68 replies to this topic

[Grip]

I have never blamed Edmure for his actions at the fords. I am still a bit surprised by the reactions of Brynden and Robb. Though it might be that they knew the war had taken a turn for the worse now that Robb had broken his promise to the Freys, and let out their frustration on Edmure.. In any case one really couldnt have expected more from Edmure than wanting to protect his people while at the same time showing that he is indeed capable and worthy of trust. If this was so crucial a part of Robb's plans he should have made sure somehow that Edmure knew exactly what was expected of him, informing him and possibly leaving someone behind to help out. So in all I would say that the fault lies with Brynden and Robb, not Edmure.

[LordBloodraven]

Ok, Robb's command to Edmure ("hold Riverrun until my return") is pretty unclear. Hold could mean a lot of things, but Edmure made some rash decisions strategically without Robb's assent. He first sent back all his bannermen at the start of ACOK but a it proved useless, then called them back for the battle. He commanded Roose Bolton to come down the Kingsroad so as to block Tywin's line of retreat and Ser Helman Tallhart, to leave the Twins and come hastily to the defence of Riverrun. That's some pretty big decisions there. Edmure's defence of Riverrun was spirited but there's a lot of revenge and pride in it. Edmure wanted to bloodlet Tywin's army and forget his earlier defeats at the start of the war. I believe too that the orders from Robb were unclear but Stannis was told during the Rebellion to hold Storm's End until Robert's return and so he did.The orders  could be interpreted differently though, I wonder what GRRM thinks of that. Did we ever ask him?

Edited by LordBloodraven, 01 June 2012 - 06:17 AM.

[LordBloodraven]

dp

Edited by LordBloodraven, 01 June 2012 - 06:17 AM.

[Grip]

LordBloodraven, on 01 June 2012 - 06:09 AM, said:

[....]I believe too that the orders from Robb were unclear but Stannis was told during the Rebellion to hold Storm's End until Robert's return and so he did.

Do we know how many men Stannis had though? I am imaging he only had but a small garrison, sufficient to hold Storms End but not in any way being capable of going on the offense. He might have only had a hundred or so, possibly even fewer. Edmure had far larger forces at his disposal.

Edited by Grip, 01 June 2012 - 06:18 AM.

[LordBloodraven]

Toccs, on 01 June 2012 - 03:11 AM, said:

Edmure was simply defending Riverrun as instructed.  If there had been no defence at the river crossing then Tywin would have smelled a trap. Robb and Blackfish didn't want Edmure to just sit in Riverrun, they wanted him to attack Tywin, they just assumed that Edmure would lose.

This is pretty much a baseless impression of yours. I'll like to read where it comes from

[SerMixalot]

It seems to me that "hold Riverrun" gives Edmure discretion on how to carry out those orders.  Holding Riverrun could involve a forward defense at the river crossings delaying or preventing Riverrun's investiture, thus permitting more small folk and supplies to reach the castle.  A commander should have discretion to fulfill his orders.  Edmure's actions were completely appropriate as his role as commander of Riverrun given Robb's orders.  If he didnt want Edmure to have a forward defense he should have explicitely stated such, because absent that Edmure's plan is the best plan.  Therefore, Robb is clearly at fault

[Lady Sansa Stark]

I was kinda surprised myself by the reaction of Robb Stark, yes. I didn't blame Edmure at all, more Robb Stark and his men themselves. If I was told to 'hold Riverrun', I wouldn't let Tywin's army pass by just like that.

[Awesome Oberyn Martell]

Edmure is completely without fault in this affair. The only reason Brynden and Robb could have not to tell a commander of such an important part of their grand strategy is that they don't trust him. For Robb/Brynden to not trust his uncle/nephew is ridiculous. Especially as Edmure is entirely loyal and lord of the second most important city in Robb's kingdom. This is just another of Robb's disastrous strategical/operational decisions.

[Lord Paramount of Essos]

I like Edmure.
He cares about the smallfolk more than everybody, and his stand against Tywin's forces all along the river was pretty heroic, because he was not a good commander but he tried his best and fought bravely and holded the f**king Riverrun.

[Lummel]

greygnarl, on 31 May 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

Does anybody really believe that Edmure is at fault for denying Tywin's attempt to retake the Westerlands?
He was told to hold Riverrun and never was told to stay in Riverrun.
Robb's directions were very unclear and if he had wanted Tywin to chase him he could've said so...

Some people do.  Personally I think is all down to Robb and the Blackfish ganging up to give Edmure a hard time time to pressurise him into marrying a Frey girl in a desperate attempt to make up for Robb's oathbreaking on the Crag with Jeyne.

It is in anycase unfair because Tywin was never going to abandon a position that allowed him to move rapidly to the defence of kings landing.  Robb's raid was the best he could do strategically but never had a hope of sucess unless Tywin were to have had a magical brain exchange with Gregor SMASH Clegane.

[Darth Rivers]

Edmure did the logical thing from his own point of view. Allowing Tywin to cross would allow him to besiege Riverrun from all sides, while occupying the fords enabled Edmure's smaller force to prevent Riverrun becoming cut off.

[Buried Treasure]

Talleyrand, on 01 June 2012 - 03:23 AM, said:

No it doesn't. Hold means keep it on our sides hands. Edmure did that. He either could have done what he did - Meet the numerically superior Tywin at a choke point taking away that advantage or let Tywin pass. Giving him the opportunity to lay siege to Riverrun or further ravage the Riverrlands. Tywin passing or not is regardless in the grand scale anyway. Stannis was buggered either way, Tywin being there just balances the power in KL afterwards and instead of Robb dying at the RW he does it in some battle in the Westerlands

Robb left Riverrun with a garrison, not an army. We know this because the bulk of the Riverlords had been sent back to their own lands (happened in the interval between GoT & CoK's) and Robb and Bolton had the remaining riverland levies with their Northern armies. We can presume the garrison was reinforced compared to peacetime levels as it was an important location.

Castles are designed for defence. If properly manned they are very difficult to take quickly even with a much larger assaulting force - as would have been the case if Tywin's army had attacked Edmure's garrison. The difficulties of besieging Riverrun had already been amply demonstrated in GoT and if Tywin had attempted it his army would have been vulnerable to attack from Robb or Bolton before he could have taken the castle.

Where Edmure exceeded his authority was in calling the banners. Before he did that he was limited to acting defensively (which limitation he agreed to by being the one to release the riverland army early), after he called the banners he was able to act offensively by fielding an army. Keeping to a defensive strategy would have been low risk; Tywin would not have time to besiege a large castle like Riverrun and he would have been unlikely to spend effort overwhelming smaller castles as Tywin's priority was to march West and stop Robb ravaging his own lands. Switching to an offensive strategy was high risk; it meant possibly interfering with the plans of his own allies who were relying on him remaining defensive (as did happen), it meant risking his own small army being destroyed by Tywin's larger army (did not happen, but even in victory Edmure's forces were not sufficient to destroy Tywin's army) and by denying Tywin the ford Edmure left the enemy still roaming around the riverlands.

If Edmure had really wanted to call an army and attack Tywin would he have not been better off allowing the bulk of the army to cross the ford and cut off the tail - doing partial damage to Tywin's army but more importantly trapping him in the West.

[RedBean]

I think Robb's oversight was in not trusting Edmure enough to tell him exactly what he expected of him. I just don't understand how he couldn't divulge his plans to such an important ally of his. It's true that Edmure acted to get more glory, but if Robb had only been less close-lipped, this idiocy could have been avoided. It's funny how neither Robb nor the Blackfish ever noticed that they might have a little blame to carry over the matter. Instead, they pin everything on Edmure and make him marry the Frey girl. Well, that blew up in their faces well enough.

Edited by RedBean, 01 June 2012 - 08:29 AM.

[Ravenhair]

@EvaMitchelle

You set forth my point much more eloquently.  I felt bad for Edmure because Robb, the Blackfish, and Catelyn basically said you screwed up in the battle, so you owe us this--marry the Frey girl. Edmure was the sacrificial lamb, until the RW, of course.

And I certainly have changed my opinion about Edmure,  I think I posted a while ago that he was ineffectual, a total screw-up, etc., but I guess I'm on a redemption arc concerning Edmure.

[Evamitchelle]

Quote

Where Edmure exceeded his authority was in calling the banners. Before he did that he was limited to acting defensively (which limitation he agreed to by being the one to release the riverland army early), after he called the banners he was able to act offensively by fielding an army. Keeping to a defensive strategy would have been low risk; Tywin would not have time to besiege a large castle like Riverrun and he would have been unlikely to spend effort overwhelming smaller castles as Tywin's priority was to march West and stop Robb ravaging his own lands. Switching to an offensive strategy was high risk; it meant possibly interfering with the plans of his own allies who were relying on him remaining defensive (as did happen), it meant risking his own small army being destroyed by Tywin's larger army (did not happen, but even in victory Edmure's forces were not sufficient to destroy Tywin's army) and by denying Tywin the ford Edmure left the enemy still roaming around the riverlands.

If Edmure had really wanted to call an army and attack Tywin would he have not been better off allowing the bulk of the army to cross the ford and cut off the tail - doing partial damage to Tywin's army but more importantly trapping him in the West.

Riverrun isn't smack on the border with the Westerlands though. Being "trapped in the West" means that Tywin would have had to cross a fair amount of Riverland territory, where Gregor Clegane would have been able to continue murdering and pillaging the villages. Edmure's not Lord yet, but he' already taken the "protect the people" part of the job pretty seriously (sending his bannermen back so they can better defend their lands, sheltering hundreds of smallfolk inside Riverrun itself). He's not going to let The Mountain that Rides keep on murdering the people he's sworn to protect, at least not on so vague an order as "Hold Riverrun". In any case Edmure followed that order the way I understood it (basically "don't lose Riverrun").

[houseHB]

Does anyone else feel that Edmure is playing dumb regarding him being a captive of Jaime? If the switch/Jeyne theory is correct he could be in on it. I think a possible prologue could be a a viewpoint of Edmure's captor and they are on the way to Kings Landing and ambushed by the BWB and Edmure is freed by Lady Stoneheart. That would be awesome if Jaime is waiting for Stoneheart and Edmure shows up with the BWB and be like what?

[houseHB]

Does anyone else feel that Edmure is playing dumb regarding him being a captive of Jaime? If the switch/Jeyne theory is correct he could be in on it. I think a possible prologue could be a a viewpoint of Edmure's captor and they are on the way to Kings Landing and ambushed by the BWB and Edmure is freed by Lady Stoneheart. That would be awesome if Jaime is waiting for Stoneheart and Edmure shows up with the BWB and be like what?

[Buried Treasure]

Evamitchelle, on 01 June 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

Riverrun isn't smack on the border with the Westerlands though. Being "trapped in the West" means that Tywin would have had to cross a fair amount of Riverland territory, where Gregor Clegane would have been able to continue murdering and pillaging the villages. Edmure's not Lord yet, but he' already taken the "protect the people" part of the job pretty seriously (sending his bannermen back so they can better defend their lands, sheltering hundreds of smallfolk inside Riverrun itself). He's not going to let The Mountain that Rides keep on murdering the people he's sworn to protect,

Tywin had already crossed the majority of the riverlands territory - from Harrenhal to the Red Fork. His army wasn't stopping to raid because he wanted to get West as quickly as possible. If Tywin had been allowed to cross to the West bank of the river he would not have stuck around on the westernmost part of the riverlands but would have continued into the Westerlands - thereby achieving the goal of taking the war out of the Riverlands that had been Robb's intention when marching West in the first place

Independant companies like those under Clegane and Lorch are a slightly different matter. They are small and mobile enough to always have freedom of maneouvre. There would be many river crossing these raiders could use that an army could not so they cannot be cut-off to the west bank of the Red Fork. When the riverlords were sent back to their own lands (at Edmure's request) the threat of raiders on those lands was minimised, when they gathered to fight Tywins army (at Edmure's order) the threat was increased again. Small companies are also vulnerable to pursuit and will be boldest (and most dangerous) when they have a safebase to retreat to. If raiders were in the western part of the riverlands they would always be able to retreat West, but so long as Tywin's army was in the riverlands the raiders would have also have had the option of retreating to him. So if Edmure had allowed Tywin to pass West unimpeded the raiders would have become more vulnerable sooner.

What was Edmure's best case scenario? If we take Stannis out of the equation for a second as everyone expected the Baratheon brothers to take longer to defeat each other and nobody expected an imminent threat to Kings Landing. Edmure used suprise and terrain to good effect to inflict damage on Tywin's army. Outright destruction of Tywin's army would have been an unreasonable expectation as IIRC Edmure did not have the numbers to do this. It is reasonable to think that once Tywin had regrouped he would tried to cross the river again (he still wanted to get West) only more cautiously. Without suprise Edmure's army would been more vulnerable and less likely to win successive battles. In the meantime, whilst regrouping and planning his crossing Tywin has his large army still sitting in, and feeding off, the riverlands.

Quote

....at least not on so vague an order as "Hold Riverrun". In any case Edmure followed that order the way I understood it (basically "don't lose Riverrun").

Robb left Edmure with a garrison -  lets call it 500 men (that's a number picked at random, I don't know how large a garrison a castle needs). With 500 (?) men Edmure can securely hold the castle walls but not ambush an army in the field - so Robb's direction is not 'vague' because Edmure does not have any options but to sit in Riverrun.

To have even a chance against Tywin in the field Edmure needed an army - so he called the banners. That would normally be within his authority as acting Lord of Riverrun but in this case the strategy for the war has already been decided (riverlords defend their lands against ravagers and retreat to their own castles against armies, northern armies fight enemy - as much as possible away from the Riverlands). Edmure changed the strategy without informing his allies, and it was only after he decided to do that that Robb's orders retroactively became 'vague'. Robb gave Edmure no orders about not using an army in the field because he did not expect Edmure to have an army.

[Blackfish Tully]

Buried Treasure, on 01 June 2012 - 12:36 PM, said:

Tywin had already crossed the majority of the riverlands territory - from Harrenhal to the Red Fork. His army wasn't stopping to raid because he wanted to get West as quickly as possible. If Tywin had been allowed to cross to the West bank of the river he would not have stuck around on the westernmost part of the riverlands but would have continued into the Westerlands - thereby achieving the goal of taking the war out of the Riverlands that had been Robb's intention when marching West in the first place

Independant companies like those under Clegane and Lorch are a slightly different matter. They are small and mobile enough to always have freedom of maneouvre. There would be many river crossing these raiders could use that an army could not so they cannot be cut-off to the west bank of the Red Fork. When the riverlords were sent back to their own lands (at Edmure's request) the threat of raiders on those lands was minimised, when they gathered to fight Tywins army (at Edmure's order) the threat was increased again. Small companies are also vulnerable to pursuit and will be boldest (and most dangerous) when they have a safebase to retreat to. If raiders were in the western part of the riverlands they would always be able to retreat West, but so long as Tywin's army was in the riverlands the raiders would have also have had the option of retreating to him. So if Edmure had allowed Tywin to pass West unimpeded the raiders would have become more vulnerable sooner.

What was Edmure's best case scenario? If we take Stannis out of the equation for a second as everyone expected the Baratheon brothers to take longer to defeat each other and nobody expected an imminent threat to Kings Landing. Edmure used suprise and terrain to good effect to inflict damage on Tywin's army. Outright destruction of Tywin's army would have been an unreasonable expectation as IIRC Edmure did not have the numbers to do this. It is reasonable to think that once Tywin had regrouped he would tried to cross the river again (he still wanted to get West) only more cautiously. Without suprise Edmure's army would been more vulnerable and less likely to win successive battles. In the meantime, whilst regrouping and planning his crossing Tywin has his large army still sitting in, and feeding off, the riverlands.


Robb left Edmure with a garrison -  lets call it 500 men (that's a number picked at random, I don't know how large a garrison a castle needs). With 500 (?) men Edmure can securely hold the castle walls but not ambush an army in the field - so Robb's direction is not 'vague' because Edmure does not have any options but to sit in Riverrun.

To have even a chance against Tywin in the field Edmure needed an army - so he called the banners. That would normally be within his authority as acting Lord of Riverrun but in this case the strategy for the war has already been decided (riverlords defend their lands against ravagers and retreat to their own castles against armies, northern armies fight enemy - as much as possible away from the Riverlands). Edmure changed the strategy without informing his allies, and it was only after he decided to do that that Robb's orders retroactively became 'vague'. Robb gave Edmure no orders about not using an army in the field because he did not expect Edmure to have an army.

Great post , I agree 100%.

Also I think it's important to remember that when Robb and Brynden took  their army to attack the Lannisters they did not have their strategy planned out all the way , so much depended on what would happen when they got there and how the batles would play out and what would happen with Stannis & Renly. Once the Blackfish found a good ambush spot and they decided on the plan to trap Tywin  it was too late to send a message to Edmure without the chance of the message being discovered by the Lannisters so they had no choice to hope that everything went the way the were hoping it would go.

[LordBloodraven]

Evamitchelle, on 01 June 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

Riverrun isn't smack on the border with the Westerlands though. Being "trapped in the West" means that Tywin would have had to cross a fair amount of Riverland territory, where Gregor Clegane would have been able to continue murdering and pillaging the villages. Edmure's not Lord yet, but he' already taken the "protect the people" part of the job pretty seriously (sending his bannermen back so they can better defend their lands, sheltering hundreds of smallfolk inside Riverrun itself). He's not going to let The Mountain that Rides keep on murdering the people he's sworn to protect, at least not on so vague an order as "Hold Riverrun". In any case Edmure followed that order the way I understood it (basically "don't lose Riverrun").

Robb's incursion in the Westerlands was first to destroy the Lannister army at Oxcros and to make Tywin come at his pursuit and to leave the Riverlands. It's good to defend villages and holdfasts but scattering your army is not the best way to defend your country. Edmure made that mistake in AGOT when he sent Vance and Piper to stop Jaime from entering the Riverlands. The Northerners were plundering and ravaging the Westerlands, Tywin Lannister couldn't watch this happen without interfering. There's still miscommunication but a garrison is not supposed to take the initiative against an army. Edmure told his bannermen to go back into their homes then recalled them (and the Northerners) because he wouldn't let Tywin go all down to the West unbloodied.