S08.E03: The Long Night

[izabella]

15 hours ago, steelyis said:

Melisandre redeemed?

No.

Nowhere in my post did I say Melisandre was redeemed.

Theon was redeemed. The Hound is redeemed. Jon Snow is redeemed. Each of them mourned and regretted their roles in the death of children and tried to make amends. I don't think Melisandre truly regretted her part in Shireen's murder, or the murders of the other people she had Stannis burned alive for the Lord of Light.

I think her only regret was backing the wrong horse, i.e. Stannis.

Look at her face when Davos confronts her about Shireen's murder; she looks embarrassed, not ashamed.

Here's the thing; I never forgave her for encouraging Stannis to murder Shireen. However, I understood her motivations; she honestly believed sacrifices had to be made to win the war against the Dead. I hate how she went about it, but I respect that she didn't do it to wear a crown or for personal gain. She did the horrible things she she did because she believed they were required to ensure the future of humanity.

Despite all the fucked up shit she did I have to believe saving the world earned Melisandre not redemption but at least the dignity of not being killed by one of the people she worked so long and hard to save.

Melissandre has always interested me, so I've enjoyed the discussion around her arc.  As I was reading the part I bolded about Mel not showing regret or remorse, it occurred to me that Mel and Bran have a similar flat, matter-of-fact affect that does not show emotion because they don't feel the emotion.  Bran is the TER, and Mel is a witch or priestess who knows magic who is hundreds of years old - both of them are not the man and woman they appear to people, they are a work of magic.   I think that may be why Mel has no regret or remorse about Shireen or anyone else.  She and Bran don't feel things or see things the same way people do.

[Bannon]

1 hour ago, Dobian said:

I don't understand how it was the living who determined the time and place of this fight.  The white walkers marched on Winterfell on the direction of the NK, the humans had no say in the matter.  Sure they could have engaged the white walkers out in the forest somewhere, but fighting from a defensible position was the logical choice.  It was hardly a brilliant move to host the fight at Winterfell, there was no other choice.  As for laying siege, the white walkers are basically a dumb army, they rush forward and that's it.  Tactically, taking them on would be like shooting fish in a barrel.  They have no siege weapons.  All you have to do is keep them off the walls.  That's why in real sieges they put buckets of hot tar on the walls, and lots of heavy objects drop over the sides.  Lob projectiles at them from trebuchets inside the walls.  Archers could easily pick them off as they tried to climb, without having to worry about any ranged counterattack.  Hell, they could have soaked the whole field outside the walls with oil for hundreds of yards, light it with some fire arrows or a little dragon breath and set thousands of them blazing.  The only obstacle they faced, and it was a big one, was the NK's dragon.  But they had two of their own and as we saw, they were able to bring it to ground without getting killed by NK's spear.  The fight was winnable, but that wasn't how the writers wanted it to play out.

No, as we clearly have seen, the undead are under the command of an intelligent (albeit imperfect) commander, and that commander has the ability to issue orders telepathically, and those orders are instantly obeyed. They are able to carry out complex tasks, like drag a dead draogon out of deep water, for instance.

You don't need siege weapons if you don't need food, water, or shelter, and your opponent does. You just need to wait.

[Bryce Lynch]

7 minutes ago, Constantinople said:

You mean these rules?

In any case, rules change

It used to be you couldn't leave the Night's Watch, until Jon did

It used to be you were a member of the Kingsguard for life, until Joffrey kicked out Ser Barristan and Tommen kicked out Jaime

It used to be there were no female knights, until Jaime knighted Brienne

It used to be that the sons of a lord succeeded to the lordship before the lord's daughters, but even though Bran is alive, Sansa is the Lady of Winterfell

And it used to be, at least in the European medieval society on which Westeros is based, you couldn't get a secret annulment to your marriage, and without grounds. (The show runners really effed up on that. Not that I expect them to rectify it with some kind of explanation.  I think we're just supposed to accept it).

And, at least for now, there's no rule that Jon can't abdicate his rights, as Maester Aemon did.

From the Night's Watch vows:

"Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death."  Jon's watch ended when the mutineers plunged those daggers into him. 

I think it is implicit and possibly written based upon things Tywin said, that the king can dismiss members of the Kingsguard.  If the king didn't trust one or one did a bad job, would the king be forced to keep him on the job?

Bran abdicated the title of Lord of Winterfell.  According to him, he is not even Bran Stark anymore, and Edard Stark has no remaining legitimate male offspring.   

Westeros is loosely modeled after medieval Europe but there are many differences.  For example, there were no dragons, white walkers, Night Kings, etc in medieval Europe.   Also, we don't know what ground there might have been for Rhaegar's annulment.  

Jon can certainly abdicate, and I tend to think he will, unless he sees Dany go Mad Queen. But, if he did not, Dany would be somewhat hypocritical not to support his claim, as she based so much of her claim on her birthright.  

If Dany refused Jon's claim and took the IT by killing him, exiling him, or forcing him to once again bend the knee by threat of force, she would be taking the throne by conquest, rather than by restoring House Targaryen and its rightful heir.  She might or might not care about this difference.   

I could even see them each arguing that the other should take the Iron Throne.  Dany has expressed a strong belief in birthright and loves and admires Jon.  Jon doesn't seem to have any desire to rule the Seven Kingdoms and has already made it clear that he believes Dany is worthy of being Queen.   

[Constantinople]

12 minutes ago, tv-talk said:

That's Jon's decision not Dany's and the point I was making was that be HER RULES, she should bend the knee.

Where did Dany ever say by her rules she must bend the the knee to Jon?

[tv-talk]

1 minute ago, Constantinople said:

Where did Dany ever say by her rules she must bend the the knee to Jon?

As you well know despite posting that same quote multiple times, she claims to be the rightful heir to the Iron Throne based on birthright. Based on that claim, she feels free to execute anyone she wants to who doesnt acknowledge her as Queen. Well guess what? There's a King now and by the parameters she has been using- she is no longer the rightful heir to the IT and in fact should pledge allegiance to Jon. 

[Constantinople]

3 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Jon's watch ended when the mutineers plunged those daggers into him. 

If Jon's death exempts him from the Night's Watch -- and it's not clear that it does, see Edd quoting to Jon "All nights to come" from the oath when Jon proposed to leave -- then his right to the Iron Throne died with him.

[Constantinople]

2 minutes ago, tv-talk said:

As you well know despite posting that same quote multiple times, she claims to be the rightful heir to the Iron Throne based on birthright. Based on that claim, she feels free to execute anyone she wants to who doesnt acknowledge her as Queen. Well guess what? There's a King now and by the parameters she has been using- she is no longer the rightful heir to the IT and in fact should pledge allegiance to Jon. 

Birthright isn't the same as primogeniture.

[Bryce Lynch]

9 minutes ago, izabella said:

Melissandre has always interested me, so I've enjoyed the discussion around her arc.  As I was reading the part I bolded about Mel not showing regret or remorse, it occurred to me that Mel and Bran have a similar flat, matter-of-fact affect that does not show emotion because they don't feel the emotion.  Bran is the TER, and Mel is a witch or priestess who knows magic who is hundreds of years old - both of them are not the man and woman they appear to people, they are a work of magic.   I think that may be why Mel has no regret or remorse about Shireen or anyone else.  She and Bran don't feel things or see things the same way people do.

Good point.   Bran never expressed any emotion over Jojen or Hodor dying for him, and because of his mistake.    

[Bannon]

1 hour ago, DarkRaichu said:

But that would not be consistent with the way NK was shown since the beginning.  Once he found a way to pass an obstacle he just went all in.  Examples would be once he marked Bran, he just went and attacked the old 3ER's lair.  Or once he got a tool to destroy the wall (ie dragon) he stopped waiting and just broke the wall.  

Since he had the tool to break the wall, surely he had enough to destroy a fort like Winterfell

In the Beyond the Wall episode, we clearly see that when the NK wishes to, he has his army stop, and wait for more favorable conditions. There is no reason he could not have done the same at Winterfell.

[Bryce Lynch]

5 minutes ago, Constantinople said:

If Jon's death exempts him from the Night's Watch -- and it's not clear that it does, see Edd quoting to Jon "All nights to come" from the oath when Jon proposed to leave -- then his right to the Iron Throne died with him.

Apples and oranges.  His birthright is perpetual.  If he had a son, that son would inherit that birthright if Jon died.   When Jon was brought back to life he maintained the birthright.

The Night's Watch Vow, clearly says "It (his watch) will not end until my death"  He died, his watch ended.   I don't think those who wrote the vow anticipated Jon's situation, but the language is clear enough.  

[tv-talk]

9 minutes ago, Constantinople said:

Birthright isn't the same as primogeniture.

Irrelevant. Dany's belief system which had her as being the person who should sit on the Iron Throne by definition places Jon ahead of her and only if he died would she be the rightful Queen of the Seven. Now if she wants to be hypocritical and ignore that, fine she can do what she wants, but fact remains the claim she has laid upon the Throne for all these years is now invalid.

Edited May 2, 2019 by tv-talk

[proserpina65]

2 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

IIRC, Renly offered Robb, through Catelyn a deal where Robb could call himself KITN and the North would have a lot of autonomy, as long as he bent the knee to Renly.   It seemed like this deal would have been accepted.  

We don't know that it would have been accepted because it was never conveyed to Robb.

1 hour ago, Drogo said:

Let's ask our first guest..

I don't think Dany is comparable to Joffrey.

[Constantinople]

10 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Apples and oranges.  His birthright is perpetual.  If he had a son, that son would inherit that birthright if Jon died.   When Jon was brought back to life he maintained the birthright.

The Night's Watch Vow, clearly says "It (his watch) will not end until my death"  He died, his watch ended.   I don't think those who wrote the vow anticipated Jon's situation, but the language is clear enough.  

The vow also states "I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come."

Jon still has his life, and he pledged it for "all night to come", not "all nights until I die the first time".

[proserpina65]

53 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Winterfell was filled with at least 100,000 troops

How did you get that number?  There were around 8,000 Unsullied back before Meeren, not sure how many Dothraki.  Jon had around 3,000 men before the Battle of the Bastards, plus the Karstarks' men and the Knights of the Vale.  Add in few hundred men from minor bannermen.  Probably still way less than 100,000 fighting men.

[Constantinople]

16 minutes ago, tv-talk said:

Irrelevant. Dany's belief system which had her as being the person who should sit on the Iron Throne by definition places Jon ahead of her and only if he died would she be the rightful Queen of the Seven. Now if she wants to be hypocritical and ignore that, fine she can do what she wants, but fact remains the claim she has laid upon the Throne for all these years is now invalid.

How does it place Jon ahead of her "by definition"?

[proserpina65]

1 minute ago, Constantinople said:

How does it place Jon ahead of her "by definition"?

He's the legitimate child of the previous heir to the throne.  Based on what we've seen on the show, that would put him ahead of the younger sister of the previous heir.

Now, to me the question is moot, because I can't see Jon wanting the damned Iron Throne.

[Bryce Lynch]

9 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

How did you get that number?  There were around 8,000 Unsullied back before Meeren, not sure how many Dothraki.  Jon had around 3,000 men before the Battle of the Bastards, plus the Karstarks' men and the Knights of the Vale.  Add in few hundred men from minor bannermen.  Probably still way less than 100,000 fighting men.

I think the numbers of Dothraki were stated to be 40,000 in the past.   I think many of the Northern houses did not answer Jon and Sansa's call to the BOTB.  I assume the turnout was much higher for this battle.   Maybe there were less fewer than 100,000.  But Sansa was concerned about food shortages with whatever number they had, and was probably not anticipating a drawn out siege.   

The bottom line is, a siege would have favored the NK and been bad for the living.  

[tv-talk]

4 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

Now, to me the question is moot, because I can't see Jon wanting the damned Iron Throne.

For sure but what I'd like to see is the North refusing to accept Dany as Queen because Jon's lineage supersedes hers thus it would actually be "wrong" of them to acknowledge her as Queen. It's their easy way out from under having to be subjected to outside rule. Unfortunately having just re-watched the preview it looks like that issue is going to be swept aside, all about Dany vs Cersei now.

[Rambler]

On a positive note, I kinda get the feeling that Sansa doesn't need to worry much about finding enough food to feed all those troops anymore.

[Bryce Lynch]

16 minutes ago, Constantinople said:

The vow also states "I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come."

Jon still has his life, and he pledged it for "all night to come", not "all nights until I die the first time".

But it says his watch ends with his death.  At the very least he had a solid loophole to claim.  

[Constantinople]

1 hour ago, DarkRaichu said:

But that would not be consistent with the way NK was shown since the beginning.  Once he found a way to pass an obstacle he just went all in.  Examples would be once he marked Bran, he just went and attacked the old 3ER's lair.  Or once he got a tool to destroy the wall (ie dragon) he stopped waiting and just broke the wall.   

Since he had the tool to break the wall, surely he had enough to destroy a fort like Winterfell

I don't see the consistency in the Night King that you do. In my opinion, the Night King moved quickly when the writers wanted him to be fast, and slowly when he wanted him to be slow.

[Bryce Lynch]

42 minutes ago, Bannon said:

In the Beyond the Wall episode, we clearly see that when the NK wishes to, he has his army stop, and wait for more favorable conditions. There is no reason he could not have done the same at Winterfell.

Edited May 2, 2019 by Bryce Lynch

[Constantinople]

21 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

He's the legitimate child of the previous heir to the throne.  Based on what we've seen on the show, that would put him ahead of the younger sister of the previous heir.

But @tv-talk contended by Daenerys's own rules, Daenerys would have to acknowledge Jon as the "rightful king"

Where in the show has Daenerys subscribed to the idea that throne passes by strict primogeniture, and, even if she does believe this, where in the show does it say she believes there is such a thing as a valid annulment that was made in secret and with no grounds?

It may be that Daenerys believes both of these, but I don't recall her saying that

21 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

Now, to me the question is moot, because I can't see Jon wanting the damned Iron Throne.

The only reason I can think of is to grant the North independence, and then to abdicate. Of course, who knows how the next king/queen would react to that (if there still is an Iron Throne).

Edited May 2, 2019 by Constantinople

[Bryce Lynch]

13 minutes ago, Rambler said:

On a positive note, I kinda get the feeling that Sansa doesn't need to worry much about finding enough food to feed all those troops anymore.

But she will probably whinge asking "What does the Dragon Queen expect me to do with all this food?" :)

[Bryce Lynch]

3 minutes ago, Constantinople said:

But @tv-talk contended by Daenerys's own rules, Daenerys would have to acknowledge Jon as the "rightful king"

Where in the show has Daenerys subscribed to the idea that throne passes by strict primogeniture, and, even if she does, that she believes there is such a thing as a valid annulment that was made in secret and with no grounds?

It may be that Daenerys believes both of these, but I don't recall her

The only reason I can think of is to grant the North independence, and then to abdicate. Of course, who knows how the next king/queen would react to that (if there still is an Iron Throne).

If Dany doesn't believe Jon, Sam and Bran, that is a whole different issue.  Assuming she does, her own beliefs and traditions and laws of succession she says she follows (and I believe her to be sincere) would make Jon the rightful heir.  

[Constantinople]

Not many would have the courage to face the Night King head on

Vale Theon Greyjoy

[tv-talk]

22 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

The bottom line is, a siege would have favored the NK and been bad for the living.  

Yeah and I think what's lost in making the undead out to be such easy pickings is that in real life sieges there were not massive battles daily over the course of a year. It was just as much a waiting game about supply lines and such as it was about battles. The undead otoh could attack 24/7/365- literally every single second of every day would be battle and the humans would not last long under that scenario. 

[Sakura12]

If the North doesn't want to support Dany and she loses to Cersei do they think Cersei is going to let them have any kind if independence? She'd be more likely to burn them alive than Dany. She doesn't care about anyone. 

[sistermagpie]

3 minutes ago, Sakura12 said:

If the North doesn't want to support Dany and she loses to Cersei do they think Cersei is going to let them have any kind if independence? She'd be more likely to burn them alive than Dany. She doesn't care about anyone. 

They would support Dany over Cersei--they just want her to give them independence as well. I mean, if neither Dany nor Cersei is going to give them independence they'd have no reason to help either of them get or hold onto the throne.

[Sakura12]

Just now, sistermagpie said:

They would support Dany over Cersei--they just want her to give them independence as well. I mean, if neither Dany nor Cersei is going to give them independence they'd have no reason to help either of them get or hold onto the throne.

I know but right now Cersei holds the throne and if she wins she still holds the throne and they'd have to go to war with her if they want their independence. She's not going to care what they want or if they live. 

[tv-talk]

1 minute ago, Sakura12 said:

I know but right now Cersei holds the throne and if she wins she still holds the throne and they'd have to go to war with her if they want their independence. She's not going to care what they want or if they live. 

And if they refuse Dany she may turn her dragons on what's left of them- not really any better than whatever they are thinking about Cersei who is thousands of miles away. After this battle of course, they probably legit love Dany but previously she was just another person from elsewhere who laid claims upon them.

[dreamcatcher]

2 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

They were under JOFFREY Baratheon rule.  Robert was a crappy king, but friendly to the North and nobody was clamoring for independence during his reign.   

They rode South up to try to rescue Ned, Sansa and Arya from the usurper Joffrey.  After Joffrey executed their Lord and Robb won some great battles they declared independence and Robb KITN.   

Even the North's participation in Robert's Rebellion was the result of the murder of their Lord and his eldest son by the Mad King and the supposed kidnapping and rape of their Lord's daughter by the crown prince.   

Naturally, they would be wary of returning to Targaryen rule, after what Aerys did.  But, I think Daenerys has done a tremendous amount to gain their trust and admiration.   If the majority of the North gladly accept her as Queen, it will be interesting to see how Sansa reacts.   She will no longer have the excuse of saying the North doesn't want her and she wants what the North wants.   

The only reason why they were fine with Robert is that he was bffs with Ned and they fought together against the Targs. Ned would never go against Robert. That doesn’t mean that the North should forget everything that happened pre- and post-Robert. He wasn’t that great of a King either and he pretty much forced Ned to leave WF as well.

1 hour ago, Constantinople said:

If Jon's death exempts him from the Night's Watch -- and it's not clear that it does, see Edd quoting to Jon "All nights to come" from the oath when Jon proposed to leave -- then his right to the Iron Throne died with him.

Why would his right to the IT die with him? His oath to NW says he will serve until he dies. Where does it say that a resurrected king is king no more?

22 minutes ago, Constantinople said:

But @tv-talk contended by Daenerys's own rules, Daenerys would have to acknowledge Jon as the "rightful king"

Where in the show has Daenerys subscribed to the idea that throne passes by strict primogeniture, and, even if she does believe this, where in the show does it say she believes there is such a thing as a valid annulment that was made in secret and with no grounds?

It may be that Daenerys believes both of these, but I don't recall her saying that

She never said she should be Queen until Viserys died and that’s because he was ahead of her in the line of succession. Even if Jon was Joanna, since she would have been the heir’s (Rhaegar) heir, she would have still been ahead of the heir’s little sister. The only thing she has on her side is that she can claim to be the last dragon, which Jon isn’t. Also, in her mind, she is barren and Jon can immediately start working on producing little Targs, so I don’t see her being hell-bent on getting rid of her house’s last hope.

If she doesn’t subscribe to the idea that the line of succession matters, then she isn’t the rightful heir as the last targ. She is just another noble who has the power to conquer the throne.

1 minute ago, Sakura12 said:

If the North doesn't want to support Dany and she loses to Cersei do they think Cersei is going to let them have any kind if independence? She'd be more likely to burn them alive than Dany. She doesn't care about anyone. 

The North can support Dany as an independent kingdom as well. If anything, that’s one more reason for them to do so- Cersei tried to destroy the north and attacked their warden/king in the north and his family, plus she would never grant them independence.

[dreamcatcher]

8 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

They would support Dany over Cersei--they just want her to give them independence as well. I mean, if neither Dany nor Cersei is going to give them independence they'd have no reason to help either of them get or hold onto the throne.

And Cersei actually asked Jon to go back to WF and not get involved in the whole Dany vs Cersei thing. Let’s not forget that the great leader Jon basically told Cersei she should let the North get destroyed as otherwise, they would stand against her and in support of Dany. And then believed her when she said she would send her troops to help. That’s all the proof one would need to claim he’s Ned Stark’s son. Even Dany realized this declaration was unnecessary.

[Bryce Lynch]

9 minutes ago, Sakura12 said:

If the North doesn't want to support Dany and she loses to Cersei do they think Cersei is going to let them have any kind if independence? She'd be more likely to burn them alive than Dany. She doesn't care about anyone. 

That is true, but Cersei might lack the power to take the North.  Back in Season 1, Cersei told Joffrey that the North cannot be held by an outsider.  

[MissLucas]

The one thing the living got right was the plan to kill the NK. But their dragonfire Hail Mary was odd. Why did they not come up with a plan B (and C and D)? Why not reforge one of those Valyrian steel swords into arrowheads and let some skilled archers give it a try? Of course the hero A-Team would not have relinquished their blades but Heartsbane was for a while on the market so to speak. (Too bad Ramsay is dog food - he would have gotten been that sucker in the eyeball.) 

It really bugged me that nobody was looking for a back-up plan to take the NK out any other way. Especially after Bran could not say for sure if dragonfire would to the trick.

[Constantinople]

1 hour ago, Bryce Lynch said:

But it says his watch ends with his death.  At the very least he had a solid loophole to claim.  

I agree there' s a solid loophole claim

But if Jon was no longer in the Night's Watch after his death, by what authority did he kill Ser Alliser, Olly and the others after his resurrection?

Edited May 2, 2019 by Constantinople

[GodsBeloved]

1 hour ago, Sakura12 said:

If the North doesn't want to support Dany and she loses to Cersei do they think Cersei is going to let them have any kind if independence? She'd be more likely to burn them alive than Dany. She doesn't care about anyone. 

In season 1 Cersei told Joffery that the North can't be ruled/controlled by an outsider. If I can find the clip I will post her exact quote.

But anywho, from that statement it seems that Cersei at least at one time knew/believed it was useless to try and rule/control the North and she may still believe that.

ETA

Cersei: The North can not be held, not by an outsider. It's too big, too wild.

Edited May 2, 2019 by GodsBeloved

[ShellsandCheese]

3 hours ago, tv-talk said:

As you well know despite posting that same quote multiple times, she claims to be the rightful heir to the Iron Throne based on birthright. Based on that claim, she feels free to execute anyone she wants to who doesnt acknowledge her as Queen. Well guess what? There's a King now and by the parameters she has been using- she is no longer the rightful heir to the IT and in fact should pledge allegiance to Jon. 

I’m Dany’s defense, I would find it suspicious as fuck that suddenly there’s evidence that Jon is the son and legitimate heir of Rhaegar - and as she stated and the only people who know this and put it together are Bran and Sam. I’d be like show me the receipts. I think everyone would want to see the receipts. They’d be like, you just figured this out now, lol.

It would also mean the basis for Roberts rebellion was a total lie. People don’t always like to admit they were wrong, even moreso that they were lied to and fooled. 

[Bryce Lynch]

18 minutes ago, ShellsandCheese said:

I’m Dany’s defense, I would find it suspicious as fuck that suddenly there’s evidence that Jon is the son and legitimate heir of Rhaegar - and as she stated and the only people who know this and put it together are Bran and Sam. I’d be like show me the receipts. I think everyone would want to see the receipts. They’d be like, you just figured this out now, lol.

It would also mean the basis for Roberts rebellion was a total lie. People don’t always like to admit they were wrong, even moreso that they were lied to and fooled. 

They can probably dig up the proof of the annulment and marriage at the Citadel.

Proving that Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna rather than Ned and some tavern wench would be more difficult.

Are Bran's visions admissable in court?  

Howland Reed might be a witness.  He probably saw Ned carry Jon out of the Tower of Joy.

Edited May 3, 2019 by Bryce Lynch

[Dobian]

4 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Even if they could, the NK and his army have none of the normal constraints on an army implementing a siege against a walled city or castle.   

And they would get reinforcements.  Every time someone inside the walls died, the NK could raise them and add them to his army.

Waiting for a person here or there to die inside the walls is not reinforcements.  10,000 troops coming in to aid you is reinforcements.  This isn't Walking Dead rules either.  A person who becomes undead doesn't turn others by biting them, so there is no chain effect.

3 hours ago, Bannon said:

You don't need siege weapons if you don't need food, water, or shelter, and your opponent does. You just need to wait.

Sure, if they could wait peacefully for the food to run out inside.  But they wouldn't be waiting peacefully , they would be under constant attack and totally exposed out in the open.  Because they do not have siege weapons or any ranged attack, they would have no counter for it.  And despite the intelligence of the NK, they are not smart fighters.  They follow basic commands, but they are incapable of making tactical decisions on the fly. They'd be sitting ducks out there. Start raining fire on them and it would be chaos.  We saw how they mindlessly piled into the flaming trenches.  They did a similar thing in a big battle several seasons ago.  If the NK did not have the dragon, I'm convinced the humans inside the castle could break the siege in a matter of weeks, and food would not be an issue.

[Bannon]

1 hour ago, Dobian said:

Waiting for a person here or there to die inside the walls is not reinforcements.  10,000 troops coming in to aid you is reinforcements.  This isn't Walking Dead rules either.  A person who becomes undead doesn't turn others by biting them, so there is no chain effect.

Sure, if they could wait peacefully for the food to run out inside.  But they wouldn't be waiting peacefully , they would be under constant attack and totally exposed out in the open.  Because they do not have siege weapons or any ranged attack, they would have no counter for it.  And despite the intelligence of the NK, they are not smart fighters.  They follow basic commands, but they are incapable of making tactical decisions on the fly. They'd be sitting ducks out there. Start raining fire on them and it would be chaos.  We saw how they mindlessly piled into the flaming trenches.  They did a similar thing in a big battle several seasons ago.  If the NK did not have the dragon, I'm convinced the humans inside the castle could break the siege in a matter of weeks, and food would not be an issue.

Their range for raining fire is not unlimited. The dead's dragon doesn't need to eat. The live one's do. Having an attack aircraft that needs no fuel is a huge advantage. Yes, if the dead lacked the weapon, they'd have little chance. Insert the equivalent of a living A-10 Warthog into any medevial  battle, but just to one side, and you could say the same. The whole point of Dany's rescue at the end of season 7 was to get a dragon to the NK, so the battle of Winterfell would have some credible tension.

"Beyond the Wall" is my least favorite episode, because the plot machinations to get the dragons there are so dumb. "The Long Night"? I was pleasantly surprised. At first the cavalry charge seemed ridiculous to me, but as they were charging it occurred to me how poorly suited such cavalry was against such infantry, no matter the tactic. Sometimes the situation just sucks, no matter the tactics

That's why the take from the professor at the Army War College resonated with me so strongly. It's ok if we disagree.

Edited May 3, 2019 by Bannon

[Affogato]

1 hour ago, Bryce Lynch said:

They can probably dig up the proof of the annulment and marriage at the Citadel.

Proving that Jon is the son of Rhaegar and Lyanna rather than Ned and some tavern wench would be more difficult.

Are Bran's visions admissable in court?  

Howland Reed might be a witness.  He probably saw Ned carry Jon out of the Tower of Joy.

Jon being able to ride and steer Rhaegar is evidence of his heritage. Tyrionwill probably vouch for that. 

[CeeBeeGee]

On 4/28/2019 at 11:48 PM, 30 Helens said:

Another question: Where were all the identifiable dead Starks among the crypt rising dead? Seems like a wasted opportunity not to see Lyanna, Catelyn, and especially headless Ned.

YESSSSSSS. (Although Catelyn's body was thrown in the river near the Twins and never recovered.) But imagine Sansa's horror at having to fight, say, Rickon? That was a storytelling opportunity missed.

On 4/29/2019 at 7:47 AM, Friendly kitty said:

It was one of the best moments in the episode. The baby was not taken aback, she was not afraid even when she felt the breath of death on herself, and was able to make a decisive breakthrough in order to destroy the enemy. And then die, like a real heroine, like a true warrior. I would give her the posthumous medal for courage.

See, the amazing thing is she was afraid--you can see her rock back on her feet when the giant bursts through. She's clearly terrified, as any sane person would be. But like the she-bear she is, she manages her fear and turns it into a way to move forward, to attack. She was afraid, but she didn't let that stop her. I was sobbing. I'm so sad she died. It was a great death but...And when her sweet face, reposed in death, suddenly opens its blue eyes--the Night King is so vile, so truly evil. It's not enough to have these people murdered, he has to desecrate their bodies afterward, to reanimate them to try to kill their friends and loved ones.

On 4/29/2019 at 11:49 AM, Giselle said:

Drogon and Rhaegal?

Mmmmm.... What are the sexes of these dragons?

Just wondering.....

More dragon eggs in the future???

Dragons are genderless, so I'm told. And I have long speculated that there must be other eggs out there--it's ridiculously improbable that Dany just happened to be gifted the last three.

On 4/29/2019 at 12:32 PM, laprin said:

I don't want Gillie to suffer because of Sam's ineptitude.  He was absolutely useless and deserved to die for basically just standing in the way of the other fighters. 

Sam was an idiot, no doubt (although his reaction was quite understandable--still, he should've gone down to the crypts at the first) but at least he had the prescience to give Heartsbane to Ser Jorah.

On 4/30/2019 at 12:56 AM, CletusMusashi said:

I can't help thinking that a few centuries from now there's going to be a documentary about "Operation get Behind the Dothrakis:"

"The Targaryans knew that such a large number of swarthy uncastrated men could never be assimilated by the west, and thus began the infamous Dothraki Genocide. These peaceful, naive hunter-gatherers had already been separated from their families and brought to Westeros in bondage, only to be ordered into a cruel suicide mission in order to placate the xenophobic Thenorthians. Thankfully for the Seven KIngdoms, a kindly pyromancer wandered by in time to ignite their weaponry. The Dothraki were nonetheless destroyed in mere minutes, but at least they brought untold millions of giant ice spiders, creepy hammer-wielding dentist elves, bouncing Bumbles, giant wights, woolly mammoth zombies, vampire walruses, nihilistic narwhals, and  beligerant mummy-puffins along with them."

I have been going over the ramifications of the Dothraki massacre. Yes, it is certain the Dothraki could never have been assimiliated into Westerosi culture. Yes, they swore loyalty to Dany; yes, they agreed to come over to Westeros; yes, they agreed to the cavalry charge (and the Forbes article says the plan wasn't so bad after all). But in the end, they are basically gone as a culture, as a people. They would've been terrible for Westeros. But honestly, they're not that great for Essos either--they destroy villages and rape and reave. But does that mean they should be eliminated? I love the Dothraki but I sure would hate to be a peaceful Essosi villager whose village gets invaded by them.  Knowing Dany's hatred of slavery, I think she would've tried very hard to eliminate that from their culture (as she required of Theon and Yara).

On 5/1/2019 at 1:19 PM, seawind said:

I believe Lyanna's did. Ned's definitely did (with the exception of his head). But I thought that only people who had been killed by wights could be risen by the NK — am I wrong on that?

That was a real missed opportunity for a good gut punch, BTW — having at least one previously fallen character show up in battle as a wight. I do wish they'd done it.

That would've been amazing. Another missed storytelling opportunity.

11 hours ago, Constantinople said:

There is no such thing as a rightful King. If Jon is the "rightful King" it's because of his descent from Aegon the Conqueror.

Power resides where men believe it resides. Aerys was the king because everyone was opting into a system where they agreed the Targaryens were the ruling dynasty--until he abused that system, and then people pushed back, and then eventually the new system into which everyone (but the Targaryens and their loyalists) believed the Baratheons were the ruling dynasty. (Although interestingly a legal pretext for that claim was because Robert's grandmother was a Targaryen. But that was just a pretext, a legal loincloth. The real reason Robert was the new king was because he defeated Rhaegar and the armies who backed him sacked King's Landing.) The legal claims are just loincloths. Henry VII had a laughable claim to the throne, compared to Richard III (who was a usurper and an infanticide, but his claim was still much stronger than Henry's). But he won the Battle of Bosworth Field (helped by the last-minute changing of sides by the Stanleys) and England found a way to live with that, flimsy claim or no. Which is my way of saying some of the arguments that I'm seeing, about how Dany is a hypocrite if she doesn't yield to Jon, are simplistic. Dany is not only claiming the throne because she is a Targaryen--she's conquering. It's the flimsy loincloth of legality, plus sheer might. Another thing to consider is that Dany didn't wake up one morning and decide "I want the throne." She was enrolled in the Game of Thrones at birth--she was never allowed to opt out. All of her life Robert Baratheon sent assassins after her and her brother. When Dany married Drogo and got pregnant, both she and Drogo seemed blissfully happy and not at all ambitious. Viserys and his deal with Drogo notwithstanding, it's entirely possible Dany and Drogo would've lived out their life on the Grass Sea. Until Robert sent the assassin to murder the pregnant Dany. THAT is what pissed off both Dany and Drogo, that is why Drogo made the vow to send an army of Dothraki across the Narrow Sea. So Dany was forced into this struggle--it has defined her life, she has earned, through her dragons and her conquests and her armies, her shot at the Throne in a way that Jon has not, notwithstanding his technically higher claim to the throne. (That said, I strongly doubt Jon wants the Iron Throne.)

On another note, FWIW, I always have closed captions on and Jon just yells "Aaaaaaaahh!!!" at Viserion, not "Go!"

Whoever said that the Hound grabbed up Arya "like an unruly kitten," please know how charmed I am by that remark. I have been chucking about it all week! I absolutely love the arc of the Hound's redemption. And Theon's--a few have remarked that Bran seemed to be sending Theon to his death with his "You're a good man" comments. My take is different--I think Bran was releasing Theon from his pledge to protect Bran, because I think Bran knew Theon wanted to die. He has seemed so defeated ever since Ramsay (understandably). Sansa was able to coax him back to a shell of his former self, and then reconnecting with his sister also helped. But deep down I think he was so tremendously ashamed of what he did--sacking Winterfell, burning alive two children--that he wanted to die. When Bran said that, Theon's transformation was subtle but noticeable--he was a full man again (I mean in the holistic sense), he needed to hear that absolution.

On a final note--I just love it when these characters are bracing themselves for battle and the commander says "steady, lads." I've noticed it twice now--Lord Tarly says it at the start of the Loot Train Battle and Theon says it in this episode as the wights are approaching the Godswood. There's something so sweetly paternal about it, so "we might be about to die but I am here with you." I just love it. I can't imagine what the American equivalent is--I'm pretty sure American military commanders don't call their sailors/soldiers boys. Anyway, just love it.

[TaurusRose]

8 hours ago, Constantinople said:

The vow also states "I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come."

Jon still has his life, and he pledged it for "all night to come", not "all nights until I die the first time".

Jon pledged his life and died; therefore, his watch ended. It all seems really clear cut and simple to me. There is no clause for “if you die and are resurrected you are still bound to NW.”

[Lady S.]

2 hours ago, CeeBeeGee said:

But deep down I think he was so tremendously ashamed of what he did--sacking Winterfell, burning alive two children--that he wanted to die. When Bran said that, Theon's transformation was subtle but noticeable--he was a full man again (I mean in the holistic sense), he needed to hear that absolution.

Great post, just one pedantic correction. Theon never burned two children alive, he murdered the farmboys (or ordered them killed) then burned the bodies to disguise who they really were. Burning them while still alive (without even Mel's excuse of fire magic) would just be some sadistic Ramsay-level shit. Not all burnt corpses had to be die by burning. 

Personally, I don't think Theon really had a suicide wish but that he volunteered to guard Bran, the NK bait, knowing he'd very likely die and choosing that if he died in this epic battle where everyone was anticipating their deaths, his would be guarding the same Stark he'd betrayed and endangered before. He would have considered it a honor to fall trying to atone for his sins but Bran gave him the peace of knowing he was already forgiven so he could run towards death freed of his guilt and shame. 

[paigow]

On 5/1/2019 at 9:53 PM, Quickbeam said:

What’s to become of Bear Island?

The Ironborn will get control as reward for their loyalty....It is not that far from the Iron Islands...

[Oscirus]

If one gives up all claims and titles can they take them back just because they found a loophole by returning from the dead?  Theres a debate to be had here.

[BooBear]

12 hours ago, MissLucas said:

It really bugged me that nobody was looking for a back-up plan to take the NK out any other way. Especially after Bran could not say for sure if dragonfire would to the trick.

Me too. Everyone had to get dumb for this battle to play out like it did. There should have been a trap waiting for the night king around Bran. (maybe a hidden tunnel that people could have come out of) Home alone type traps. Heck Bran should have had a weapon.  The dragons should have been used effectively. One dragon on the ground blowing fire at the wrights and the other standing guard against the night king. No humans should have been offered up to die. The living have an edge... they can think. That should have been how they won.  It isn't like the night king can see though walls. The night king was always formidable before because Jon didn't have back up. Now he had plenty of back up. There should have been something bad ass by our team... such as the NK firing on Dany only to discover she is the "unburnt".  But it seemed like everything just went the NK's way. 

On the behind the scenes video it says that they wanted things to go wrong. Well, fine, that could have happened but it doesn't mean that the original plan had to be stupid. 

[Affogato]

On 5/1/2019 at 11:20 PM, MrWhyt said:

does he know this or is it just the common thinking? is it a fact or an assumption?

Honestly I don’t remember the show bringing up that only Targaryans can ride the dragons. 

But you still would think Jon riding one and steering one would be unexpected. 

Edited May 3, 2019 by Affogato

[Affogato]

5 hours ago, taurusrose said:

Jon pledged his life and died; therefore, his watch ended. It all seems really clear cut and simple to me. There is no clause for “if you die and are resurrected you are still bound to NW.”

Sam says at one point that the oath doesnt say the night watch can’t have sex, just children and wives. He implies such things are open to lawyerly discussion among factions. Jons death, i would imagine, would be one of those discussions. 

Edited May 3, 2019 by Affogato
Spelling