Game of Thrones

[Spain]

Most wargs can't. Bran is the only one who can as far as I'm aware.

 

And he's only done it to Hodor, who was different to everyone else due to the exceptional circumstances he was first/last warged into. If the "hold the door" thing while Bran was in the past hadn't have happened and Hodor's mind hadn't been ruined who know's if Bran could have even warged into him in normal circumstances.

[Kyle]

See the boy that big Tormund chewed to death, who was he and when was he introduced?

 

That was Small Jon Umber. He's the one who gave Ramsay Rickon as a hostage and killed Shaggydog. He also called Roose Bolton a c**t, which is probably his finest tv show moment.

[Big Easy]

Ah remember now, cheers.

[PrestersKTID]

Question - Wargs can take control of humans as well as animals, yes?

 

If so, why doesn't someone get a warg to take control of someone really important ie a king, and therefore run the place?

Think that the 3 eyed raven said something about never coming back out if you warg for too long.

[Boghead ranter]

Most wargs can't. Bran is the only one who can as far as I'm aware.

 

ah, I see.

 

Think that the 3 eyed raven said something about never coming back out if you warg for too long.

 

what about, say, if you're beseiging a castle.  Use your warg, get them to warg into the Lord of the castle, who orders the soldeirs to not defend, and indeed, open the gates.

 

Seige over, only takes a little while.

[vikingTON]

It showed the difference between "good" and "evil". Davos told his archers not to fire as they'd kill their own men, Ramsay said "f**k it, loose".

 

A plot device taken straight out of Braveheart, and just as bollocks as it was in Braveheart. Any commander worth their salt would not be fretting over some collateral damage caused by their archers in the middle of a battle; so long as their own troops aren't being disproportionately picked off, it's open season. Otherwise they'd just be standing around doing nothing, until being trounced by the enemy in the event of a defeat. Which would be rather pointless.

[vikingTON]

And of course, if the rules of the game are the same as they were before the last series or two, then Davos' sentimentality and pretty rubbish decision-making (let's not forget the failed assassination attempt on the red woman) marks him out as a goner in the bearpit evironment of Westerosi politics. Which is a shame, but an ending where he ends up as the King's Hand would stretch all credulity. 

[Stellaboz]

Why would Davos order arrows on the field when Ramsay was firing them almost at will? Total waste of resource to do the same and risk even more collateral on his side.

Davos admits he's a smuggler and sea farer at heart, not a battle hardened commander.

[RandomGuy.]

Davos is a goner at some point before the end, thats fairly clear. I'm still anticipating an ending where all the major characters die but the manage to defeat the White Walkers. 

[vikingTON]

Why would Davos order arrows on the field when Ramsay was firing them almost at will? Total waste of resource to do the same and risk even more collateral on his side.

Erm, the arrows would also take out tons of Bolton troops. That's kinda the point of having archers involved in a battle. The idea that people choose to either stand around until they can only hit the enemy or act as immoral tyrants by engaging is beyond stupid. Commanders sacrifice their less important units all the time in battle - it's not a morality play. And for much of GOT, it hasn't been portrayed as such, which is a strength IMO.

If Davos is a goner then I fear Littlefinger will go with him. From the 'Kings Landing' perspective of power politics, Littlefinger should of course trounce Jon and become the major player in the north. But the less appealing fantasy element of the show seemingly dictates that Jon can't die for reasons, so Littlefinger is definitely playing with fire.

[Stellaboz]

Ramsay had massive numbers advantage, they couldn't risk killing what men they had even though they'd get some Boltons. It's not hard to grasp.

[WaffenThinMint]

Why would Davos order arrows on the field when Ramsay was firing them almost at will? Total waste of resource to do the same and risk even more collateral on his side.

Davos admits he's a smuggler and sea farer at heart, not a battle hardened commander.

 

The whole Ramsay deliberately firing on his own troops is pure Hollywood bullshit (up there with people being shot underwater in "Saving Private Ryan" in terms of poetic licence) to show how ruthless he is, & would never happen in the sort of medieval battles GoT tries to mimic.

 

The routine of a medieval battle was for the archers to fire volleys first to try & thin out the enemy (& hopefully cause his poorest troops to panic & flee), & to withdraw them behind the rest of the army once the cavalry charged or once the army came to direct blows with the enemy. Archers were considered highly valuable because of the time required to train good ones, & would not be left open to the risk of cavalry breaking through to slaughter them. They were also a focus of resentment because they were better paid than the infantry & were less likely to have to get their hands dirty directly by hand-to-hand (in that respect The Hound's frequent distain for archers is a pretty accurate portrayal of how they were viewed by those swinging a sword or holding a pike.

 

It's important to remember that the sorts of armies of medieval/feudal times were more a loose ragbag, with discipline always a problem particularly between the different types of soldiers. Those that were having to do their obligatory service to their lord (where how comfortable a time they had was entirely dependent on themselves) would be pissed at the professionals such as the archers or those taken from castle retinues who had better pay & conditions; & in all likelihood having a better chance of survival. The long a campaign went on, the greater the chances of them "kicking off" over some grievance or another: therefore having your archers deliberately firing at their own troops was a non-starter if you didn't want to find a horde of your own troops storming back with the enemy in tow looking to murder your archers where they stood.

 

TL:DR short answer version: my old Uni prof Matthew Strickland (probably Britain's foremost expert on the longbow) said of THAT scene in "Braveheart" that Hollywood has done similar with some Baron Von Baddunvyle type doing so "in order to save troop wages at the battle's end!" & it was hokum - the laws of chivalry (which were taken surprisingly very seriously) as well as that of a lord's duty to his men would have meant any commander making such an order would be lucky to live another hour.

 

So-called "friendly fire" incidents are more the preserve of the gunpowder age & mass armies where troops were that bit more expendible & the bond between the commanders & those they command grew far more impersonal.

[EdgarusQPFC]

Regarding next weeks finale, i can see Ser Davos making a play to kill Melisandre to avenge her part in the burning of Shireen, he seemed to take it badly when he found her Stag carving. I think the finale's big plot twist will involve Cersei making her move to get rid of the High Sparrow for good, Still think she will bring Gendry into the fold if her plans fail

[RandomGuy.]

GENDRY IS NEVER, EVER, APPEARING AGAIN

[Musketeer Gripweed]

Ramsay didn't care about his own dead troops. In fact, they were part of his plans to form the human barrier that trapped Jon's army.

 

Davos will not die soon. He is too wise. He still has a part to play in the big battle still to come.

 

I maintain that Sansa is the character to watch now. She has changed big time. She is probably pregnant as well,

[Stellaboz]

She's not up the duff. Not before I get there...

[Jack Burton]

Ramsay had massive numbers advantage, they couldn't risk killing what men they had even though they'd get some Boltons. It's not hard to grasp.

That's the way I saw it too, Ramsay had double the men and Jon had committed all his force bar the archers.

[jamamafegan]

Bit of GOT/EU banter for today

[Gordon EF]

ah, I see.

 

 

what about, say, if you're beseiging a castle.  Use your warg, get them to warg into the Lord of the castle, who orders the soldeirs to not defend, and indeed, open the gates.

 

Seige over, only takes a little while.

 

Book w****r alert.

 

In the books, the only two wargs powerful enough to warg into humans are Bran and a wildling called Varymyr Sixskins, who died of his wounds after Stannis defeated the wildlings.

 

It's mentioned that warging into something is basically about the strength of will of that being. Humans are obviously much more difficult than animals as they have much higher individuality and willpower to resist the warg. Even the direwolves are only really wargable for the Stark kids because they're so comfortable with them.

 

Bran can warg into Hodor, essentially because Hodor was minimal will power of his own and Bran is the most gifted warg in Westeros. Varymyr couldn't even warg into an old woman to save his life at the end. 

 

It's extremely unlikely that anyone but the most powerful warg would be able to warg into another human and control their actions.

[Wee Bully]

The whole Ramsay deliberately firing on his own troops is pure Hollywood bullshit (up there with people being shot underwater in "Saving Private Ryan" in terms of poetic licence) to show how ruthless he is, & would never happen in the sort of medieval battles GoT tries to mimic.

The routine of a medieval battle was for the archers to fire volleys first to try & thin out the enemy (& hopefully cause his poorest troops to panic & flee), & to withdraw them behind the rest of the army once the cavalry charged or once the army came to direct blows with the enemy. Archers were considered highly valuable because of the time required to train good ones, & would not be left open to the risk of cavalry breaking through to slaughter them. They were also a focus of resentment because they were better paid than the infantry & were less likely to have to get their hands dirty directly by hand-to-hand (in that respect The Hound's frequent distain for archers is a pretty accurate portrayal of how they were viewed by those swinging a sword or holding a pike.

It's important to remember that the sorts of armies of medieval/feudal times were more a loose ragbag, with discipline always a problem particularly between the different types of soldiers. Those that were having to do their obligatory service to their lord (where how comfortable a time they had was entirely dependent on themselves) would be pissed at the professionals such as the archers or those taken from castle retinues who had better pay & conditions; & in all likelihood having a better chance of survival. The long a campaign went on, the greater the chances of them "kicking off" over some grievance or another: therefore having your archers deliberately firing at their own troops was a non-starter if you didn't want to find a horde of your own troops storming back with the enemy in tow looking to murder your archers where they stood.

TL:DR short answer version: my old Uni prof Matthew Strickland (probably Britain's foremost expert on the longbow) said of THAT scene in "Braveheart" that Hollywood has done similar with some Baron Von Baddunvyle type doing so "in order to save troop wages at the battle's end!" & it was hokum - the laws of chivalry (which were taken surprisingly very seriously) as well as that of a lord's duty to his men would have meant any commander making such an order would be lucky to live another hour.

So-called "friendly fire" incidents are more the preserve of the gunpowder age & mass armies where troops were that bit more expendible & the bond between the commanders & those they command grew far more impersonal.

So, in other words, VikingTon is talking pish. Paint me astonished.