Timeline for Why was wildfire not used during the Battle of Winterfell?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 4, 2020 at 15:16 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| May 9, 2019 at 14:16 | history | edited | kuhl | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
"i" before "e" except after "c" and in "Cersei"
|
| May 9, 2019 at 12:29 | comment | added | Charles | @KamiKaze Well, your edit was pretty significant.. changing from wildfire being like napalm to that of nitro(glycerin). And the encounter with Stannis' ships utilized an ungodly amount of wildfire on the rogue ship that nested itself between all of Stannis' fleet, thus giving the misconception that wildfire of near any quantity is equally explosive to such a magnitude. The same goes for Cersei blowing up the Great Sept of Baelor... she had a couple hundred barrels down there. There's no way the North could make that much, and even then that would only take out a good 10-15K wights at best. | |
| May 9, 2019 at 12:13 | comment | added | Kami Kaze | I'm sorry I needed to make some corrections (edits only have a 5min timeframe so it was not done after your writing, but while you answered). The general message is points 2, 3 and 4 are for one reason or another not releavant or illogical (4). I do not want to discuss this to death now. So take from it what you will. And there only to witnissable characterizations of wild fire Stannis and the sept. And both were really effective, I do not understand why people inaccuratly characterize it from that as it is the only characterization of it. | |
| May 9, 2019 at 11:29 | comment | added | Charles | @KamiKaze Napalm and wildfire are not even close to the same. Napalm is extremely stable and can withstand relatively high temperatures. Additionally, the uses of napalm in modern war history and its what would be use in GoT aren't even comparable. Standard fire would be just as good against wights as wildfire... all wights have heavy clothing and are easily flammable, they move in crowds and they're already susceptible to flame. Wildfire would simply be overkill. (Side note: I think people inaccurately characterize wildfire in other scenarios due to its behavior against Stannis' naval fleet). | |
| May 9, 2019 at 11:23 | comment | added | Kami Kaze | Wildfire is not fire, it seems more like nitro with the effect that it also has fire when ignited. The cumbustibility would be more effective then just hurling big burning objects into the ranks (if possible). The time and resources are not relevant as it was just not possible to begin with. And if it would have been possible a single cask (if hurlable or maybe made as a trap before the formation) might increase the damage done to the enemy. There would be no reason not to do it expect they couldn't. Plus we do not know how long they had to prepate in total. Just because it is not shown. | |
| May 9, 2019 at 11:20 | comment | added | Ivana | #3 Yep: you bury a few barrels of it in the shallow snow, at a wide distance from your castle. Then when the enemy army is on top of it you set it ablaze with a flaming arrow from the castle walls. Bob's yer uncle. | |
| May 9, 2019 at 11:02 | comment | added | Charles | @KamiKaze 3. As for the use of catapults, the wildfire is simply too combustible to use with that kind of technology. The initial thrust when releasing the catapult is too great and the wildfire would explode before it even left the chute. In the end, it's better to have a single strategy that's most easily coordinated than it is to spread out your resources on three and four different ploys and hoping collectively they'll work. For thousands of years and proven by the First Men themselves, dragon glass has been the #1 weapon against the white walkers. Best to just go with that and dragons. | |
| May 9, 2019 at 10:56 | comment | added | Charles | @KamiKaze To provide a rebuttal -- 2 and 4: The differences between fire and wildfire are somewhat negligible when considering their effectiveness against wights. The North could have easily dropped oil on the wights and then torch them with regular fire and that would for all intents and purposes be just as good. The problem with that approach though is that the North had a very limited amount of time and resources to produce the best weapons they could that they knew would be most effective over the course of an entire battle consisting over 200,000+ bodies. | |
| May 9, 2019 at 6:56 | comment | added | Kami Kaze | Point 2,3 and 4 are not really justified.2 and 4: It would not hurt to have another weapon against the wights, you do now have to set everything on one weapon. And fire is still the most effective against them. 3 the North does not fight more in close quarters than others. Catapults were used and they probably would have been more effective with wildfire. So wildfire would probably have been a great addition in the fight even making a crucial difference because of its Area of effect. But it was not available and thats it. | |
| May 9, 2019 at 5:31 | history | edited | Charles | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| May 8, 2019 at 22:34 | history | edited | Charles | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| May 8, 2019 at 22:20 | history | answered | Charles | CC BY-SA 4.0 |