad editing. E.g. Jons role was over when he somehow fought off the zombie pile on.

I think they just filmed it for spectacle and let the realism slide.

And Theons lot did lose, they just took their time about it. Again to raise tension.

I actually thought the cinematography and editing pretty bad in places. The jump to the library scene and the quiet (though later we find the battle still raging in the courtyard) made me think this was hours later and the fighting over.

Similarly the crypt, in the end I think only two or three of the dead broke out. I actually thought we were heading for Tyrion making a noble sacrafice. Lots of potential foreshadowing of that.

"I think we will live" in EP 2, "we should be up there/there's nothing you can do" and the closure to his relationship with Sansa.

If he dies, I think that's how he ought to have gone.

But the hound and Beric saving Arya were in character. What came out of nowhere was Beric actually dying this time, revealing Aryas role to her via (possibly full of shit) Melisandre.

So it's actually explained.

Overall an odd episode. I think I'd have liked more build up with a greater sense of how much of the North had been lost.

And the battle overall, I felt somehow not as great a piece of TV as the battle of the bastards (for sheer visceral and emotional punch) - and perhaps my memory is tricking me but Blackwater I thought better.

Even retconning the odd tactics to being Jons incompetence, while there were some stunning visuals (the Dothraki lights going out) it somehow didn't connect for me like those other two battles did.
hood
Member
Wed May 01 17:19:42
Seb:

It may have been editing.

While Theon's band did lose, they were defending Bran against what seemed like a horde with just arrows. The first shot looked like there were a good 10+ strong charge against 3 archers. The idea that was fed us was that they defended Bran with arrows. It's unlikely they would have been able to take out that initial wave without grabbing a melee weapon, much less the 10 more behind the first wave of undead. Maybe I'm just overthinking it.

"I actually thought we were heading for Tyrion making a noble sacrafice."

I was expecting a suicide pact.


"But the hound and Beric saving Arya were in character."

It isn't that saving Arya was out of character, its that they appeared right there (or rather, she appeared right before them) in the exact moment of need when they were supposedly chasing her from behind. I guess this may also have just been poor editing. It just didn't feel right.
Forwyn
Member
Wed May 01 17:55:21
On another note, convenient that it didn't occur to Theon to save even one arrow.
jergul
large member
Wed May 01 19:20:32
Forwyn
The North is more than fine. Winterfell was stockpile central. King's Landing is in trouble however.

==============

I forgot about the Arya-Gendry lineage.
Paramount
Member
Thu May 02 11:20:22
The Night King kinda sucks. If all it takes is dragon glass to kill him, they could have deployed one hundred archers and shoot dragon glass arrows at him. I doubt he can dodge that many arrows.
CrownRoyal
Member
Thu May 02 12:12:14
valyrian steel, not dragon glass. But Night King should have just send wave after wave of zombies, until everyone was dead in winterfell, while staying on sidelines himself. Why take any risks, when you get more and more soiders as the battle goes on. Just take care of the dragons, and wait until nobody is alive inside. But no, in his hubris he had to go in and get stabbed to death, that fuckface
Forwyn
Member
Thu May 02 16:49:54
He did the same thing at the tree; he had to be the one to personally shank the 3ER, meanwhile Meera Reed, as her usual badass self before being written off, is busy offing a White Walker.

Lots of silly risks to take as a vulnerable necromancer
Rugian
Member
Thu May 02 17:16:52
"Lots of silly risks to take as a vulnerable necromancer"

To be fair, I don't think he counted on Arya turning into the fucking Flash.
Rugian
Member
Thu May 02 17:17:56
God I'm still irked by how the undead invasion got nuked in one fucking episode.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Thu May 02 18:36:26
A Bizarre Undead Siege of Winterfell - The Problems with Season 8 Episode 3 - Game of Thrones

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJZIpktJMhs
Seb
Member
Fri May 03 01:55:10
Rugian:

I can also see though how stringing it out much longer wouldn't work well either.

There's not enough separate threads and characters left to have them do much while rravens fly in and say grimly that another Bannerman's castle has been over run, and so and so didn't manage to get to Winterfell because they were cut off by the deads advance.

And you can't really show what's happening on the other side.

The army of the dead is just this big horde, and you don't really want to do a swords and sorcery version of walking dead

And in the end the way it resolves is always going to be pretty limited: a big battle and a head shot (the whole one weak point was well trailed).

I wonder if you watched this season back to back with the last it would maybe feel better paced?
Cherub Cow
Member
Fri May 03 02:44:42
[Seb]: "It is the will of the lord of light."

Which is a deterministic logical fallacy. That should be obvious given how close that phrase is to the deterministic logical fallacy used by various religions (lies and liars) throughout history: "It is the will of 'God'!"

..
[Seb]: "So when Bran talks about everything leading to where they are now - it has credibility."

Credibility only as a deterministic logical fallacy — i.e., no credibility. Again, he would only gain credibility with a scene showing him actually *seeing* an event before it happens. Otherwise, any idiot can say, "[All of our history has led us here. It was determined]" (i.e., total bullshit; a deterministic logical fallacy). There's a reason that historians haven't been tapped to predict the future: they can't, because no amount of knowledge of the past can itself give certainties for the future. Prediction takes imagination and a tracking of *changing* motivations and conditions, and once a prediction is made the event changes. Or, in GoT, prediction requires more confirmation than Bran sitting with a "knowing" smile, especially since Melisandre often had that smile before being totally wrong; that smile is another religious lie. Act confident, and people will think you saw it coming. Theon could have killed the NK right there and Bran's expression and words to him would still have worked — it's a meaningless poker face from a player who doesn't care if he wins or loses.

..
[Seb]: "I don't really know how I could signpost more that this is not an exact description/prediction."

I think my problem with it is that it demonstrated your lack of knowledge of the show, and it was a *specific* prediction based on error which claimed that it wasn't being specific (as though *saying* that a specific thing isn't specific makes it less specific). It would be like saying, "Cersei's three dragons will burn all of Essos," and then pretending that such a theory was not meant to be "exact" — never mind the errors in that attempt at a prediction and the odd specifics that it entertained. That kind of twisted logic is how astrologists and Nostradamus' bullshit have survived for so long (["I know I said that specifically your cousin, Fria, would die in October, but I just meant that the general concept of death would occur to you in October, which it must have since you called to complain that Fria is still alive."])

..
[Seb]: "I'd struggle to think of a British fantasy author that has quite the history of offing his heros than Martin."

Not sure your point here, since this makes my point, except for the mistaken use of the word "heroes".

..
[Seb]: "Simply mirrors the war of the roses"

Do not limit Martin to British politics. Most of Martin's plot points have been sampled from Roman myths and battles (e.g., Battle of Cannae as the "Battle of the Bastards", many of the on-screen deaths were only slight variations of Ovid's Metamorphoses, and slave morality lessons were sampled from the Roman slave revolts). And even in the sampling, he always changed the outcome slightly with new lessons that these characters had learned. E.g.; the slave revolts were unsuccessful because of slave morality, but Danny undid slave morality to find success; Jon aligned with the Romans in the Battle of Cannae but Jon *won* that battle; and the Metamorphoses conditions were only maintained in ironic theme (eaten alive by one's hunting dogs, for instance). So even *if* there's a model for the War of the Roses here, its conclusion will be upended.

..
[Hood]: "However, my theory is based on a very important criterion: the Lord of Light is real, exists, is effecting things."

I am willing to suspend disbelief for the show (gods can exist in a show), but I'm not even sure if we've gotten solid confirmation from the show that the Lord of the Light *is* real. This is why I was *really* hoping that Bran and the NK would go time-roaming when they finally met or that Bran would reveal bigger things: it would show who the "man behind the curtain" has been (not just the NK's history, which we pretty much know, but who the wall builders were, who the priestesses of Light were, etc.). The closest we've seen was the scene with Tyrion, Varys, and Kinvara where they have basically the same skepticism versus proof conversation ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJP9o6QMk-E ).
[Varys]: "I suppose it's hard for a fanatic to admit a mistake. Isn't that the whole point of being a fanatic? You're always 'right'. 'Everything' is the Lord's will."
[Kinvara]: "Everything *is* the Lord's will, but men and women make mistakes. Even honest servants of the Lord."
[Varys]: "And you? An 'honest' servant of the Lord: Why should I trust you to know any more than the priestess who counseled Stannis?"
...
[Kinvara]: "Everyone is what they are and where they are for a reason. Terrible things happen for a reason. Take what happened to you, Lord Varys, when you were a child. If not for your mutilation at the hand of a second rate sorcerer, you wouldn't be here, helping the Lord's chosen bring his light into the world. Knowledge has made you powerful, but there's still so much you don't know. Do you remember what you heard that night when the sorcerer tossed your parts in the fire? You heard a voice call out from the flames, do you remember? Should I tell you what the voice said? Should I tell you the name of the one who spoke?"

That scene and the earlier scene of Varys unboxing the sorcerer were the biggest sells for a real Lord of Light, but while people point out that "only" Varys and Tyrion knew of Varys' mutilation, they seem to forget that the Lord of Light sorcerer *also* knew — he heard the voice and lived a long life before Varys found him, likely communicating his knowledge to other Lord of Light followers. That doesn't mean that Lord of Light followers couldn't see these events without being told, though, which I think is already a point that the show has confirmed.. but a Lord of Light follower is still the one creating the narrative of this Lord of Light determinism (self-proving again; in this case, "Everyone is ... where they are for a reason ... [and my 'proof' is that I know something about your past?]" — the High Sparrow uses the same trick on Tommen, saying that Tommen's mother's love is 'proof' of the Mother god's existence.. when that's just a Jungian archetype pseudo-explained). That's why I still think we would need to hear what the voice said, or what people actually saw in the fires, what Bran sees of the future, etc. For me, it's still just as possible that the Lord of Light people tapped into a magic power that has only ever been regular people sharing knowledge through fires (and the roots of ancient trees for the three-eyed raven).

..
[hood]: "It should be noted that the magical years-long winter may not exist anymore with the NK gone. So spring might return very quickly."

Yeah, plus, generation talk will only matter at the very end of the show when/if they either flash forward with visuals or let characters speculate about the future of the kingdoms before rolling credits... Cersei is not going to sit on the throne for the months it takes to have her baby much less sit there while the Northern armies have a generation's worth of children — it's just not going to happen. But, like I pointed out before, a Winterfell-victorious Northern army will still be able to march south and pick up all the houses that didn't stand with them before. They'll also have a fair amount of straggler/survivors and the few loyal Greyjoy ships. They'll still be outmatched by Cersei but not totally screwed; they'll at least have enough for a negotiation.

..
[Hood]: "I was expecting a suicide pact."

Me too! I was just thinking, "Don't stab yourselves before help arrives D:"

..
[Paramount]: "I doubt he can dodge that many arrows."

"When you're ready, you won't *have* to!"
But really, he wouldn't have to dodge them, he could just scatter them like ravens or throw a burst of cold wind at them.
Rugian
Member
Fri May 03 07:06:57
CC:

I'm beginning to think your whole "RAWR I'M AN ATHEIST FUCK RELIGION" attitude is interfering with your ability to objectively analyze things.
Rugian
Member
Fri May 03 07:10:06
Also, there is such a thing as over-analyzing what essentially boils down to shitty writing. Sorry, I mean subverting expectations.
hood
Member
Fri May 03 07:33:39
CC:

I don't disagree. In the moment, when the NK walked up to Bran, I was at least hoping that Bran would have an a-ha moment and say something like "I know who you are," before dying. To at least give us clarity. The two of them time jumping would have been icing. I definitely don't think we can assume that the Lord of Light is real. We don't have anything tangible, just hints. And that's why I said that my theory is specifically based off of the Lord of Light being real. If there is no Lord, if the red religion is a lie, then everything is chaos. Nothing makes sense. Why most of what happened in the story feels unsatisfying. Yes, the show has built up a pedigree for being unsatisfying, but that was in getting attached to characters. It has always kept the theme of weaving disparate story lines together to create a larger whole, that what seems like chaos has hint of reason behind it. And from that perspective, it makes the most sense that the Lord of Light exists, could even be that stabilisation to the chaos. From a story telling perspective, it makes the most sense. But from what we actually know in story, it's a complete toss up.

About your comments with the high Sparrow and not taking the red priests(ess) at their word:
I agree. Circular logic is bullshit. That's why I've focused more on the effect of we assume the cause rather than attempt to prove the cause is a cause. We certainly cannot accept any character on their word unless we've seen their word to be true (or Bran; I think Bran is trustworthy as long as he's speaking of the past, of cause/effect, of what has happened. When Bran says that Jaime pushing him out the window led him to his current state, I think we can take into consideration his warging powers and accept it as fact. Quite simply, it would take too much unnecessary time to show us all of the truths he could potentially speak on. His function is to validate/remember/share humanity's past. I will accept him within that framework as being the author's way of skipping over tedious narration).
Rugian
Member
Fri May 03 08:14:48
Seb,

I fully agree that the series shouldn't have devolved into medieval TWD. But the invasion should have taken up at least a few episodes, to give it the full gravity that the entire show had been suggesting it would have.

For seven seasons, we heard about how the dead were a threat to ALL of the "realms of men." Instead, the NK and his army essentially were reduced to that thing that caused the North to have a shitty evening, while the rest of Westeros is probably unaware that an invasion even happened.

I also think it was a mistake to completely segregate the White Walkers from the show's political angle. A season that had a strong continuing interrelationship between the threat of the dead and the complex human rivals competing for power in Westeros would have been much more interesting. That would have required competent writers though.

Regarding the argument that this season makes more sense if watched in the context of prior seasons...that's an argument I've seen here before. Frankly, I don't buy it. If GOT doesnt want me to watch the show in a seasonal format, they shouldn't structure the show by dividing it into seasons, each of which having a discreet beginning, middle and end.
hood
Member
Fri May 03 09:37:35
Oh, one other argument for the existence of the Lord of Light: the series is titled the song of ice and fire. We've seen the ice. The Lord of Light is supposed to be the fire.
Hrothgar
Member
Fri May 03 09:40:09
That whole battle was... off imo. The tactics employed were so bad I had a hard time shrugging it off and just enjoying the spectacle.

Light calvary doing a heavy calvary charge? Without any support? In darkness?

A bunch of siege weapons placed where they could barely be used?

The Strongest infantry, in a defensive posture, in front of a strong line of defense instead of behind it?

Massive lack of archers or wall defense?

I get the directors were trying to convey the hopelessness of the battle. But it would have been better through the lens of actually smart military maneuvers that would force the night king to actually work for the victory.
jergul
large member
Fri May 03 09:47:02
A predeterminist angle sort of undermines the whole good-vrs-evil dynamic (or more correctly ice-versus-fire as the light side are not exactly goody two shoes).

One side does supernatural stuff, another side does stuff.

In addition, you have the old Gods and the new (the 7 faced god).

Bren is most certainly a creature of the old God.

I simply do not see why anyone would want to chain themselves to a pre-determinist subplot.

The characters are driven by many things (family and lineage most of all). A belief in a mythos is one of them.

Ruggy
It may not be the end of the white walkers. All we saw was a warlord die and his army dissolve.

We know hyperbole from our own age (the war to end all wars. OBL as a threat to humanity). Nothing wrong with it being part of a series.

Politics are still interlinked (what to do with people who used to be sent to the night watch? They will still have to be sent. Getting rid of the disgruntled with claims is the glue that holds westeros together).

I remain very pleased on how the season is progressing.
jergul
large member
Fri May 03 09:54:23
Hrothgar
The dathraki are not light calvary. The Trebuchets were correctly placed. But the unsullied were a bit far back. But that relates to archers on the wall

I see a plan (I mentioned it before).

Heavy calvary to punch through to divide the hord. Westeros troops to pin the flanks. Unsullied to push through in the center with the calvary returning to divide the horde into smaller and smaller grouplets. The trebuchets in position to pummel any groups that remain cohesive.

Bran drawing off horde leadership and backed by dragons to deal with them.

Not a brilliant plan, but very medeval. I liked it.
Rugian
Member
Fri May 03 10:13:00
"Nothing wrong with it being part of a series."

So much for escapism in fantasy though.

And the Dothraki are indisputably light cavalry...I dont know how you can seriously argue otherwise.
Rugian
Member
Fri May 03 10:14:03
And the trebuchets were not correctly placed. Breaking up the line of attack with works is fine. Breaking up the line with your artillery pieces is not.
hood
Member
Fri May 03 10:17:13
Why are you even bothering to argue with jergul? I know the joke is jergulmath, but it really should be jergullogic because literally nothing he ever says even remotely resembles making logical sense.
obaminated
Member
Fri May 03 10:19:59
Regarding the artillery, I think that became an issue cause the infantry didnt have time to move forward.
Forwyn
Member
Fri May 03 10:53:06
A rider with sword/bow and leather armor atop an unarmored horse is the epitome of light cavalry.
hood
Member
Fri May 03 10:56:27
mt:
You're defending a castle. Even if your defense is going well, abandoning your position opens you up to flanking. The artillery was just poorly placed.
Pillz
Member
Fri May 03 11:15:43
Westros knights are heavy cav. Dothraki are clearly light cav. Cmon jergul
Seb
Member
Fri May 03 13:47:45
The artillery was very poorly placed!

It could have been behind the walls as it has a high trajectory.

At the very least, it ought to be behind the trenches so to bombard the other side
Rugian
Member
Fri May 03 14:17:17
Hood,

Well, to not completely attack jergul, maybe he thought that the Dothraki were capable of acting as de facto heavy cavalry in-universe after they shattered the Lannister army in a head-on offensive.

Problem is, that charge only succeeded because a dragon literally nuked massive gaps in the shield wall. Left to their own devices, that charge may have ended badly for them as well.

Really, I dont think the writers understand how cavalry is supposed to be used at all. Even in Season 5, when Ramsay sent an all-calvary army against Stannis, it's been difficult not to snort at the tactics in play.
Rugian
Member
Fri May 03 14:20:25
As Seb (I think) said earlier, LoTR probably holds some of the blame for thinking that cavalry can just indiscriminately rape everything in its path. LoTR is a fucking amazing series though so they're forgiven for stuff like that.
Seb
Member
Fri May 03 14:43:58
CC:

I think you are being a tad quick to dismiss predetermination here. Granted "the lord of light" might actually not be a deity.

Predestination does not require the present to see the future if the future can influence the past. We have already explicitly seen Bran create a predestination paradox with Hodor. The power clearly exists, though the level of orchestration and subtlety of influence is clearly on a vastly greater scale.

But dismissing the concept on metaphysical or philosophical grounds when we have seen it happen seems rash.

RE Cersi, the point I was addressing is that it would not require cersi to win in order for a return to the status quo ante. In was outlining a scenario in which this could be achieved. You are correct that it couldn't be her offspring on the throne if we take the witches prophecy to heart.
So we can tweak that.

But there are plenty of ways that nobody decisively wins, and instead everything goes awry.

Is the battle of the bastards Cannae? Other than encirclement I don't really see it. Ramsay did not attached himself as such, nor did his initial attack retreat. Nor did Jon win it, Sansa, unplanned, rescued him with cavalry provided byb littlefinger.

Yes, Martin draws on many themes - but the strategic structure is war of the roses. Lanister are so clearly the house of Lancaster and Starks York, even down to the location of key cities in Westeris that's only a vaguely a distorted map of great Britain. While he draws widely, it would not at all be surprising to me that the constitutional element mirrored the wars of the roses: total annihilation of the old order, but the new one not being so different.

Thing is you can play this one either way. One can easily argue that the destruction of the old aristocracy, replacement of the old monarchy with a new line transcending the previous houses and collapse of feudalism and rise of a meritocratic court (Littlefinger was too early - a generation later he might have been Thomas Cromwell) would look very much like breaking the wheel. It's subversion would be a restoration of the houses.

"was expecting a suicide pact."
I got a butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid vibe.


Seb
Member
Fri May 03 14:45:10
Rugian:

That scene in LoTR was horrificly bad.

Horses. Charging down a steep gravel slope.

Into heavy pike.

Horse kebabs.

That scene ruined helms deep for me.
hood
Member
Fri May 03 15:10:08
Because you undervalue Gandalf's magic. The movies vastly underplayed magic of all forms, reducing it to essentially light shows. If you ignore that shortcut and give Gandalf his due, it makes some amount of sense. At least, until the horses broke through the initial, dazed ranks and smashed against the later lines of pikes.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri May 03 17:31:09
the hill was definitely too steep, it looked ridiculous

see 2:50 & 3:03
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EApCLbgAE5E
Pillz
Member
Fri May 03 17:42:23
Gandolf is an angel, at that point a fairly powerful one, exerting his force towards making the orcs shrink and cower. It counts for a lot.
Seb
Member
Fri May 03 17:46:27
It's a fucking scree slope. Terminal morraine by the looks of it.

Those horses are going to break their legs.

Seb
Member
Fri May 03 17:48:17
Gandalfs magic glow stick causing the orcs to flee is the kind of cheat I don't recall in the novel.

In the novel magic is subtle and tends to involve sacrifice (as blocking the Balrog did).
Seb
Member
Fri May 03 17:54:41
God watching the video in YouTube again, there's massed ranks with long piles and halberds at least twenty deep in what looks like plate armour.

Sure some look dazzled by Gandalfs flash light of terror, but the pikes are still bristling and being held in the right position.

The riders of Rohan that didn't all break their knecks being thrown by stumbling horses trying to run down a vertical pile of loose sharp stones still oought to have been impaled.

The scene, sadly, looks totally ridiculous. If they'd just made the hill less flat and maybe had the orcs caught out of formation.

Generally, in tolkeins work, the magic tips the balance, it doesn't do the heavy lifting.
Forwyn
Member
Fri May 03 18:09:10
In the books the orcs are simultaneously surrounded by sentient trees (not Ents, their tree-friends or w/e), demoralized by Theoden's heavy cav charge, and then flanked by infantry backed up by Gandalf - not cavalry. Most of the orcs panic, drop their weapons, and flee into the trees where they're quickly butchered.
hood
Member
Fri May 03 18:23:37
"In the novel magic is subtle"

but powerful. Magic is very powerful in middle earth. Consider the effect of the ring on Frodo simply from hanging around his neck or its ability to preserve Gollum. Consider the power of the army of the undead Aragorn was able to harness from Dunharrow and how the ghosts tore through an entire army. Recall the effects of ent food on Merry and Pippin, or how simply using the palantir enabled Sauron to corrupt not only Saruman, but also the steward of Gondor.

Magic was indeed very subtle. But it had great power. You mentioned the Balrog, but Gandalf handily won the fight on the bridge of Khazad-dum. He shattered the Balrog's sword and smote the ground beneath the Balrog's feet, sending it plummeting. It was only the Balrog's final efforts to drag Gandalf with it (the whip snagging Gandalf's ankle) that caused the fight to continue at all. And even in a more fair fight, Gandalf still prevailed.

Whatever you say about how they depicted the battle of Helms Deep, don't confuse movie theatrics (blinding flash of light from Gandalf) with weak magic. Gandalf was top 3 badasses in the series, possibly even #2 behind Sauron.
Hrothgar
Member
Fri May 03 19:35:21
I liked this dude's fan fiction redo of the battle from off of reddit:

_______________________________
I'm going to continue to harp on this, but the whole episode would have been much better IMO if the armies were more evenly matched and the battle was done strategically, damn it.

First, NK needed to be nerfed. That was ridiculous. Winterfell was built by Bran the Builder, so have Bran the supposed key to all of this activate magic that blocks NK's revive ability.

Use light cavalry properly. Put them in reserve on the other side of the castle. Put the unsullied in front of the castle but BEHIND the flame barrier.

The AotD charges, but the unsullied are able to hold (while suffering massive casualties) because of the fire barrier.

Suddenly, Jon realizes that the White Walkers are holding back. So he goes to the Dorthraki and devises a plan to charge around the AotD. The plan goes off, some of the white walkers go down, the rest are forced to retreat. They join up with the AotD, which shields them from the dorthraki.

Now the NK realizes he could actually lose the battle, especially since he can't revive because of Bran. So he grabs a strike team of white walkers and they go, via dragon, to confront Bran.

They can keep Arya doing the assassination stab, but now it makes more sense (Although, I'd prefer Jon in a final sword fight) as it's only a strike team.

Have NK kill Bran, deactivating the magic. Now, NK raises the recently killed, decisively turning the tide of the battle. All hope is lost, EXCEPT, Jon/Arya arrives for the final battle with NK.
___________________________________

PS Rider of Rohan charge in Return of the King is one of my favorite moments in cinema. F U Seb! ;)
Pillz
Member
Fri May 03 19:41:15
Bran obviously needs to live to fight the God of death who Cersie is serving.

Cersie is on the night kings side. The mountain is a lobotomized version of benjen
jergul
large member
Sat May 04 00:55:34
Hood
Perhaps because this is a debating forum where people debate stuff? Fair enough that we are not on speaking terms. But do try to grow up past middle school bullying tactics. People can sit with me. I do not have cooties.

Ruggy
Thanks for mentioning the Lanister-raki battle, but it is far more than that.

The Dathraki are definitely heavy calvary capable of breaking standing armies without the use of archery. You have to judge them by what they have done, not by what they look like (I chalk that down to production constraints).

Its perhaps clearer for those of us who read the books long before the series emerged.

The trebuchets are place fine if you assume the defenders were not supposed to be static (the reason old style armies advanced towards each other is specifically to have forward momentum. Mass in movement is important to break through and avoid breaking through).

If we were speaking of crap tactics, then a static defensive line outside the castle fortifications would fit the ticket nicely.

It played out that way because of the way the raki charge fell apart. No plan surviving first contact so to speak.

Its fair enough to armchair general a fictional battle. But mediocre battle plans from both sides that worked horribly for both sides is to me a very realistic kind of battle.

Hrothgar
Raki are not light calvary. See their history. Not only in Westeros.
hood
Member
Sat May 04 01:26:29
On the contrary, I don't see the health in beating one's head against the jergulwall in vain. Why even bother? It's pointless. Your stubborn retardation is well on display even in your most recent post.

Again, why bother? You could get a more meaningful conversation from tattered upholstery. Which in this metaphor, is probably a corner tranny.
jergul
large member
Sat May 04 01:40:30
Hood
Try to evolve beyond middle school bullying tactics. It is unbecoming a man of your age.
Forwyn
Member
Sat May 04 02:00:44
"The Dathraki are definitely heavy calvary capable of breaking standing armies without the use of archery. You have to judge them by what they have done"

They uhh...wiped up a broken formation with the help of a dragon?
jergul
large member
Sat May 04 02:14:41
Forwyn
They dominate their homeland and created an extensive system of tributary city states.

The formations capable of defeating dathraki are the same ones capable of breaking other heavy calvary.

The battle we saw held only because of depth in mass. Quite surprising really. What does the average white walker weigh in at (including equipment)? 35-40 kg maybe? Something like that.

A ton of horse@8m/s in momentum alone...
jergul
large member
Sat May 04 02:16:56
#geekingitup
hood
Member
Sat May 04 03:12:58
You misspelled asperging there.
jergul
large member
Sat May 04 03:26:54
Hood
It is physics. You would not understand.

============

In fact, if we assume a 50% (say 1.0 versus 1.5 m) height difference in center of mass, then it seems rather unrealistic that the charge was stopped at all.

Propulsion greater than the resistance (literally and figuratively) to be ground down.
Seb
Member
Sat May 04 05:00:47
Hood:

I always thought the point in tolkeins work (whether explicitly or just thematically) use of magic as power (i.e. to influence the world) seemed frowned upon. The good by and large refrain from it, and it seems to carry a price. Gandalf beat the Balrog, but paid a price. Gandalf the white is more powerful, but Gandalf the grey he described I think as having died in the book?

In that charge, that's exactly what it is used for. And it is all the more egregious for the cinematography (perhaps accidentally) making it look rather than giving a narrow boost look utterly decisive. The only way it could be worse if Gandalf magically caused the horses to fly over a ravine.




Pillz
Member
Sat May 04 09:51:16
Has seb even read ever any Tolkien?

Between seb's lack of understanding of Tolkien and jerguls instance than nomadic plains horsemen in leather are heavy cavalry (what are cataphracts), this thread is 11/10
hood
Member
Sat May 04 10:23:43
Seb, Gandalf was a ring bearer (one of the elven rings) and wore it. As did Elrond and Galadriel.

You are perhaps remembering the many lines about the temptation to use the one ring (not any ring, not magic) and how it would corrupt even the most noble of intentions to its dark ways. It was the temptation of ultimate power that "carried a price." I.e. they'd become a new Sauron.

Gandalf cast many a spell, creating light in Moria, casting spells to help him navigate the mines, clearing the howling winds upon the mountain pass before ultimately deciding to take Moria. All his fireworks were magic. He assisted Elrond, I believe, in summoning the wave that knocked away the 9 when they were chasing Frodo, Aragorn, and company on their way to Rivendell. Moreover, Elrond had a permanent spell cast upon Rivendell to protect it from outsiders.
Pillz
Member
Sat May 04 10:29:44
Let's not forget earendil with the silmaril in the sky and the flask frodo got with its light trapped in it.

Fordos sword.

And were just talking LOTR right?
jergul
large member
Sat May 04 10:50:35
Pillz
Cataphracts are heavy calvary too. Any calvary force that uses mass and momentum to break enemy formations can be described that way.

You are mistaking a light logistical footprint with how the Darthraki engage in battles.

"According to Jorah Mormont, the Dothraki could have outflanked such a small force, but in their contempt for infantry, the Dothraki riders launched a direct frontal assault instead, in an attempt to simply ride down the heavy infantry.[1] In total, the Unsullied repelled eighteen Dothraki charges and three attacks by Dothraki archers.[1][2][3] The Dothraki halted their attacks after more than twelve thousand of their fighters had been killed, including Khal Temmo, his sons, and his bloodriders. Out of the three thousand Unsullied, only six hundred remained. Four days after the fighting began, the new khal led his remaining khalasar past the city gates of Qohor in a stately procession. Each man cut off his braid and threw it down before the Unsullied"

Every major battle is fought with the raki crashing into enemy formations.

Its the heavy calvary, stupid.
Pillz
Member
Sat May 04 10:56:14
No, it's extra stupid light cavalry that clearly can't fight professional soldiers.
jergul
large member
Sat May 04 11:14:52
Pillz
Well, its a force that always engages in major battles as heavy calvary.

It nice that you wish that it tried something different against the white walkers, but it is hardly surprising that the raki fought as they always fight.
Rugian
Member
Sat May 04 11:34:44
jergul
large member Sat May 04 11:14:52
Pillz
Well, its a force that always engages in major battles as heavy calvary.


In the show? Nah fam. Our actual experiences with seeing the Dothraki fight are pretty limited:

-Plundering an (undefended) village in Season 1
-Clearing out the Sons of the Harpy in Meereen in Season 6
-Charging the Lannister army in Season 7
-Charging the AotD in Season 8


Bottom line, they're primarily portrayed as raiders, not shock troops.

Prior to Season 8, the ONLY time the Dothraki have been used successfully in a heavy cav capacity is during the fight against the Lannisters, and the only reason that was successful was because a motherfucking dragon destroyed the Lannister front lines and blew up a significant portion of the army. Before the dragon showed up, Jaime thought the Dothraki could be beaten.

During the Battle of Winterfall, the Dothraki received zero dragon support and were tasked with riding blindly into the dark of the night, against an enemy that vastly outnumbered them and was completely immune to fear. In a headlong charge, no less. It was a very, very, very stupid move.
Forwyn
Member
Sat May 04 12:13:41
"Every major battle is fought with the raki crashing into enemy formations.

Its the heavy calvary, stupid."

If they were true heavy cav, they wouldn't have lost 12k against 3k lightly armored infantry. 2k cataphract lancers would wedge the fuck out of Unsullied.

For an infantry comparison, consider Jorah vs. Qotho. The latter was more agile and probably even more skilled, but got fucked by a breastplate.

The Dothraki believing themselves invincible doesn't make them heavy cav, it just makes them stupid.
jergul
large member
Sat May 04 12:17:49
Ruggy
You got the bottom line wrong. They are always portrayed as heavy calvary in major engagements.

It turned out to be a stupid move, but is entirely in keeping with how Dorthaki fight major engagements.

I pointed out that physics are actually on their side. There is no reason their charge should not have punched through (resistance being less than propulsion even without factoring in momentum).

The white walker are fierce, sure. But they are also osteopathic featherweights subject to the physical disadvantages that gives when mass grinds them to the ground (the angle of attack is down at an angle).

A headlong charge is what heavy calvary does to crack and break enemy formations. So of course "no less".

Its fine that you wanted them to try something completely different. But they did what they always do and generally do successfully (their dominance of their homeland with a network of tributory city states is well-known).

I get that armchair generals want every single battle to be fought with the tactical genius of the Gaul campaigns, but fog of war, fractured command, misunderstandings and just plain poor choices are what actually dominate the battlefield if portrayed realistically.

I am pleased with the portrayal of the battle of winterfall.
The Children
Member
Sat May 04 12:33:35
how many more weeks till last episode. i cannot wait man.
Paramount
Member
Sat May 04 13:17:33
Have you started to watch Season 8 yet or are you still waiting till da last episode so you can watch it all in one go? If so... How do you avoid spoilers?
The Children
Member
Sat May 04 13:58:26
simple. i dunt read any of this.

so how many weeks left. tomorrow is episode 5?

Seb
Member
Sat May 04 14:02:05
Hood:

Exactly: all of those examples you give are fairly subtle providing indirect effects. Compare this to allowing cavalry to ride down a near vertical slope of loose material a horse would not normally walk on, let alone charge down, and leap into a phalanx of heavy pike who very clearly are still in formation when the cavalry hit.

N.b. I'm not convinced the fireworks were magic. I can't remember where I got this from (i.e. it might be outside the novel itself) but the people like Gandalf had an appreciation of natural law. That's where Peter Jackson got the source for having Sarauman explicitly making a gunpowder mine in the movie.

The implication I took from that was as a Maiur (spelling I'm sure way off - the angelic/semi divine beings) their magic was to some extent an appreciation of underlying forces powering the universe and so blurred into things like an appreciation of how substances interact and things we would consider technology. Some old drafts had orks with what are essentially tanks - vehicles of iron powered by fires within - which though excised from LoTR made it into one of the other works.

The impression I got was that generally the Mair frowned on making decisive interventions into the world using magic. Creating light, yes, blasting enemies on the battlefield, no. And again some of this comes from long half remembered elements of the silmarillion, but the impression I got is that the world and it's mechanics are creation (the music of the Ainur) but strong magic is effectively hacking creation.

Anyway, all of that is an interpretation and people will differ.

For me, the visuals here we all wrong in that it looked like suicide; and attributing the improbable success to literally "a wizard did it" raises questions of why Gandalf didn't do a lot more (especially as Gandalf the white) to use magic for material gain.

Ultimately he's there to protect the integrity of the world rather than use its underpinnings to reshape it - that's Melkor and Saurons gig: improv in the music. And this is why after Sauron, the last disciple of Melkor, is defeated, magic is removed from the world and magical beings too.

The point about the rings of power was *not* to use them - the implication I got from reading the books was that the rings of power ended up with the likes of Elrond, Gandalf etc. because they were responsible not to use it and strong enough to resist the corruption of the one ring.

Tl;Dr it's not so much a suggestion that Gandalf *couldn't* do this in the books, but they're are strong reasons that this sort of thing wasn't/shouldn't be done in such a blatant way.
Seb
Member
Sat May 04 14:04:26

The tactics and military doctrine of the Dothraki are heavy cavalry (direct assault rather than skirmishing and harassment); their arms and armour are portrayed in the show more like light cavalry.

Like most shows, they are riding elegant Arabian horses rather than ruddy great war horses, but that's a reflection of audience expectations and breeds available to the producer.

The best way to summarize: a force equiped as in the TV show should not be used as heavy cavalry, though the universe seems to insist they excel in the role of heavy cavalry no matter how implausible this looks.

That said, I don't think a massed force of the Vale knights would have faired better.

Too big a formation of dead who won't flee.




hood
Member
Sat May 04 14:23:34
Seb, you're fucking insufferable.

"Compare this to allowing cavalry to ride down a near vertical slope"

When did I ever contend this was realistic? Movies are dramatic. It was an inaccurate portrayal in a fucking fantasy movie. Suspend your disbelief a bit and just let the director have his cool looking, dramatic shot.


"leap into a phalanx of heavy pike who very clearly are still in formation when the cavalry hit."

Again, you undervalue the potency of magic. That was my whole point. Gandalf is not a "conjurer of cheap tricks." He's one of the most badass people in middle earth. Ignore the dramatic flair of the directer and let yourself accept that Gandalf's magic is potent shit and could easily wreck havoc in the front (back, technically) ranks of the orc army.


"I'm not convinced the fireworks were magic."

Then you dumb. Not much else to say about that.


"people like Gandalf had an appreciation of natural law."

Yes, but just because their magic was often used to accentuate nature, that doesn't reduce the potency, the power of it. Recall what Gandalf did when they escaped the goblins of the Misty Mountains. With but a small torch, he set the entire forest ablaze to protect their escape and subsequent climbing into trees.


"Creating light, yes, blasting enemies on the battlefield, no."

There's a theme here. You consistently undervalue the potency of this subtle magic.


"The point about the rings of power was *not* to use them"

If by use you mean abuse, sure. We saw what happened to the men who sought to use their rings to gain power. They succumbed to them. Galadriel, Elrond, Gandalf were all immensely powerful beings who were trusted to be responsible with their power. That doesn't disagree with the ability to tap into the power of the rings for key assistance or even with simply using their own incredible power.



So what this really boils down to is that you have nothing but feelings and thoughts, whereas the strength of magic within LOTR is well documented and sources have been cited. Regularly. Put up or shut up, please. Source a coherent argument that magic in LOTR wasn't powerful.
Rugian
Member
Sat May 04 14:35:14
Seb,

I'd say you're off in the sense that the Dothraki aren't actually used as heavy cavalry in any traditional sense.

Sure, maybe the books have it differently. In the show, however, the charges at the Reach and Winterfell were the only times they employed heavy cavalry tactics. In the first instance, it was because only successful because of Drogon. In the second, it was completely idiotic and predictably failed almost immediately.
Rugian
Member
Sat May 04 14:48:30
jergul,

Your argument is based on you willfully ignoring a lot of things.

Dothraki are not heavy cavalry. They're not armored as heavy cavalry, they're not armed with the correct weapons to be heavy cavalry, and they're riding the wrong horses for heavy cavalry. And even in the show, they've only been successful as heavy cavalry in highly unusual situations (ie when dragons are nuking their enemies for them).

There is scant evidence that the Dothraki are even meant to be portrayed as heavy cavalry in the show. Maybe they are in the books, but we're not reading the books here.

Given their portrayal in the show, they should be skirmishers who focus on breaking the morale of rival armies, harassing their flanks, picking off soldiers with arrow volleys, and breaking off units from the center and slaughtering them. Once the enemy army's morale breaks, then charge in head-on. Tactics like that are certainly more than enough to cause them to develop a fearful reputation.

The "forward momentum" argument is a non-starter. What exactly was the plan in that line of thinking? First send in the cavalry to fully engage the AotD in a head-on charge, THEN send the infantry in after them? And in the process move the infantry beyond the confines of the flaming pit? Sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense.

All of the major characters had recognized in the previous episode that they could never defeat the AotD in a straight battle, so to resort to conventional field tactics against them anyway was doubly stupid. The fact that this plan had been thought out ahead of time makes it entirely unforgivable. Jon Snow had seen what the AotD can do and Jaime Lannister is trained in the art of military tactics. They should have known better.

As for your comments about "propulsion" or whatever, the Dothraki weren't riding tanks. Horses tend to get spooked by sharp objects after all.
Seb
Member
Sat May 04 14:59:32
Jesus Hood, you are the one disputing me saying that the scene was hideous because I'm not accounting for Gandalf's magic.



hood
Member
Sat May 04 15:03:02
Yes, specifically the part about horse kebabs upon impacting the orcs. No, they would not be horse kebabs. Gandalf is not a conjurer of cheap tricks. His magic is potent.
Seb
Member
Sat May 04 15:11:56
rugian:

tbf, the knights of the vale ride the wrong horses too.

Hood:
My argument was never that magic isn't powerful. It is that the forced of good *do not use magic to decisively shift the course of events in this way* subtle nice to haves, yes. Fundamentally altering the outcome of events, no. Not at least without sacrifice.

jergul
large member
Sat May 04 15:12:49
Seb
I think the physics suggest a charge to break through and divide the horde should have worked.

The white walkers are low density (far lower than even a poorly equipped medeval peasant) and have low center of mass.

If you wanted it represented exactly right, then the charge would have eroded from the far flanks. The charge would have stopped only when erosion from the flanks met in the centre.

It would ironically not make any difference what direction the horde was charged from. Fearless, so moral would never break and it is otherwise just a mass equation.

Ruggy
Son of the harpy is also a heavy calvary charge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHNcMIqr8WE

I do agree that the raki also plunder small settlements, hence my making the caveat of "major battles".

Not only was it not idiotic. It was the only way you could employ the raki while retaining their combat potential.

If failed to create a breakthrough for the unsullied to exploit, so disaster followed as the rest of the defenders froze instead of pushing forward to lock and exploit.

I thought the "freeze" folly particularly well illustrated the advantage of momentum as the white walkers tore into lines based on momentum alone.

It was repeated many times during the battle.

I am coining this the most misunderstood battle of the series. The battle advisors did a good job.

The more I think about it, the better it is.
Seb
Member
Sat May 04 15:35:14
And also, hood, what the footage shows is gandlof stick glowing white, some orks turning away their faces, but we actually have shots of the horses jumping into the pike tips as they are all still being held at position, with the formations intact.

So at this point, Gandalfs magic - if we are to take the scene literally - be providing some king of physical material protection. Otherwise horse Kebab.

If Gandalf can make people invulnerable, that very much alters the significance of the rest of the struggles.

For me, it was a bad scene. I don't believe Gandalf was supposed to be portrayed to the audience with this kind of power in the scene. I think it was just supposed to look awesome - but to me it doesn't look awesome, it breaks suspension of disbelief.

But if it was supposed to be the case that Gandalf is not merely providing fear and intimidation, but some kind of physical invulnerability to a 15 foot four inch thick hard wood topped with steel points; then that is equally problematic for me. Why doesn't Gandalf use magic to win all the fights?

jergul
large member
Sat May 04 15:36:34
Ruggy
Warhorses are selected and trained for their ability to not shy. Propulsion is the technical terms (I was arguing that charge momentum would not decrease as resistance is less than propulsion).

The flamming pits are part of a layered defence. If the horde could not be broken, then the horde would be locked in missile range for a while as defenders reorganized after falling back.

The crypt shows that there is a very good reason to avoid having too many casualties too close to the castle proper. Reincarnated dead trickling towards the castle is something different than masses of them rising in and just ouside the castle walls.

Jaime was not in command (he was gracefully allowe to serve on a flank). Jon's position was eroded to "nothing" (explicit). What he thought was not important beyond keeping the dragons out of the fray initially.

The unsullied track record suggests they could exploit an opening if the raki created one (they are demonstratably better than the raki). It was not wrong of them to think this true.

Various westeros fraction pining down the flanks was not inconcievable if the plan went ahead (the white walkers would be pressing towards center to fill the gap and would certainly be drawn off to some extent to deal with the raki now behind them and reforming for a new charge).

And of course, the trebuchets would be perfectly placed to continue to rain havoc.

The dothraki portrayal in the show is as heavy attackers. You are weighing production limitations way to heavily and not relying on additional source material from the books heavily enough.

The Dorthraki employ heavy calvary tactics exclusively in all major battles they are involved in. It is what they do.

Haters got to hate, but the battle made sense to me. For reasons given.




Seb
Member
Sat May 04 15:40:52
jergul:

We've seen that the dead will be un-phased by anything but critical hit to the head.

Even taking a view on the physics, the sheer number of dead and their concentration means that your horses are going to get cut from the side etc, stumble.... I just don't really find it convincing that the Dothraki can wipe them all out like this.

I mean, if the Dothraki can do this, where are the knights of the vale who would by your argument be even more effective: their horses are armoured, their mass is even greater.
hood
Member
Sat May 04 16:17:08
"if we are to take the scene literally"

Fantasy. Movie. The charge (minus the hill) was perfectly fine, it would have been plenty successful.
Seb
Member
Sat May 04 16:37:39
Hood:

Minus the hill. And minus the mass formation of the type of unit specifically designed to fend off much more heavily armoured cavalry, even on flat ground.

Yes, it's a fantasy movie, hence why we are discussing the internal consistency and mechanics of magic and motivation of semi-deities.

You can't just say "oh, it's a fantasy movie so anything goes". Satisfying fantasy novels still require self consistency. If the audience has to keep working to suspend disbelief, the production team have failed.

For me, this scene failed.

Seb
Member
Sat May 04 18:20:48
Cc:

Lame got theory but viable in the universe:

There is no lord of light. Bran set the whole thing up. That's where he was warged out for most of the episode. Not the crows.

While the night king was orchestrating the battle of Winterfell, Bran was orchestrating history.

"Hold the door" on an epic scale.

jergul
large member
Sun May 05 02:22:40
Seb
They are not unphased by being ground down. I did suggest the charge would be ground down from the flanks (where the mass advantage is less significant) and I was not thinking that Dothraki could wipe them out, but rather punch threw and divide the horde in two. Thereby creating an opening for the unsullied to exploit.

We do know attacks like that work. Its a dream set-up really. Tightly packed, starving peasants. The ability to fight at the point of contact is irrelevant, just as the desire to run away (which would be impossible) Its all mass equation.

The knights of the vale are holding the left flank. A plan would still need to pin the flanks.

But the decision to fight dismounted was not a good one or even a reasonable one I think we need to again look at production constraints (armor does increase mass, but not by very much. Its main function is to protect against missiles).

Still, the knights can fight in many ways. The dorthraki have one way to fight major battles. And they do that as heavy calvary.

My point was never that this was a great plan, it just is a reasonable plan given the forces at hand and the obvious fractured leadership leaving subcommanders with a lot of authority.

Jon's belief that the battle could not be won that he shared widely symbolizes the crisis in leadership at the time. To the point of even drawing away airpower until that was overruled by Targaryan decree.

Again, we did see that the plan failed. And then we saw tons of armchair generals crawl out of the woodwork.

What can I say? Not every battle can realistically emulate the genius of the Gaul campaigns.

I remain very pleased with how the battle was portrayed.

==========

And yah. What the hell was Bran doing during his timeout? You would think that he might have wanted to be around.

The "everything you have done brought you here" is not prophetic. It is a statement of fact and is true for all of us.
jergul
large member
Sun May 05 02:28:32
The mass equation point was made time, time, and time again in the shooting. With the white walkers using momentum to smash into static defensive lines.

It forshadows (aftershadows) what should have happened with the Dorthraki charge at an exponentially greater strength.

I do not believe the shadowing to be coincidental (the creators are clearly showing us they know what happens when momentum strikes mass).
Pillz
Member
Sun May 05 07:29:12
They're not heavy cavalry. They're just stupid mounted horse fuckers.
Seb
Member
Sun May 05 08:40:43
I draw the opposite conclusion though from the AoD scenes.

What I see is a truly vast horde able to use its collective mass far more than human infantry can without crushing eachother to death, and who won't actually be killed by being trampled.

The heavy cavalry attack on an infantry is like a rigid body penetrating a liquid that may turn to gass if morale fails.

Charging the army of the dead is more like smacking into a very viscous liquid.

But I see your logic.
Forwyn
Member
Sun May 05 09:00:14
The fuckers were rolling over each other 4-5 deep before they made contact with the Unsullied, I don't think standard physics applies:

http://youtu.be/yS8ZsWBC0x4?t=116
jergul
large member
Sun May 05 09:54:43
Seb
It cannot turn to gas on point of contact. Though it can evaporate from the rear and sides. The army of the dead would be considerably less viscous than even peasants armies.

The collective mass does not matter as it is a density issue. I do not see the white walkers packed more densely than most formations would be, and they are a lot less dense individually (pushing 50% of even a peasant irregular).

Remember that the angle of attack is down (1m to 1.5).

I think we should examine how often the battle otherwise showed momentum crashing into mass with devestating effect and consider if perhaps the creators are trying to tell us something.

Forwyn
Something odd did happen.

I did not view the undarkening (too much spoiler for me:), but given that the creators repeatedly signaled that they knew what happens when momentum strikes mass...

It could be their way of signaling that something odd happened to the Dorthraki charge.
Seb
Member
Sun May 05 11:58:27
Jergul:

Err, standard peasants wouldn't physically grab and clamber over each other in an effort to kill the rider even as they are trampled.

Peasants would be close to zero viscosity (lateral momentum transfer and dissipation).

The particles might be less dense, but they will be running *to* the horses not away from them.

I'm not sure what you are looking at, but didn't we see the army of the dead infantry attack with ranks literally climbing over each other to attack their targets?

And building mounds to scale the walls?
Rugian
Member
Sun May 05 12:18:03
"I am coining this the most misunderstood battle of the series. The battle advisors did a good job.

The more I think about it, the better it is."

Statements like this are liable to get me to move to Hood's table after all.

The clearing of the Sons of the Harpy was NOT an example of a heavy cav use. From that video, there was no organized resistance that they were facing there.

Let's stop pretending that the (unarmored) Dothraki could make it all the way through a 100,000+ strong army in any circumstances. I fear you've been watching too many fictional CGI battles if you believe that.

And it really can't be said enough, but just to emphasize it once more:

CHARGING IN THE DARK AGAINST AN ENEMY THAT YOU CANNOT SEE IS NEVER, EVER A GOOD IDEA. THIS IS NOT UP FOR DEBATE.

The best and highest use for the Dothraki would have been to employ them as scouts and then to have them engage in a pincer movement against the AotD once the infantry (supported by artillery located BEHIND them) had fully engaged them, as well as picking off smaller units that had become detached from the main body. That's assuming you'd use them at all - given the numbers involved, engaging the enemy in the first place was a dumb idea.
Seb
Member
Sun May 05 12:58:33
Rugian:

I think given what Jon saw at hardhome, it would have been a mistake to try and defend purely from within the walls.

Ramsay showed Jon how to do this kind of battle effectively at the battle of the bastards with only minimal innovation and iteration required to make it much more powerful. It was even on the same spot.
jergul
large member
Sun May 05 13:27:27
Seb
Peasants would have nowhere to go. Though they might try to climb over the man standing behind or beside them to get away.

So similar to the night walkers except for having much greater mass.

The best tactic is of course to march forward to gain some forward momentum. But that is not likely unless the formation is already in motion (large groups have extreme inertia).

Doing this would sway, but not fundamentally change the mass balance (which hugely favours the raki at any and every point of contact)

Ruggy
I did not say sons of the harpy defended as line infantry. I simply noted that the rakis made a heavy calvary charge. Like they always do in major battles.

Momentum is king. Not charging would have been the crazy thing.

If you view it as liquid, then the best analogy is seeing the Dathraki planing through it (as given from the angle of attack).

It does not matter from what angle the Dathraki charge (unless you consider room to maneuvre after breaking through). All that matters is decreasing the undead horde's momentum.

If the horde could contain the raki charge, then nothing the infantry could do would break it or even stop it.

The calvary had to blunt or break the horde. It could have happened.

I think it remains to be seen why it did not (according to Forwyn, the charge broke before contact).

Winter food stocks dictated that the battle take place.

My main point is that I see the plan and outcome as perfectly reasonable. Which is surely a good thing for me as it does not detract from my enjoyment.

A horrble outcome for all parties involved. What is not to like?

Seb
Jon did not seem involved in planning the battle at all beyond demoralizing the command staff and drawing off vital resources for a contingency plan.

There are tons of reasons to draw the beginning of the battle further away from the castle walls.
Seb
Member
Sun May 05 13:52:48
Jergul:

I can totally see a zombie Torso grabbing onto horse legs and three of four Zombies Holding onto the torso.

I doubt peasants would do that.
jergul
large member
Sun May 05 15:15:08
Seb
That would be relevant when momentum was already lost and the charge broken.

At that point, knights could still easily win against peasants (who could still break), but never against white walkers in numbers.

A fallen warhorse would represent a more significant barrier to a charge with significant momentum, and trained warhorses can manage that literally without breaking stride.

I did suggest earlier that a charge would degrade from the flanks towards center.

Its again just physics with an angle of attack from the side and rear working with calvary momentum instead of being ground down by it.

But the white walker lack everything that can threaten a heavy calvary charge...except the thing they actually had and we do not yet know what was (forwyns link).
jergul
large member
Sun May 05 15:16:16
(we actually saw that happen with lights blinking out rather quickly. That was calvary without momentum being overwhelmed fast. I have no issue with that).
obaminated
Member
Sun May 05 17:31:54
you cant try to use siege tactics against an army that doesnt need to eat or sleep.

dothraki screamers are called dothraki screamers because they charge into the teeth of their enemy, that is what they are trained to do, they did it against the lannisters and won, they didnt expect it to fail them, especially when they all had magic fire swords.
Seb
Member
Sun May 05 18:12:09
Jergul:
If a war horse can navigate a fallen horse CV with say, 95% probability, they only have a 50% chance of successfully handling 14 consecutively.

Numbers are going to win and the army of the dead was measured in the hundreds of thousands or more.

I'm very skeptical.
Cherub Cow
Member
Sun May 05 20:13:33
[Rugian]: "I'm beginning to think your whole "RAWR I'M AN ATHEIST FUCK RELIGION" attitude is interfering with your ability to objectively analyze things ... what essentially boils down to shitty writing"

Looking past any attempted insult, you may be right that Martin is just a shitty writer and doesn't have any depth of meaning intended in some of these exchanges. He may simply be using clichés to create power struggles (e.g., the cliché of "it is the will of 'God'" used earnestly without Martin understanding that that is a logical fallacy — simply used because he thinks it's a sequitur), or he just thinks that these people would think in these clichés (i.e., "[write as people talk, not as you wish they'd talk]"). That's why, ultimately, I think I'll be in for a disappointment if I expect this particular plot to be resolved in the show, and if/when I read the books, if it's not mentioned in there either then it probably just shows that Martin wasn't interested in this topic to this extent.

But! I'm not just inventing this analysis because I want it to go one way (though I admit I do). Clearly, the characters themselves have been having these discussions outright (e.g., the above scene), and it's no coincidence that Cersei knew that turning an unstable religion loose would subvert the rule of law, or that the High Sparrow took sadistic (personal) pleasure in watching the destruction of House Tyrell (smiling like an imposter who can't believe that others have fallen for his gambit and are enacting his perverse will), or that the former High Septon thought little enough of religion that he had prostitutes dress as each of the seven gods (with the same smile on his face with the prostitutes as Sparrow had on his while watching Loras give up the Tyrell future?), or that Arya's "God of Death" was only an excuse for her to receive training so that she could kill whomever she personally wants to kill. No religion has been portrayed in this story to be one of a direct/commanding 'God' — all of them have been corrupted or used for personal aims by individuals, or they require heavy interpretation to be "present" at all. That should sound familiar from real life. So all I'm hoping for (and, again, I'm ready to be disappointed) is that the Lord of Light will get the same treatment: revealed to be another person using power to pull strings.

..
[Hood]: "If there is no Lord, if the red religion is a lie, then everything is chaos."

That's not *exactly* true. It would *not* be true if you mean that the Realm would descend into chaos without the Lord of Light religion (e.g., the power/magic could still be used without the Lord), but it would still be true that "Chaos is a ladder"; by Littlefinger's metaphor, people who understand how to navigate this world (a world that is chaos and that is a constant climb to put one's version of order at the greatest "height") and its illusions would have a better chance of success in it. And those who created religions via a noble lie would have found their own way to order the chaos (their own means of success). That's where the Lord of Light followers would fit in: they would have found a magic which they have narrativized with an otherworldly "Lord of Light" — who may just be a Bran-type who sits in a seat of power... Like, if the Lord of Light was simply the Three-Eyed Raven of Essos, then that's 100% solved for me. And this works with "that stabilisation to the chaos" or a "song of ice and fire"; if there is a fire/ice balance, a three-eyed raven of Essos who gives the world fire magic to fight ice magic still works. It doesn't have to be a literal "god", just some magic, like Bran.

..
[Hood]: "When Bran says that Jaime pushing him out the window led him to his current state, I think we can take into consideration his warging powers and accept it as fact."

It is "fact", but it's circular again. He can only make that claim from the present ("[The past occurred, and the present is occurring. Therefore, the past resulted in this present]."). If he had made that claim from a present as a vision of the future, then it's meaningful, or, if he could see multiple timelines that did not happen (e.g., did not happen because someone chose something differently, such as Jaime not pushing Bran) and only this one produced this preferred outcome; but otherwise it may as well be a person claiming to be reincarnated but having no memory of past lives — i.e., useless and meaningless. Or, it's Leibniz saying that this must be the "best" version because it's happening (*Is* it the best? What about a version where the NK trips onto an unmanned Valerian steel sword and Cersei falls down some stairs? Not better?). Not too surprisingly, it works best on people in positions of power because it validates them if they don't think about it. A peasant with a poorly-made dragon glass spear who got lost on the way to Winterfell and died but who wasn't made a wight wouldn't really respond to circular logic with the same captivation, but if that peasant's life were examined it might have some great intrigue that equally showed that the past brought that person to the present... because *everyone's* past can be said to have done that.

I'm not completely hating on Bran, of course. It was nice to be able to tell Theon that he's a "good man", but that was just a nice thing to say to someone like Theon who's struggled to be good for his entire life. That's a useful way to draw from the past, even putting aside Bran and foresight for that moment.

..
[Hood]: "I will accept him within that framework as being the author's way of skipping over tedious narration"

I don't think tedious narration would be necessary to fix this issue. It would take maybe 5 seconds of screen time to show it with a visual. To take the Arya example:
*From one camera angle: Arya flies past a White Walker and is grabbed by the NK. She drops her dagger and stabs the NK with her other hand*
*whooshing sound*
*the event is shown to hurricane into Bran's eye*
*Back to present: Bran sees Arya running/flying towards the NK from a different angle*

Simple. I wouldn't want it used for a big moment like that, but with that quick visual viewers would see that Bran saw the future before it happened. No big narration, just a simple visual effect.

..
[Seb]: "Is the battle of the bastards Cannae? Other than encirclement I don't really see it. Ramsay did not attached himself as such, nor did his initial attack retreat. Nor did Jon win it, Sansa, unplanned, rescued him with cavalry provided byb littlefinger."

Wow, fucking idiot confirmed. You legit have no fucking clue, Seb. I thought I could go against my ban on ever speaking to you again if it were in a thread about a TV show, but even here... holy shit. Go ahead and watch the "behind the episode" commentary from the directors on the Battle of the Bastards and find out what an idiot you are. Of course, you're such a fucking idiot that even after it's spelled out that Battle of the Bastards was in fact based on Cannae, that its differences get you off the hook. Here's a hint: it doesn't. Also, consider doing the world a favor by slashing your dumb fucking wrists. ♥:)

..
Looks like the rest of the thread degraded into Jergul-math, and Jergul-logic, and LOTR stuff... You *know* a thread is terminal when it's Seb and Jergul.. plus, the new episode is starting, so... [submit] ;p
obaminated
Member
Sun May 05 22:29:04
yeah the battle of the bastards was clearly referencing cannae, expecting them to do it exactly the same is a really really really stupid expectation.
jergul
large member
Mon May 06 02:16:28
Seb
A charge would be broken before 14 lines of calvary had fallen (and countless lines of undead). The raki would typically fall back, reform, then charge again (as per their 12 charges against the unsullied).

The width does not really matter as we are assuming the white walkers have a far broader front than the raki are engaging.

Raki losses would be extremely unevenly distributed under those conditions. With the edge of the flanks taking most of the losses (that would be refilled until a physical wall of dead things began to press in the flanks.

We know the plan did not work. We don't know why. Except that we know the raki lost momentum immediately over their entire front and were unable to extract, reform, and charge again.

My thesis is and has always been that the general plan the subcommanders had put together after the collapse in leadership at highest level.

Was decent and true to what we know of the forces involved (the dismounted knights of the veil is something I am chalking down to production constraints).

CC
You should reflect long and hard on why this forum remains relatively vibrant and yours is dead save cat memes and Russian motor vehicle accidents.

You are probably doing the internet wrong.
jergul
large member
Mon May 06 02:19:10
vale*
hood
Member
Mon May 06 07:58:40
Vibrant? Did you change medication? Change back.
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share