Game Of Thrones: The Sopranos with swords or Dynasty in chainmail?
- Thread starter GAMETHEORY
- Start date
^^^^^^^^You keep trying to big up a cowardly forest hunter that threw 11th hour Hail Mary arrow shots who obviously wanted no parts of Jon in a duel. So rising as a leader of different squadrons, having epic battles, and possessing masterful swordsmanship that is well-known (and shown on the battlefield), and rising from the FUCKING dead is not legendary?
Stop the madness.
Non-great warriors don't wind up killing a walker KNIGHT (not to be confused with a white walker) so that example of Sam killing a white walker is not equivalent. You keep bringing up Ned Stark as if they're in the same skill set league, again hilarious
If you think that Little Finger didn't plan his entry, you don't understand how LF operates. Ramsey is not even on the same FUCKING planet as LF, tactician-wise. LF is 30 steps ahead of everybody. So, LF's entry point on the battlefield was luck? Stop itPut it this way, "luck" or "not tactical at all" doesn't enable you to influence most of the kingdoms of Westeros without even sitting on the iron throne. That's LF.
What I was saying is that looking ahead, Jon will be in the Westeros history books (immortalized) as opposed to Ramsey. That simple.
So Jon is not legendary and LF simply got lucky. I need whatever you're smoking lol
Like I thought you still aren't really backing up anything you are saying with examples.for the most part you are giving your opinion and not backing it up with facts/reference.
Sam and Jon are not on the same level, but both won their respective fights because of there weapons not fighting skill.you can't say Jon is a great fighter just because he used a weapon that basically instantly killed his opponent. Jon win and Sam were lucky and had nothing to do with skill.as proven with Sam anyone with a special weapon could have done the samething as Jon.it doesn't matter if Sam didn't kill a knight based on how Jon won the fight with the Knight.
Next I already agreed that little finger is tactical; however, the show has yet to say his arrival on the battlefield was planned (ie to your point his intention was to wait until that moment to join the battle) or if he showed up just in time to help save Jon. Im speaking facts and you're giving your opinion based off what we both know of the character.also I no point did I compare LF to Ramsey, so again I not sure why you are bringing that up
What I'm saying is im not looking ahead but at the events that have happened. I'm not sure why you are even comparing Jon or Ramsey status as great. At no point have I said anything about Ramsey being great or even as skilled as Jon from a fighting stand point.
My argument from the start has always been that the writers/directors should have created a better fight between the two.the way the fight ended made no sense for a tactical person like Ramsey with some fighting ability coward (your opinion) or not. I'm a fan of the story and I'm not attached to any one character. If a scene doesn't seem to fit the story then it hurts the story. In this instance, it's not that big of a deal overall, but the fight seemed rushed.
Ned was brought up because his reputation was enhanced based on a supposed one on one fight with a fighter who was considered very skilled. From this season we learned that Ned didn't win that fight alone. As I recall Ned was considered a great know fighter who defeated (or not) great fighters. My point is that when you look at Jon current stats would he be considered legendary based on myths/hype like Ned or real one on one fights with the best. So far, your best warrior was a walker knight and if we look at the facts Jon doesn't get points for that.I'd even give him points as a military leader,but that has nothing to do with his one on one fights.Jon coming back from the dead has nothing to do with his one on one fights.Jon having the respect of his peers and turning enemies to allies has nothing to with one one fights or more importantly my opinion that the fight seenight between Ramsey and Jon could have been better.
I don't care about continuing the discussion , but like I said before it's pointless if you aren't going to attempt to back up your opinion with facts based on the story as of today and not use board statements. I have no issue with being proven wrong, but you haven't done that.
Last edited:
The Bolton banners were replaced with Stark banners. House Bolton is as dead as Lord Bolton and Ramsey. Same for the Karstarks and Umbers. Little Finger will be the Lord of the North either though marriage to Sansa and/or direct influence
Lord Baelish (Little Finger) is Lord of Harrenhal (includes House Tully), influences the Lord of the Vale (Robin), and now is about to have control over the North as well. All part of his end game.
Obviously a good tactician is not synonymous with great warrior. The two attributes are not one in the same. Ramsey was the medieval Joker and Jon is the warrior Batman but once the mind games are over, there was no contest in that physical duel. Physically speaking, Jon has defeated much more powerful foes than fuckin forest hunter Ramsey
You merely WANTED the fight between Jon and Ramsey to be "better" even though it made sense that a tactician would attempt to take the easier/less risk approach by cowardly shooting arrows at an opponent after accepting a duel. That was a bitch move and not how a brave warrior rolls.
So LF arrived on the battlefield at that moment on pure luck and with no planning? I can't breathe
One thing I think we're missing on LF and his motivation... I think he knows cersei is done and wont survive (with any type of power or authority) her battle/face off with Bernie sparrow.
Think about it he already encountered the faith militants and got feedback from both Cercei and the Queen of thorns. He knows fighting religious zealots is a losing battle unless you have a force big enough to wipe them off the map.
^^^^LF's ultimate goal influencing all the kingdoms without even sitting on the iron throne. He has 3 or 4 major areas he controls thanks to his tactical game creating chaos only to rise above it. Like when the Knights of the Vale crushed the last tatical move (i.e. the circle) on the battlefield. Obviously, not a result of "luck" or "not planned at all" lol
This conversation in the throne room between Varys and LF (only one known to out GAME Varys) outlines LF's overall motivation
This conversation in the throne room between Varys and LF (only one known to out GAME Varys) outlines LF's overall motivation
Last edited:
Obviously a good tactician is not synonymous with great warrior. The two attributes are not one in the same. Ramsey was the medieval Joker and Jon is the warrior Batman but once the mind games are over, there was no contest in that physical duel. Physically speaking, Jon has defeated much more powerful foes than fuckin forest hunter Ramsey
You merely WANTED the fight between Jon and Ramsey to be "better" even though it made sense that a tactician would attempt to take the easier/less risk approach by cowardly shooting arrows at an opponent after accepting a duel. That was a bitch move and not how a brave warrior rolls.
So LF arrived on the battlefield at that moment on pure luck and with no planning? I can't breathe
As a tactician you would switch tactics period once you realize the enemy is within a range that puts your current weapon/plan in danger. Second even the title of the episode eludes to the duality of the two characters.Both being Bastards from houses of note, but clearly different men. Ramsey wanted what Jon had while Jon clearly wanted revenge for the death of his brother and the rape (possible getting her pregnant) of his sister. This is a clear light (other character factors/traits included) vs dark play and the writers made that fight anticlimactic. Am I saying Ramsey should have won. No, clearly Ramsey's weapon of choice/expertise is a bow as depicted in the show, but he can use blades.once Jon evaded the arrows, Ramsey could have been at a disadvantage. even if you believe Ramsey is the worst swordsmen ever, are you really saying it makes sense that a tactician or anyone with battle experience wouldn't change to a close range fighting tactic to save his life.the finally fight between the two should have been better.
Clearly LF showing up on the battlefield was planned as it was discussed and eluded to in past episodes and we can reason like any one who enters a battle there there may have been some type of plan once they arrived. To your point, in future episodes LF could state that was his intention to show up at the precise moment, but we don't know that yet. We can't even say LF tactical skills in the court would translate to him being a capable military tactician. Of course that ability could have been discussed/shown before and I just don't recall. If you do recall that event, enlighten me and support it with facts.
In any case I brought up LF because you indirectly gave Jon the win and thought it helped to make him legendary. For me it's just another example of the myth/legend of the battle not exactly matching up with the true historical events of the day and adding to the myth of Jon Snow the immortal warrior.the truth is Jon would have died without aid and although he may technically get the credit for winning the battle, it wasn't his plan that won the day.from a military leader role he lost the battle.in fact his actions lead to the death of many of his men because he deviated from his own plan.had Jon been aware of LF coming to support, I'd give Jon the win, but that was not the case.
Yea, Battle of the Bastards was "anticlimactic" yet it was the most discussed highest rated episodes of GOT
Swordsman have something called swords. Ramsey has a steak knife or two. It's not that Ramsey is the "worst swordsman". He's not a swordsman period. As an archer / forest hunter, the weapon of choice and 1st instinct is to shoot arrows (not so much reach for the lil steak knives lol) at a great warrior opponent from a safe distance during a duel. No fault with Ramsey's character for doing what he knows. I never disputed that LF won that battle. Jon was running on pure adrenaline with a plan-be-damned approach. However, it was never a contest in a duel against Ramsey when Jon has already defeated much more bad ass opponents (Walker Knight, Styr, Clubfoot Karl, Quorin) in one on one battles. Speaking of Karl, he had twin daggers and was NICE with it, unlike Ramsey. Ramsey admits: "The way people talk about you in the North, you're the greatest swordsman that ever walked. Maybe you are that good, maybe not".
Jon already had legendary status (with the numerous other feats previously listed) prior to the BOTB. Fortunately for Jon, ousting House Bolton was already part of LF's plan (seasons ago) for control of the North. LF was either going to militarily back Stannis or Jon's Wildling/House Mormont forces. Doing so at the tail end of a battle is nothing short of LF's modus operandi. Sansa prob learned from LF to not show all her cards at once but it was surprising that she didn't even tell Jon about the Vale backup. I get that there's admiration for Ramsey's strategic checker moves on a battlefield but LF is playing advanced chess overtaking entire regions of Westeros.
Last edited:
^^^^^^ Does this look a regular consensual wedding night?
Was it rape? No. But when the guy you grew up with whose penis was chopped off by your husband is told to supervise your marriage, it's definitely something wrong with that.
Medieval times. Woman must fuck. And she is a virgin. So it fucked her roughly like the asshole that he is. She knew she had to have sex and her husband unfortunately was crazy. Being loved tenderly was not in the books. See Daenarys for the same thing with Khal Drogo.
Oh I'm not saying that it wasn't fucked up but I can't ever call it rape the first time.
Yea, Battle of the Bastards was "anticlimactic" yet it was the most discussed highest rated episodes of GOT
Swordsman have something called swords. Ramsey has a steak knife or two. It's not that Ramsey is the "worst swordsman". He's not a swordsman period. As an archer (or forest hunter), the weapon of choice and 1st instinct is to shoot arrows (not so much reach for the lil steak knives lol) at a great warrior opponent from a safe distance during a duel. No fault Ramsey's character for doing what he knows. I never disputed that LF won that battle. Jon was running on pure adrenaline with a the plan be damned. However, it was never a contest in a duel against Ramsey when Jon has already defeated much more bad ass opponents (Walker Knight, Styr, Clubfoot Karl, Quorin) in one on one battles. Speaking of Karl, he had twin daggers and was NICE with it, unlike Ramsey.
Jon already had legendary status (with the numerous other feats previously listed) prior to the BOTB. Fortunately for Jon, ousting House Bolton was already part of LF's plan (seasons ago) for control of the North. LF was either going to militarily back Stannis or Jon's Wildling/House Mormont forces. Doing so at the tail end of a battle is nothing short of LF's modus operandi. Sansa prob learned from LF to not show all her cards at once but it was surprising that she didn't even tell Jon about the Vale backup. I get that there's admiration for Ramsey's strategic checker moves on a battlefield but LF is playing advanced chess overtaking entire regions of Westeros.
I wasn't speaking on the episode as a whole but the final fight between Ramsey and Jon.even if I were talking about the episode, what does high ratings have to do with my opinion. High ratings or sales of any product doesn't mean it was either great or without flaws.
Quorin let Jon win.
Jon defeated Karl with help and killed him while his back was turned. I could careless,but you don't seem to respect cowardly behavior.
I've already picked apart the W.Knight.
That only leaves you with Styr and Jon again wins but I wouldn't say that was based on his skills especially as a swordsman.he was initially losing the fight before killing him with the hammer.
I recall episodes where Ramsey carried a sword.you can questions his skill all you want but to speak as if he never used a sword/ blade and had no ability is over the top.
I don't disagree with what you are saying in general. I still say we don't know if LF plan was to appear at that moment of the battle.planning to lead a military campaign or being a tactician at court isn't the same as performing military tactics. Using your own logic it's similar to your statements about Ramsey while being a tactician you don't believe he can use those skills effectively in a fight as a warrior.if in tomorrow episode or future episodes it is stated your assumption is correct, you would have proven me wrong.however, at this point we simply don't know that for a fact that LF waited for the perfect opportunity to strike at that moment of the battle.
That's a great point. One brother who got a melted crown stuffed on his head warns that he would gladly watch thousand of men rape his sister, after feeling her tits out, versus a guy who was raised like a brother who got his nuts chopped off.
The Jon vs Ramsey debate continues... I don't see Ramsey as a fighter, he's a psychopath who always beats people psychologically with hounds, misdirection and mind games. Jon is a warrior for better or worse, he takes on any challenge head on. Jon > Ramsey
The romantic notion of love and marriage is very new in our times. Less than 100 years old. Women in the early 1900s weren't married for love ...it was usually for resources
The romantic notion of love and marriage is very new in our times. Less than 100 years old. Women in the early 1900s weren't married for love ...it was usually for resources
And they didn't like their kids either.
That battle scene was EPIC, the cinematography alone was better than most ground level large battle scenes, definitely not so-so. Those high ratings were justified. Its why GOT shits on most other shows.
Regarding Quorin, no such thing as "let" in a dual to the death. Jon had already disarmed him and was the better swordsman. Jon DEFEATED more bad ass adversaries with his swordsmanship and quick reflexes / thinking. Cop all the pleas you want but killing a Walker Knight in a duel is legendary status. Jon was shown to be quicker with his swordsmanship against a larger stronger more menacing opponents. He dodges and blocks a lot of strikes as well. That's what great warriors do. With Karl, you're confusing a duel to the death with an honorable fight. Did Karl fight with "honor" when he spit in Jon's eyes ? lol That honor bullshit goes out the window in a real death duel. That particular battle taught Jon that. The "help" was merely a momentary annoying distraction for Karl. The masterful sword strike through the back of his head was a thing of beauty. With Styr, he defeated him even after being disarmed. Again, the illustration of a great warrior. Jon's masterful swordsmanship has only gotten better especially after he was reborn. Straight BEASTING on the battlefield.
Again, a real swordsman always has and draws his sword in battle. Carrying a sheathed dagger (or steak knife) on occasion versus drawing a sword in battle are two different things. A dagger is not the same as a sword. Ramsey was NOT a swordsman.
Besides stabbing a couple people unexpectedly and a brief skirmish with a small band of Greyjoys, what great one on one duels has Ramsey had? {{crickets}}
LF is among (LF, Tyrion, Varys are BEASTS in terms of strategy) the greatest tactical minds in Westeros, does that make him a great warrior too, on the level of Jon? lol Also, LF doesn't enter battles haymaker style hoping for the best. He always has a plan B, C, D, E, and so on.
Exactly why I called Ramsay the medieval Joker in a previous post. The words warrior or swordsman doesn't come to mind when Ramsay's name is mentioned.
Last edited:
I thought I was being very clear about my issue. It was the fight itself between Jon and Ramsey.nothing else you are saying makes any sense based on what Im discussing.
Unless I'm confusing characters Quorin planned to die in the fight, so it doesn't count as a win for Jon.the whole point of the fight as planned by Quorin was for Jon to be seen as leaving the Watch and joining the Wildlings.Quorin wanted him to become a spy.
As far Jon's action with Karl, you set that standard by calling Ramsey acts cowardly during a death match. You can't just change your own thought process to attempt to win a debate. As I've said I'm not judging Jon's behavior but based on our discussion you should be. Jon won with help and without that help more than likely would have died.
I'm not going to talk about the W. Knight. I've already proven my point and it doesn't matter if you agree or not.
Styr lost was nothing more than luck on Jon's part.Jon was on rag doll status for most of the fight and defending.he wins the fight as a brawler but not as the great swordsman/warrior you having been making him out to be.
Ramsey doesn't need to be a masterswordsman. He needed to at the very least draw the sword or dagger. Through out our back and fourth I've made that clear as well. The fight between the two was flawed because no one would use just a bow in a close quarters fight.it not a question of who should have won or who is skilled, legendary, tactical etc.. but my belief that a real fight would never end in that manner.I have a hard time believing Jon could block a supposed marksman at that range, but it not impossible.I also brought up the duality of the two men as another reason the fight between them should have been longer/better.
Of course Little Finger isn't a warrior and that's my point.from a military command stand point we don't know if his tactical skills from the court would transfer to knowing how to direct troops in a battle.having an army doesn't mean you know how to formulate military strategies.now I have yet to completely wave off the possibility that he can do that it just hasn't been said or directly shown. In the scene his troops just show up and I don't recall hearing any commands communicated before or during the fight. You are right LF doesn't enter battles haymaker style because as as far as I can recall that was his first time on a battlefield and having command.
In past seasons both Varys and Tyrion had issues defending cities while either advising or being on site of military battles and with command, yet you are without doubt saying LF would not have issues and his arrival was planned at that moment. You yourself just said that Varys and Tyrion are among the greatest strategist in the story yet in that very episode they almost lost the city before Danny's arrival. The samething pretty much happened in Kings Landing except Tywin came to help.this pretty much fucks your argument about LF unless it is said that his timing on the field was done purposely in following episodes.
Last edited:
I'm mother fucking dying man, dammit why did you have to post that ah ha ha! Leroy Jenkins!
Jon will become King if the North. Little has no rights to the North.
No matter when it happens. It's rape. No matter who does it. It's rape.
you are sick.
He does if he marries Sansa. By definition, being a bastard means that Jon has no legitimate rights as a Stark.
As a "bosstard", Jon has no rights to the throne even though his true lineage is suspected of being Targarean/Stark. LF was promised the North if he ousts the Boltons but with the Lannisters no longer having any real pull at Kings's Landing, it will be interesting how this plays out.
Last edited:
It's not 2016 in the story. You have to have sex with a witness. That's how it works. They both knew what their duty was. Daenarys was able to flip it around to make her husband love her though. Not possible with Ramsay. After the first time yes 100% rape.
They will make him a legitimate heir because he is the last known surviving male member of the Stark family. A bastard has more rights than Sansa. He did also defeat the hated Boltons.
^^^^^Its anybody's guess how this will play out and I have a feeling something major is planned for the Lannister army / House Frey
{crickets}
{crickets}
Last edited:
Who is "they"? Doesn't that decree have to come from the bastard's father or from a king himself? Ned Stark is dead and Littlefinger and Cersei have been plotting this since last season:
Last edited:
The remaining noble houses of the North will legitimize Jon. They hold no love for the Lannisters and they need a leader. They'll say fuck it to old customs. Who else do you propose as leader of the North and why?
Should it be Jon? Yes! But, Littlefinger is in a far better position to claim the lordship of Winterfell because 1) he has the might - he has the Knights of the Vale with him and basically controls the young Lord of the Vale; 2) he has the official political position, since he has already cut a side deal with Cersei, who still has some influence with King Tommen, who can issue an official decree; and 3) Sansa owes him big-time for bringing the Vale knights, so if she agrees to marry him, then he has a legitimate Stark in his family.
Similar threads
