Jump to content

One of the greatest unsung military feats in ASoIaF...


Eucratides_Megas

Recommended Posts

Is undoubtedly Stannis's journey to the wall. Nevermind crushing Mance Rayder's host, which was already a great victory in its own right, but just GETTING to the wall was brilliant.



To set the stage, Stannis had at this point in the story approximately 2,000 men left at this point after being defeated by the Lannister/Tyrell host at the Blackwater. Those 2,000 men were unevenly spread out between Dragonstone and Storm's End.



Most of his fleet was destroyed or disabled by Tyrion's chain and wildfire strategy.



The men themselves must have been radically demoralized. His lords are all counseling either surrender or petty acts of terror against lords who swear to Joffrey.



Then Davos shows him the Night's Watch letter and reminds him of his duty.




So....



Stannis takes his already much diminished army and garrisons both Storm's End and Dragonstone, sets sail with a fleet composed of whats left of his Royal Navy and the sellsails under Salladhor Saan, sails thousands of miles up some of the most dangerous sailing waters in the world.



He reaches Eastwatch-by-the-Sea, manages to disembark his army still completely intact, then marches overland hundreds of miles through Wildling territory escorted by only a handful of Eastwatch rangers, happens upon Mance Rayder's far larger host and routs them, delivering one of his most impressive victories in an impressive career.



The reason it impresses me is the logistics behind it. Moving armies is one of the hardest things in warfare. It takes planning, coordination, dealing with conflicting personalities and command structures, feeding your troops, clothing them, caring for their wounds...and to do it across great distances of both land & sea is just crazy.



The closest real life comparison I can come up with is Patton completely disengaging the Third Army in World War 2 to come to the aid of the Allies during the Battle of the Bulge, driving his huge army through some horrific winter snows.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patton is meh.

On the scale of historical brilliance in history, he's not even on the radar. Being (arguably) the best American land force commander of a certain era imbues him with a great deal of legend, but his actual actions don't support it.

America hasn't really had any amazing military generals, at least on land. I'd say Sherman was exceptional, and I think MacArthur had some brilliance covered in a lot of crap. Eisenhower was a fantastic administrative commander. And there have been some good naval commanders.

But generally speaking, America has won when it has had the superior engine/numbers/technology...though there are a number of losses even with these advantages...and lost when it has not. Almost any story which has America outgunned or disadvantaged is a tale of 'heroic' loss. The Alamo. Pearl Harbour. Manilla. Custer.

Where are the Plateas, the Austerlitzes, the Guagamelas? The Watling Streets, Cannaes or Agincourts? Generally speaking, painting by the numbers when you have the advantage of them is considered wise, but it doesn't afford any opportunity to show actual genius.

By a million miles, the best military commanders from WWII were German...or in terms of formulation, British and German (specifically Fuller et al re; Blitzekrieg). No one is even close, really...Zhukov gets a lot of credit, but IMO he was pretty much doing a U.S. Grant...throwing overwhelming numbers at an enemy and winning out on attrition, which is about as indicative of military brilliance as civil war amputations were indicative of medical brilliance. Again, the U.S. won battles when they had overwhelming numbers and machines, and lost when they did not. The Bulge comes closest, and that's not so much a win as just hold g out until air superiority again gave them overwhelming advantage. Which the U.S. is usually able to eventually garner, in part because it's industrial bases are never under threat.

That's a credit to the industrial machine and geographic location, but it doesn't speak to highly of the generalship.

Anyways, I think Stannis is also overrated, but not as much. If you want RL parallels of the kind of manoeuvre you're referencing, I'd start with Hannibal/Alps, C. Nero Metaurus, Napoleon's Ulm campaign, Harold at both Stanford Bridge and Hastings, Nobunaga in the Okehazama campaign, Marius at Vercellae, etc.

/rant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patton is meh.

On the scale of historical brilliance in history, he's not even on the radar. Being (arguably) the best American land force commander of a certain era imbues him with a great deal of legend, but his actual actions don't support it.

America hasn't really had any amazing military generals, at least on land. I'd say Sherman was exceptional, and I think MacArthur had some brilliance covered in a lot of crap. Eisenhower was a fantastic administrative commander. And there have been some good naval commanders.

But generally speaking, America has won when it has had the superior engine/numbers/technology...though there are a number of losses even with these advantages...and lost when it has not. Almost any story which has America outgunned or disadvantaged is a tale of 'heroic' loss. The Alamo. Pearl Harbour. Manilla. Custer.

Where are the Plateas, the Austerlitzes, the Guagamelas? The Watling Streets, Cannaes or Agincourts? Generally speaking, painting by the numbers when you have the advantage of them is considered wise, but it doesn't afford any opportunity to show actual genius.

By a million miles, the best military commanders from WWII were German...or in terms of formulation, British and German (specifically Fuller et al re; Blitzekrieg). No one is even close, really...Zhukov gets a lot of credit, but IMO he was pretty much doing a U.S. Grant...throwing overwhelming numbers at an enemy and winning out on attrition, which is about as indicative of military brilliance as civil war amputations were indicative of medical brilliance. Again, the U.S. won battles when they had overwhelming numbers and machines, and lost when they did not. The Bulge comes closest, and that's not so much a win as just hold g out until air superiority again gave them overwhelming advantage. Which the U.S. is usually able to eventually garner, in part because it's industrial bases are never under threat.

That's a credit to the industrial machine and geographic location, but it doesn't speak to highly of the generalship.

Anyways, I think Stannis is also overrated, but not as much. If you want RL parallels of the kind of manoeuvre you're referencing, I'd start with Hannibal/Alps, C. Nero Metaurus, Napoleon's Ulm campaign, Harold at both Stanford Bridge and Hastings, Nobunaga in the Okehazama campaign, Marius at Vercellae, etc.

/rant

Nice to come onto a forum about a fantasy and see someone hate on my country, thanks for that. Btw, if you care about the actual history, how about u google the times we spanked the british with far inferior numbers and equipment(New Orleans is literally the most lopsided victory I have ever heard of), or the Japanese, Guatalcanal was no defeat, nor was midway and btw Mcarthur was shit compared to Patton, Mcarthur invaded a huge island chain for no reason at all, and said China was no threat in Korea the morning before his forces were attacked and forced to retreat a hundred miles, Patton got the job done and he did it quick.

Your overall statement of the brilliance of german commanders is accurate, I'd never argue against that, but your statements about America are completely biased and actually down right incorrect. If I knew what country you were from I'd invite you to point out its brilliant military record, if its Spain I think you forgot a certain war.

To the op, I think your right, logistics is a huge component in warfare, and we have really only seen that demonstrated with food.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice to come onto a forum about a fantasy and see someone hate on my country, thanks for that. Btw, if you care about the actual history, how about u google the times we spanked the british with far inferior numbers and equipment(New Orleans is literally the most lopsided victory I have ever heard of), or the Japanese, Guatalcanal was no defeat, nor was midway and btw Mcarthur was shit compared to Patton, Mcarthur invaded a huge island chain for no reason at all, and said China was no threat in Korea the morning before his forces were attacked and forced to retreat a hundred miles, Patton got the job done and he did it quick.

Your overall statement of the brilliance of german commanders is accurate, I'd never argue against that, but your statements about America are completely biased and actually down right incorrect. If I knew what country you were from I'd invite you to point out its brilliant military record, if its Spain I think you forgot a certain war.

To the op, I think your right, logistics is a huge component in warfare, and we have really only seen that demonstrated with food.

Lol.

Discrediting military brilliance is hating on a country...how?

Anyways, I kinda care about history a bit, what with it being my field and all, but I always welcome input. I'm Canadian, which means zero great generals, though an even better military record (yay 1812!) but as you might be able to tell, that speaks exactly zero with regards to my value judgment on a country itself. Germany in WWII were reprehensible but had the best generals. So, is that me hating, overrating, or what?

Or is it that an evaluation of the generalship a country demonstrates is completely divorced from a value judgment of the country itself? War is not a sport, 'hating' is not indicative of fandom. Most of the great generals in history were terrible human beings, IMO. Gandhi was probably a terrible general. I'd mention how predictable I find your assumption of correlation, but then we'd be back to me hating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and Lee? Do you know him?

As in General Lee? Overrated, IMO. Sherman was the best general of the Civil War. Lee certainly had talent, and in some ways presaged the defensive works that would later become the norm for mechanized warfare, but his weaknesses really go unmentioned. He's one of the better American generals, sure. I don't differ too much from Foote's assessment. Lee is more interesting to me as a person than general. I'd say solid, didn't live up to his reputation (either from the time or posterity) but generally comported himself well and made the most out of the West Point advantage, with the exception of his on-off usage of Stewart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyways, I kinda care about history a bit, what with it being my field and all, but I always welcome input. I'm Canadian, which means zero great generals, though an even better military record (yay 1812!) but as you might be able to tell, that speaks exactly zero with regards to my value judgment on a country itself. Germany in WWII were reprehensible but had the best generals. So, is that me hating, overrating, or what?

Hey, this completely off topic, but if you don't mind me asking Don Diego, what role do you think the General Staff System played in making the Prussians/Germans have better generals? I read Trevor N. Dupuy's Genius for War years ago and I think this is what he essentially argues.

I would be interested in your opinion since you are a professional historian and my academic training is in something completely different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just commenting to follow the interesting discussion about real life military history.



As to the OP, Stannis does get enough credit for that. It's all neatly wrapped in one package with the praise that is heaped on him for defeating the Wildlings later on.



Imo the greatest unsung military feat in ASOIAF is Euron's journey west with the Ironborn fleet to avoid the watchtowers and take the shield islands by surprise. No fleet has ever dared to venture that far west (with the exception of Brandon's fleet of course) and then he just turned around, avoided a defense system (the watchtowers) that had been effective for thousands of year up to that point and destroyed the shield islands fleet and captured the islands themselves. This opened up the Mander for the first time in 2000 years!


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole Wall excursion and battle was impressive, but none of Stannis's achievements are "unsung" around here. The choir preaches them quite loudly



I was hoping for something actually new, not more "Stannis doesn't get enough credit!"


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyways, I think Stannis is also overrated, but not as much. If you want RL parallels of the kind of manoeuvre you're referencing, I'd start with Hannibal/Alps, C. Nero Metaurus, Napoleon's Ulm campaign, Harold at both Stanford Bridge and Hastings, Nobunaga in the Okehazama campaign, Marius at Vercellae, etc.

/rant

Don't know about the others but I definitely see the Harold parallel with Stannis. Even with the battles there seems to be a reverse parallel. Harold won at Stamford then lost Hastings. Stannis lost Blackwater and won the Wall.

BTW, it's Stamford bridge not Stanford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, way to hijack an awesome thread with a pointless rant about modern generals. There's an awesome thread going on about the strength of the unsullied, that was a good read.



This however is totally pointless.



I agree that Stannis is underrated, but remember he had Melisandre with him and he does a lot better when she's close by. I am not sure if that's a strike against him or not, because the book is a little iffy, and I'm partial to redheads.



Were I him, I might have asked her to go with me to Moat Cailin.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know about the others but I definitely see the Harold parallel with Stannis. Even with the battles there seems to be a reverse parallel. Harold won at Stamford then lost Hastings. Stannis lost Blackwater and won the Wall.

BTW, it's Stamford bridge not Stanford.

Probably just a typo since m and n are next to each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Patton is meh.

On the scale of historical brilliance in history, he's not even on the radar. Being (arguably) the best American land force commander of a certain era imbues him with a great deal of legend, but his actual actions don't support it.

America hasn't really had any amazing military generals, at least on land. I'd say Sherman was exceptional, and I think MacArthur had some brilliance covered in a lot of crap. Eisenhower was a fantastic administrative commander. And there have been some good naval commanders.

But generally speaking, America has won when it has had the superior engine/numbers/technology...though there are a number of losses even with these advantages...and lost when it has not. Almost any story which has America outgunned or disadvantaged is a tale of 'heroic' loss. The Alamo. Pearl Harbour. Manilla. Custer.

Where are the Plateas, the Austerlitzes, the Guagamelas? The Watling Streets, Cannaes or Agincourts? Generally speaking, painting by the numbers when you have the advantage of them is considered wise, but it doesn't afford any opportunity to show actual genius.

By a million miles, the best military commanders from WWII were German...or in terms of formulation, British and German (specifically Fuller et al re; Blitzekrieg). No one is even close, really...Zhukov gets a lot of credit, but IMO he was pretty much doing a U.S. Grant...throwing overwhelming numbers at an enemy and winning out on attrition, which is about as indicative of military brilliance as civil war amputations were indicative of medical brilliance. Again, the U.S. won battles when they had overwhelming numbers and machines, and lost when they did not. The Bulge comes closest, and that's not so much a win as just hold g out until air superiority again gave them overwhelming advantage. Which the U.S. is usually able to eventually garner, in part because it's industrial bases are never under threat.

That's a credit to the industrial machine and geographic location, but it doesn't speak to highly of the generalship.

Anyways, I think Stannis is also overrated, but not as much. If you want RL parallels of the kind of manoeuvre you're referencing, I'd start with Hannibal/Alps, C. Nero Metaurus, Napoleon's Ulm campaign, Harold at both Stanford Bridge and Hastings, Nobunaga in the Okehazama campaign, Marius at Vercellae, etc.

/rant

I would agree, warfare changed dramatically after the 19th century, and battlefield commanders are not the same as they were in the ancient to early modern world.

Don't forget Richard I, he was generally the only person who could beat Saladin in the field. Of course one cannot forget the great Mehmed II who created one of the largest and influential empires of the era, and in the process sacked a theoretically impenetrable castle/city of Constantinople. Shah Abbas' unification of Safavid Persia was a significant feat ;). Wellington deserves an honorable mention, and Philip II was an absolute mastermind when it came to warfare, logistics, and diplomacy.

Stannis might be "overrated" but I still think he is one of the best Westeros has to offer. He has someone of a Edward I persona about him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, way to hijack an awesome thread with a pointless rant about modern generals. There's an awesome thread going on about the strength of the unsullied, that was a good read.

This however is totally pointless.

I agree that Stannis is underrated, but remember he had Melisandre with him and he does a lot better when she's close by. I am not sure if that's a strike against him or not, because the book is a little iffy, and I'm partial to redheads.

Were I him, I might have asked her to go with me to Moat Cailin.

Not really, the OP did end with a RW comparison, so it is only natural for those responding to the post to provide their own RW examples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice to come onto a forum about a fantasy and see someone hate on my country, thanks for that. Btw, if you care about the actual history, how about u google the times we spanked the british with far inferior numbers and equipment(New Orleans is literally the most lopsided victory I have ever heard of), or the Japanese, Guatalcanal was no defeat, nor was midway and btw Mcarthur was shit compared to Patton, Mcarthur invaded a huge island chain for no reason at all, and said China was no threat in Korea the morning before his forces were attacked and forced to retreat a hundred miles, Patton got the job done and he did it quick.

Your overall statement of the brilliance of german commanders is accurate, I'd never argue against that, but your statements about America are completely biased and actually down right incorrect. If I knew what country you were from I'd invite you to point out its brilliant military record, if its Spain I think you forgot a certain war.

To the op, I think your right, logistics is a huge component in warfare, and we have really only seen that demonstrated with food.

I care about actual history, and this is not only misleading but simplified. I could google it, but I would rather turn to historical monographs that actually have well developed arguments, not wikipedia's BS attempt to deliver information. I am not trying to be an a@@, but you are overlooking the logistics of Britain's military. London to NO is a long way away.... If you think the colonies would have defeated Britain if they were let's say about where Ireland is, you are sorely mistaken. But it cannot be forgotten that Britain after the 15th century became less and less an landed military giant, and their primary strength was in their navy. Also, you are leaving out a very important point. London cared very little about the American colonies in spite of what American whig historians argue. The sugar islands were vastly more important, and there had already been conversations in London about releasing the colonies altogether. I could go on and on about this, but as you say, this is a fantasy text.

Spain dominated the world for a long time....let's not go there. Philip II was a genius.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patton is meh.

On the scale of historical brilliance in history, he's not even on the radar. Being (arguably) the best American land force commander of a certain era imbues him with a great deal of legend, but his actual actions don't support it.

America hasn't really had any amazing military generals, at least on land. I'd say Sherman was exceptional, and I think MacArthur had some brilliance covered in a lot of crap. Eisenhower was a fantastic administrative commander. And there have been some good naval commanders.

But generally speaking, America has won when it has had the superior engine/numbers/technology...though there are a number of losses even with these advantages...and lost when it has not. Almost any story which has America outgunned or disadvantaged is a tale of 'heroic' loss. The Alamo. Pearl Harbour. Manilla. Custer.

Where are the Plateas, the Austerlitzes, the Guagamelas? The Watling Streets, Cannaes or Agincourts? Generally speaking, painting by the numbers when you have the advantage of them is considered wise, but it doesn't afford any opportunity to show actual genius.

By a million miles, the best military commanders from WWII were German...or in terms of formulation, British and German (specifically Fuller et al re; Blitzekrieg). No one is even close, really...Zhukov gets a lot of credit, but IMO he was pretty much doing a U.S. Grant...throwing overwhelming numbers at an enemy and winning out on attrition, which is about as indicative of military brilliance as civil war amputations were indicative of medical brilliance. Again, the U.S. won battles when they had overwhelming numbers and machines, and lost when they did not. The Bulge comes closest, and that's not so much a win as just hold g out until air superiority again gave them overwhelming advantage. Which the U.S. is usually able to eventually garner, in part because it's industrial bases are never under threat.

That's a credit to the industrial machine and geographic location, but it doesn't speak to highly of the generalship.

Anyways, I think Stannis is also overrated, but not as much. If you want RL parallels of the kind of manoeuvre you're referencing, I'd start with Hannibal/Alps, C. Nero Metaurus, Napoleon's Ulm campaign, Harold at both Stanford Bridge and Hastings, Nobunaga in the Okehazama campaign, Marius at Vercellae, etc.

/rant

Again, I don't know who you are, but :bowdown:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...