Every time a well-liked character is killed, GRRM masturbates like a bonobo.
You know, what with the HBO site, and the DVD extras, little background details like this could well have used someone in the show (not book) sources. There’s a LOT of background info on those.
Yes. But that is a request by the OP. A reasonable request, one we should try to honor, certainly. But it’s no longer a board rule. The board *rule *is “no spoilers”.
In any case, what with HBO site, and the DVD extras, little background details like this could well have used somewhere in the show (not book) sources.
Can we please discuss the show itself instead overthinking and arguing whether or not some minor background detail is HBO or book?
For that to happen, it has to become common knowledge that he did it. Winners write the history books and lots of things are swept under the rug as propaganda. Real world,Stannis burnt Shireen to a crisp, no denying that. Real politic however, she died of an illness contracted shortly after her birth, due to supernatural critters roaming the land, during the great northern war, her body had to be burnt to deny it to the enemy. .
Declan
It does not really matter what they do south of the wall, but north of the wall they are fodder for the walker army. After seeing what happened at hardhome, I think they know which side they are on.
Join the army and see the world, join the undead and see the next (orc’s reference)
Declan
My claim had nothing to do with mercenaries rendering judgment on the moral character of their employer. It had to do with the probable reaction of anyone in a society in which human sacrifice is not established, to a father burning his child alive.
Seriously, you think that the guys in today’s Academi (formerly Blackwater) would be indifferent to their commander burning his child alive, just because they want their paycheck? You don’t think that they’d have any reaction to their commander burning his child alive? They’d be basically ‘fine’ as long as they got that paycheck?
Really?
I made no claims about Stannis’ feelings, about his soldiers’ opinions or about anything else.
The guards, according to the dialogue, must either have fallen asleep or been corrupted. Most of the soldiers would probably conclude that those guards deserved what they got.
What leads you to believe the soldiers would conclude that Shireen deserved what she got?
I’m saying that these things—hanging the derelict soldiers versus burning a little kid alive—are not comparable, and would not be considered to be comparable by the soldiers.
If the showrunners wanted to keep us from this inevitable conclusion (namely, that Stannis would not exactly win hearts and minds in Westeros by the act of burning his kid alive), then they needed to establish that people in Westeros are basically indifferent to the act of burning your kid to death. And they have not even begun to establish that.
Yes, indeed.
I have no idea why you are so patronizingly committed to a position that is so poorly supported and flat out wrong.
(1) We haven’t yet seen Stannis’s soldiers’ reactions to what he did. Maybe next episode will all be about how Stannis is losing control of his army because of how horrified they all are by his actions. I doubt it, because that would be idiotic. But you’re attacking the show for something that hasn’t happened yet.
(2) You’re totally ignoring how desperate the army’s situation was. They were already stuck in a blizzard and running out of supplies… and then all their supplies got burned. They were DEAD. All of them were going to die shortly, and they all knew it. How are they possibly going to care about what Stannis did? Maybe it will save them, and if so, having their asses miraculously saved will certainly give them a reason to forgive Stannis. And maybe they won’t, in which case they will be dead, so it certainly won’t be a plot hole if they die angry.
(3) It’s also unclear how people are going to find out. Not like someone can post about it on twitter. If in fact Stannis’s actions would be so shocking that they would make his army desert him, all he has to do is get 100 or so troops who are actually true believers in Melisandre and her God (who presumably exist) and have them be the ones who actually watch the burning, and tell them to keep it a secret. There’s no reason that all 30,000 men in his army need to find out. And that’s even more true for various people across the land. So maybe a year from now he’s trying to win the loyalty of some random minor lord. And maybe that minor lord has heard a rumor that Stannis might have burned his daughter alive a year ago during the war that is now complete. Well, why would he believe those rumors?
(4) And even ignoring all that, there’s plenty of reason to believe that people will be willing to follow kings who do terrible things. The mad king was EVENTUALLY overthrown, but Ned’s father and brother were hardly the first people he burned alive. And Joffrey was vastly worse than Stannis ever could be and we never saw a case of anyone saying “well, I believe that Joffrey is the rightful king… but I’ve heard that he likes to torture prostitutes, so I’m not going to recognize him”.
Oh, and sacrificing his daughter is clearly a personal sacrifice. It’s just bizarre to think otherwise.
You know, between the soldiers stationed at Harrenhal, the ones following the Boltons, and the ones who had little issue with the burning of heretics, I think the show has pretty solidly established that most soldiers in Westeros are willing to put up with psychopathic, atrocity inflicting leaders. I mean seriously people, the Boltons have a loyal (as far as we know) army, and their whole shtick is flaying people alive and then displaying the corpses for everyone to see. I think it’s safe to say their are plenty of soldiers around who wouldn’t put up too much of a fuss over burning one girl.
Really, hanging the sentries is probably a bigger red flag for the troops.
Even that is pretty par for the course in Westeros. They had a job to do (protect the camp while most of them slept). They failed at it. People died as a result. Valuable provisions (horses etc.) were lost as well. I think any decent soldier would be aghast if those guys weren’t hanged or at least punished very severely in some other way. That would make them lose respect for Stannis, not this rubbish about burning a girl.
The guy arguing that whole fallacy is really committed to the modern view of such an act. If a military commander did that on modern day Earth, in America or another part of the First World particularly, people would be pretty damn outraged about it. But the mercs in the freezing tundra north of the Wall in the magical kingdom of Westeros have a drastically different worldview than any of us. We don’t need to establish their specific view on human sacrifice when we can simply look at the myriad other atrocities that take place on a regular basis and get shrugged off to get a sense of that.
If you haven’t noticed Sherrerd, the women’s rights movement hasn’t made its way to the Seven Kingdoms yet. As it is females are barely seen as human - they are breeding vessels and little else. While the show has quite a few strong female characters like Brienne, Arya, Asha Greyjoy, Cersei and of course Dany, all of them are constantly mocked and belittled and only get taken seriously begrudgingly once they’ve made it a point to prove themselves. If Stannis had a son and he sacrificed him, I think there would have been a significantly different reaction, as he’d be killing a proper heir to the throne. But a little girl? They just don’t care. You can’t impose your modern judgment on that and expect that the characters would see it the same way.
Fwiw, I think the crazy red-haired witch is in the process of undermining Stannis. That scene where she tried to bang Jon Snow (that he resisted is still the most unbelievable thing in 5 seasons!) suggested to me she’s seen the future and Stannis is doomed. She got to Stannsi’s wife first (about the child) and then they together approached Stannis.
Stannis is obv. lost; he can’t go forward and he can’t go back - what he did was the irrational act of a leader seeing everything slipping away from him. He was trying to buy a little time before the rest of his soldiers deserted.
I think royal blood was mentioned, is so you are correct. But you didn’t have to be correct, plenty of cultures sacrificed children for particular reasons, and there are no other children in this camp.
You don’t need to be so dismissive.
I disagree with your view of human nature. My take is that soldiers are much more likely to desert because they aren’t paid, or because they fear they’re being led to certain defeat and death than because their leader did something they find horrible. And doubly so if they’re told this horrible action is going to save them.
They might be horrified by the burning of a kid (and even then, given what we’ve seen of the behaviour of soldiers in the series, this is far from certain. Look also, for a real life example at the rampaging mercenary bands during the one hundred year war, like the infamous “skinners”), but if their leader is successful and pay/reward them well, I don’t think their disagreement will raise above the level of discussions around the fire camp.
People have been convinced many, many, times to commit themselves awful crimes in war time, even within living memory, even now. Why do you think that one horrible action by their leader will make them all abandon him? (and it’s not like they don’t know Stannis has a tendancy to burn people alive already.
I would find perfectly realistic that they would keep following him, and if anything more unrealistic if they decided not to (assuming the sacrifice brings the expected result and Stannis is victorious). As I wrote at the beginning, I think you have a too optimistic view of human nature.
It seems to me that Tywin ordered some similarly harsh treatment for his soldiers following the murders in his camp commited by Jaquen.
Agreed. The US military had no problem in the last decade locking up and possibly torturing juveniles and that did not leas to mass resignations amongst the rank and file. (As a recent example)
Missed this; in the House of Black and White there’s the burning heart that is the sigil of the Lord of Light (along with a weirwood face, The Stranger and other Essos gods), presumably they believe that the Red God is just one face of the Many-Faced God.
Dunno why people are expecting the forces of Stannis “Things look dire? Throw Shireen on a pyre!” Baratheon to revolt at the idea of sacrifices, they’ve already been shown to be well on board with all this Lord of Light stuff since they torched the icons of the Seven, and even then the only one who objected was that old priest guy (and look what his objections got him).
well, you know, it is/was his loving, kind, devoted daughter.
Yes. An exchange in episode 5.03, “High Sparrow”:
You lost me here. These soldiers are mercenaries, for the most part, so presumably most of them are combat veterans. Combat in Westeros consists of people hacking one another apart with swords, spears and knives. It’s butchery, in essence, literal butchery. I believe after you’ve been in a battle or two and seen many people, including friends of yours, hacked apart in gory ways, you get hardened fast. Perhaps not sadists, but a lot more indifferent to human suffering than someone who has not.
Doran is getting his heir a seat on the small council, currently only Lannisters and Tyrells are on the small council so this is great for Dorne in that they now have a seat at the table of power and if anything happen to Tommen the oldest of Robert’s kids is there and married to the heir of Dorne.
Yeah, we have no indication that Doran has any grand schemes. It seems like he knows Dorne isn’t in the running for any major power plays, so he’s content to nurture the alliance with the Lannisters and accept any seat at the table.
Though really, it feels like this season spent at least twice as long on the Dorne plot than was justified.