does westeros have enough power to wipe out Mordor?

[Bluetiger]

Sure, of course Westerosi armies have thousands of unexperienced peasants. But it's not the common thing. Eustace, Steffon, etc, yes, they raised unprofessional armies. And look how they ended up.

90% of the time, the armies are professional.

War of Five Kings is like World War, so thousands extra soldiers were needed ... Lannisters had ~ 45 000 (Tywin's and Jaime's hosts ) and needed more so Stafford had to gather and tried to train extra troops.

[TerrorVoid]

Time and again we see references to training men to march them into combat.

Of course levies are trained. At least to hold their spears with right end.

The lannisters at oxcross did not just raise men and march them off, they stayed back to train them

Ofc, you need to train your professional army right before combat. This is why you call it professional. Oh, wait...

Rodrick cassel at the end of got is seen by bran to be training more men.

Those guys are professionals too? So they are train in a middle of the war?

Combined arms forces composed of numerous elements(heavy cavalry, heavy infantry, archers, light cavalry, cavalry archers, etc) trumps an army of just light cavalry every single time

It appears, that this guy knows much more about the Westerosi military than Robert.

PS: I'm pretty interested: what those armies were doing whole the time during peace? If 90% of army are professional, it means you need to keep your ~50k man fed and supplied, while they are doing nothing.

PPS: Funny thing, that after mostly professional armies have gone, there were no people to gather crops. Strange.

[Ingelheim]

PS: I'm pretty interested: what those armies were doing whole the time during peace? If 90% of army are professional, it means you need to keep your ~50k man fed and supplied, while they are doing nothing.

PPS: Funny thing, that after mostly professional armies have gone, there were no people to gather crops. Strange.

No, that's not how it works, neither in Westeros nor in Middle Ages. Read the thread, please. You asked for it; at least you could read it.

[Bluetiger]

Some people here have no idea how armies worked is feudalism...

[Bluetiger]

Wikipedia is not the best source but I reccomend reading this "Medieval warfare" on @Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warfare

In the earliest Middle Ages it was the obligation of every noble to respond to the call to battle with his own equipment, archers, and infantry. This decentralized system was necessary due to the social order of the time, but could lead to motley forces with variable training, equipment and abilities. The more resources the noble had access to, the better his troops would typically be. Typically the feudal armies consisted of a core of highly skilled knights and their household troops, mercenaries hired for the time of the campaign and feudal levies fulfilling their feudal obligations, who usually were little more than rabble. They could, however, be efficient in disadvantageous terrain. Towns and cities could also field militias.As central governments grew in power, a return to the citizen and mercenary armies of the classical period also began, as central levies of the peasantry began to be the central recruiting tool. It was estimated that the bestinfantrymen came from the younger sons of free land-owning yeomen, such as the English archers and Swiss pikemen. England was one of the most centralized states in the Late Middle Ages, and the armies that fought theHundred Years' War were mostly paid professionals. In theory, every Englishman had an obligation to serve for forty days. Forty days was not long enough for a campaign, especially one on the continent. Thus the scutage was introduced, whereby most Englishmen paid to escape their service and this money was used to create a permanent army. However, almost all high medieval armies in Europe were composed of a great deal of paid core troops, and there was a large mercenary market in Europe from at least the early 12th century.As the Middle Ages progressed in Italy, Italian cities began to rely mostly onmercenaries to do their fighting rather than the militias that had dominated the early and high medieval period in this region. These would be groups of career soldiers who would be paid a set rate. Mercenaries tended to be effective soldiers, especially in combination with standing forces, but in Italy they came to dominate the armies of the city states. This made them problematic; while at war they were considerably more reliable than a standing army, at peacetime they proved a risk to the state itself like the Praetorian Guard had once been. Mercenary-on-mercenary warfare in Italy led to relatively bloodless campaigns which relied as much on manoeuvre as on battles, since the condottieri recognized it was more efficient to attack the enemy's ability to wage war rather than his battle forces, discovering the concept ofindirect warfare 500 years before Sir Basil Liddell Hart, and attempting to attack the enemy supply lines, his economy and his ability to wage war rather than risking an open battle, and manoeuvre him into a position where risking a battle would have been suicidial. Macchiavelli understood thisindirect approach as cowardice.The knights were drawn to battle by feudal and social obligation, and also by the prospect of profit and advancement. Those who performed well were likely to increase their landholdings and advance in the social hierarchy. The prospect of significant income from pillage and ransoming prisoners was also important. For the mounted knight Medieval Warfare could be a relatively low risk affair. Nobles avoided killing each other, rather preferring capturing them alive, for several reasons—for one thing, many were related to each other, had fought alongside one another, and they were all (more or less) members of the same elite culture; for another, a noble's ransom could be very high, and indeed some made a living by capturing and ransoming nobles in battle. Even peasants, who did not share the bonds of kinship and culture, would often avoid killing a nobleman, valuing the high ransom that a live capture could bring, as well as the valuable horse, armour and equipment that came with him. However, this is by no means a rule of medieval warfare. It was quite common, even at the height of "chivalric" warfare, for the knights to suffer heavy casualties during battles.

[TerrorVoid]

No, that's not how it works, neither in Westeros nor in Middle Ages. Read the thread, please. You asked for it; at least you could read it.

I don't really want to read 20 pages to see the discussion, I already know right answers.

If you want to discuss it, you can start new post, write me a PM or argue here.

There is the basics: professional army is an army from guys, who spend their lifetime serving there. You need a lot of resourses to keep that up. That's why, there was no regular armies in a middle ages. Only Noble's retinue. And mercenaries.

And if you have a professional army of your own, you need to fight with it. Like Rome did.

[Ingelheim]

I don't really want to read 20 pages to see the discussion, I already know right answers.

If you want to discuss it, you can start new post, write me a PM or argue here.

There is the basics: professional army is an army from guys, who spend their lifetime serving there. You need a lot of resourses to keep that up. That's why, there was no regular armies in a middle ages. Only Noble's retinue. And mercenaries.

And if you have a professional army of your own, you need to fight with it. Like Rome did.

The problem then is your definition of professional, not ours.

You think you now right answers. I'm pretty sure you also believe Middle Ages armies were made of peasants, which is simply wrong, a myth. But well, each to his own. You are in the tiny minority here, and please, never ask any information or thread from me again. Thank you.

[TerrorVoid]

The problem then is your definition of professional, not ours.

You think you now right answers. I'm pretty sure you also believe Middle Ages armies were made of peasants, which is simply wrong, a myth. But well, each to his own. You are in the tiny minority here, and please, never ask any information or thread from me again. Thank you.

Nope. My definition is that of... basically all dictionaries.

Professional is the man who works in profession. Read: makes money/living by it. Professional warrior lives by the sword. This means: guard, knight, merchants.

Problem is, my tiny minority is backed by logic. Not waving hands and screaming BS.

There was no regular army in Westeross, this is the fact. It is obvious if you are just looking across the book.

Funny thing: you can beat me a lot, if you just show me some character, who is professional solder, and is not the part of the guard (basically police), knight or mercenaries.

[Ingelheim]

Nope. My definition is that of... basically all dictionaries.

Professional is the man who works in profession. Read: makes money/living by it. Professional warrior lives by the sword. This means: guard, knight, merchants.

Problem is, my tiny minority is backed by logic. Not waving hands and screaming BS.

There was no regular army in Westeross, this is the fact. It is obvious if you are just looking across the book.

If you had read that thread, you would have seen dozen of quotes from the books arguing otherwise. That's your problem. You haven't read well, neither books nor thread. I quoted you one; there are more than 20 in there. But hey, don't read it. I honestly don't care if you do or not. I have my arguments and my proof; you've given none.

This discussion ends here. Bye.

EDIT: I'll go back on topic as soon as I get a PC.

[TerrorVoid]

If you had read that thread, you would have seen dozen of quotes from the books arguing otherwise. That's your problem. You haven't read well, neither books nor thread. I quoted you one; there are more than 20 in there. But hey, don't read it. I honestly don't care if you do or not. I have my arguments and my proof; you've given none.

This discussion ends here. Bye.

EDIT: I'll go back on topic as soon as I get a PC.

I love long threads, they are pretty strong argument. Instead of making real answer you just send a men to read some ton of text. Even if there is nothing there, you can say any moment that he needs to reread topic more carefully.

Only citation that you have brought, not only doesn't prove you point, but it does much more to prove mine.

I'm waiting for arguments, that really have some weight behind them.

I've given my arguments, but since you ignore them, I'll repeat.

1) If there is professional army, why, I believe, Lady Dustin whins to Bran, that she has not enough men to farm the land? Because, if there was professional army, Robb would not take not even 1 man from the field.

2) Show me any professional solder who is not mercenary, knight or guard.

Ofc, you can ignore them once again, but who cares. Seems your position, which is supported by biggest part of the forum, is based on strict ignoring of opponents arguments.

And yeah, isn't it offtopic? SHouldn't we go somewhere else with that theme?

[Lord Cadwan]

It seems to me that if the Gondorians and the Rohirrim can fight of a large proportion of the might of Mordor and Isengard with around 30,000 men between them then the 200,000-300,000 soldiers of Westeros should do fairly well I think.

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

Well let's see how they add up

Better King Mordor; Sauron . Nearly godlike powers .

Better battlefield commanders Westeros ; Eddard Stark ,Tywin Lannister ,Hoster Tully, Stannis Baratheon Randyll Tarly and Victarion Greyjoy .

Troops Westeros . With a much larger army, Sauron could not defeat Gondor and Rohan.

Influence peddling Mordor .

Influence susceptible Westeros

Westeros may win all the battles but unless they kill Sauron ,Mordor will win the war .

[Bluetiger]

Well let's see how they add up

Better King Mordor; Sauron . Nearly godlike powers .

Better battlefield commanders Westeros ; Eddard Stark ,Tywin Lannister ,Hoster Tully, Stannis Baratheon Randyll Tarly and Victarion Greyjoy .

Troops Westeros . With a much larger army, Sauron could not defeat Gondor and Rohan.

Influence peddling Mordor .

Westeros may win all the battles but unless they kill Sauron ,Mordor will win the war .

Sauron's commanders are better than all Westerosi ( with the exception of Tywin and Stannis on the sea ).

Angmar had been commanding armies for thousand years and defeated Arnor's kingdoms...

Khamùl, the Shadow of the East also had much time to learn.

Gothmog also must have been at least good as Sauron gave him command...

Mouth also may have been skilled...

[Señor de la Tormenta]

Sauron's commanders are better than all Westerosi ( with the exception of Tywin and Stannis on the sea ).

Angmar had been commanding armies for thousand years and defeated Arnor's kingdoms...

Khamùl, the Shadow of the East also had much time to learn.

Gothmog also must have been at least good as Sauron gave him command...

Mouth also may have been skilled...

Tywin is your top westerosi commander? Seriously? :eek:

[Bluetiger]

Tywin is your top westerosi commander? Seriously? :eek:

So who is yours?

Tywin is in my opinion the most skilled tactician alive during ASOIAF. Stan is the best at naval strategy and Victarion at fleet commanding, Redwyne is also skilled.

Randyll Tarly is after Tywin.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

So who is yours?

Tywin is in my opinion the most skilled tactician alive during ASOIAF. Stan is the best at naval strategy and Victarion at fleet commanding, Redwyne is also skilled.

Randyll Tarly is after Tywin.

No. He wins the war, and the only battle we know from him because of stuff that is not under his power. He might be the luckiest but not the most skilled. His choices, in a normal course of events would ve doomed his family.

If Edmure hadnt put a fight robb woud had kicked his ass. And if Baelish hadnt got the tyrells it would had been stannis.

The same with a boar killing Robert, and Ned being incredibly stupid which would had ended his River Lands affair in a nasty way for his house.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

I love long threads, they are pretty strong argument. Instead of making real answer you just send a men to read some ton of text. Even if there is nothing there, you can say any moment that he needs to reread topic more carefully.

Only citation that you have brought, not only doesn't prove you point, but it does much more to prove mine.

I'm waiting for arguments, that really have some weight behind them.

I've given my arguments, but since you ignore them, I'll repeat.

1) If there is professional army, why, I believe, Lady Dustin whins to Bran, that she has not enough men to farm the land? Because, if there was professional army, Robb would not take not even 1 man from the field.

2) Show me any professional solder who is not mercenary, knight or guard.

Ofc, you can ignore them once again, but who cares. Seems your position, which is supported by biggest part of the forum, is based on strict ignoring of opponents arguments.

And yeah, isn't it offtopic? SHouldn't we go somewhere else with that theme?

The quotes regarding the lack of men in the fields come from Karstark and Umber, and to be quite frank come under the category of poor worldbuilding; the Karstarks rule ~50,000 square miles of land, and sent 2,000 commoners with Robb (the 300 mounted are definitely professional). If we assume the Karstark lands have a ridiculously low population density of 1 per sq mile then they sent 4% of their population off with Robb, whilst that is a fairly high proportion (higher than the 1-2% a country is generally capable of fielding) crop failure and famine shouldn't ensue until about 6% of the population is displaced.

A far more likely figure for the Karstark density is 4-5, which gives them 200-250,000 people, meaning that the men they sent with Robb are about 1% of their population. Unless all of those were from the few villages directly next to Karhold then there is no way that Alys would have noticed a lack of men to farm the field. And the men Rickard took with him were clearly soldiers, maybe not full time professional soldiers, they likely did have peacetime professions, but it is clear they are all trained and equipped long prior to the war of five kings.

[Bluetiger]

No. He wins the war, and the only battle we know from him because of stuff that is not under his power. He might be the luckiest but not the most skilled. His choices, in a normal course of events would ve doomed his family.

If Edmure hadnt put a fight robb woud had kicked his ass. And if Baelish hadnt got the tyrells it would had been stannis.

The same with a boar killing Robert, and Ned being incredibly stupid wich would had ended his river lands affair in a nasty way for his house.

And Edmure destroyed whole plan to cut Tywin from King's Landing.

King Robb Stark returns to Riverrun from the Westerlands. While Robb publicly praises Edmure in the Great Hall of Riverrun for Stone Mill, the king and Ser Brynden Tully berate Edmure in private for disrupting Robb's plan. According to them, Edmure, in defending the crossing, unknowingly thwarted Robb's plans. Robb argues he wanted Tywin to cross the river and then be trapped in the Westerlands by the Stark and Frey cavalry there. However, Robb did not reveal this plan to Edmure beforehand. By pushing Tywin's army back, Edmure inflicted enough of a delay for messengers from Bitterbridge to reach Tywin with word of what was happening to the south, allowing Tywin to turn his army around and aid the Tyrells and his grandson, King Joffrey Baratheon, in the Battle of the Blackwater.

We saw Tywin winning war against Reynes and Tarbecks.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

And Edmure destroyed whole plan to cut Tywin from King's Landing.

We saw Tywin winning war against Reynes and Tarbecks.

I dont understand the first part of your post. The second, well. Its just a liedge lord dealing with a rebel bannerman after all.

Lets add that this lousy tactician named Jaime and Steffon to lead armies during the WOT5K.... really, I cant understand how you put him in such high regard. He is decent, but thats it.

If you believe Robb then he was screwed, and if you belive robbs blame on edmure is a bluff, then Tywin was defeated by Edmure, which is not a bump anyway.

And again, he had nothing to do with the Tyrells alliance, so by his choices, by his own tactician plan he was always screwed. He was lucky that Petyr wanted Lannisters to win the war.

[Bluetiger]

Edmure destroyed Robb's plan to cut Lannisters from King's Landing.

Robb wanted Lannisters to cross the Red Fork fords and came into Westerlands. Than Frey cavalry with northmen would cut them and trapp them in the Westerlands. Tywin wouldn't be able to help King's Landing and Stannis would win Blackwater.

Edmure ( your example of good commander ) defended fords and suffered heavy loses. Tywin wasn't able to aid Westerlands so he went to help King's Landing...

Lord Tywin Lannister was attempting to return to the Westerlands to defeat King Robb Stark there. In order to do so, he had to cross the Red Fork of the Trident. Ser Edmure Tully learned of Lord Tywin's advance and called his banners to prevent Lord Tywin from crossing the river.[1]

[edit]The Battle

Ser Edmure organized his forces so that every crossing both north and south of Riverrun was defended by a strong force. Lord Jason Mallister was commanded with the defense of four fords, while Lord Karyl Vance commanded the defense of fords to the north of Riverrun. The west bank of the Red Fork is higher than the east and wooded. The defenders used those trees to hide archers and placed scorpions as support. Ser Edmure kept his best knights as a reserve, to ride where they were needed most.

Initially Lord Tywin probed the defenses, attempting to find an unguarded ford. Ser Flement Brax was sent south to attempt a breach there, and there was also fighting to the north of Riverrun. After two days of skirmishing, Lord Tywin launched a number of heavier assaults. Edmure believed the main attack was directed at the Stone Mill, under the command of Ser Gregor Clegane. Ser Gregor and his men managed to gain the west bank with terrible losses, but Ser Edmure smashed him with his reserve. Elsewhere, Ser Addam Marbrand was thrown back three times, Lord Leo Lefford drowned and Ser Lyle Crakehall was taken captive. At the end of the day, Lord Tywin's army was seen to be marching south-east.[2]

[edit]Aftermath

The three day delay at the Fords allowed Lord Tywin to learn of Stannis Baratheon's attack on King's Landing and he hurried his army south-east in time to take Stannis's army in the rear. Robb Stark later claimed the actions of Ser Edmure destroyed his plan of forcing Tywin to return to the west, where he would have been unable to save King's Landing from Stannis.