The battle beneath the Wall—triumphant victory or unimpressive cleanup?

[Red Helm]

When discussing the military commanders of A Song of Ice and Fire in a general sense Stannis will inevitably be brought into the discussion. In turn when discussing the military acumen of Stannis Baratheon the nature of his victories are hotly debated, with the battle beneath the Wall being no exception. I of course refer to the battle depicted in Jon X in A Storm of Swords in which the Wilding army besieging Castle Black was broken and routed by Stannis's cavalry relief force. 

The Wilding army numbered—at minimum—20,000, and consisted of spearmen, raiders, chariot riders, cavalry, and several hundred giants on mammothback. Stannis's host numbered somewhere between 1,000-1,500, consisting of armored southron cavalry (the overwhelming majority of his force), mounted Eastwatch-by-the-Sea Night's Watchmen, and archers.

When this battle is brought up in discussions people broadly fall into two opposing views:

• The battle was an unimpressive cleanup. For the most part the following is used to support this assertion: the Wildings are an untrained, disorganized rabble; Stannis completely took the Wildings by surprise, thus the "battle" was more of an ambush and therefore not very impressive; Stannis had the momentous advantage of armored southron cavalry.
• The battle was a triumphant victory. For the most part the following is used to support this assertion: Stannis was outnumbered 20 to 1; the Wildings are underestimated; the Wildings had time to form ranks due to the Eastwatch ploy; Stannis faced unconventional opposition.

That's not to say every take on the battle falls into this black-white category; some have argued that the battle beneath the Wall demonstrates no tactical brilliance on Stannis's part but does show a great degree of tactical competence, such as using the Eastwatch men to screen his assault.

So the intention of this thread is to have a specific debate about the nature of the victory beneath the Wall as oppose to being a cliff-note in the wider debate of Westerosi commander hierarchy.

Debate.

[James Steller]

I think it's safe to call it a great triumph over massive odds. Militarily, the Wildlings can hold their own, even if they weren't completely prepared for Stannis' arrival. They still wildly (no pun intended) outnumbered him and also had giants. And they still lost.

It speaks volumes towards the discipline and morale of Stannis' troops that they can achieve such a victory against such odds in an environment they're not accustomed to at all. Surprise and possibly weaponry were the only advantages they had and they defeated Mance Rayder.

But moreover, what makes this such a great moment is the motivation behind Stannis' arrival. He has nothing to gain from repelling the Wildlings. He's trying to act like a king by protecting the realm from a real threat. It's arguably his finest hour and it's a victory for him on all fronts.

[Red Helm]

12 minutes ago, James Steller said:

I think it's safe to call it a great triumph over massive odds. Militarily, the Wildlings can hold their own, even if they weren't completely prepared for Stannis' arrival.

Furthermore the Wildings only broke after Mance was incapacitated. For comparison's sake the incapacitation of the overall commander was what it took for the Royalist army to break at the Trident. If the Wildings were such a rabble they would have broken the moment the knights charged into their ranks. I also vaguely recall the spearmen forming a shield wall.

The Wildings are inferior to the average Westerosi knight/man-at-arms on average, but in light of the above facts and the fact Stannis was outnumbered 20 to 1 this is counteracted somewhat.

Still, I don't want this thread to devolve into an echo chamber, so hopefully someone of the view that it was a unimpressive cleanup will come along soon.

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

Stannis's men were outnumbered, but they were outnumbered by lightly armoured men with sub par weaponry (weapons made from bone and wood, for the most part). Stannis had the armoured cavalry, to which the Wildlings had no real defense. One thing the Wildlings had going for them was the Giants, but there were only a few hundred of them, among tens of thousands. Plus, the Giants are also lightly armoured (if at all), and I scarcely think it'd be that difficult to kill them, or their mammoths. The Wildlings had a lot of bodies, but not too many capable fighting men.

Stannis had less men, but they were better trained, they had better arms and armour, and they had discipline that the Wildlings simply lack. Sure, the Wildlings didn't break immediately, but why would they? They outnumbered Stannis by a massive amount, not to mention that all of their people were there, needing to be protected (the noncombatants). But when things looked bad, they ran; that's what Wildlings do, and Stannis knew that. They aren't a disciplined group, by any means. Numbers count for a whole lot, but they count for nothing at all when you're running away. Size doesn't either, just ask the Giant that Godry killed.

I lean more towards the fact that it was a rather unimpressive victory; I feel that any idiot leading that army would have had a very similar result. The leaders of the Night's Watch ranging party believed that the 300 men they had would have been enough to scatter them, especially if they could kill Mance Rayder; they were probably correct, too.

Essentially, Stannis brought his soldiers, but Mance grouped all of his peasants together and told them to pick up their pitchforks and their scythes and fight. They were obviously going to break, and that was all that was needed.

However, this is hardly a negative to Stannis. Just because it was an easy victory, it doesn't mean Stannis isn't an impressive tactician; all it says it that an impressive tactician isn't needed for a battle against such rabble. Should a man gloat over the fact that he would destroy an infant in a fist fight? No, but that doesn't mean that he can only win against infants.

[FrostyDornishman]

I lean towards the "unimpressive" assessment too.  Stannis commanded as competently as anyone could have, but aside from numbers and environmental familiarity he had every advantage.  His men were more seasoned and disciplined; they were much better armed and armored; he maintained the element of surprise; his host wasn't tethered to a huge mass of non-combatants they needed to protect; and he came in with a battle plan (screen with the rangers, create a pincer with cavalry columns, and set fire to the wildling camp).  He could even claim the upper hand on the supernatural side, once Mel had Varamyr's eagle burst into flames.

Perhaps it would've been a tougher fight if he hadn't had all of those factors working for him, but there was no way he was going to lose with all those advantages on his side.  If you want to give him credit for ensuring he had the upper hand the whole time, that's fine.  But anyone could've made the wildling host break under those circumstances, and once they broke it was all over.

[Red Helm]

1 hour ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Stannis's men were outnumbered, but they were outnumbered by lightly armoured men with sub par weaponry (weapons made from bone and wood, for the most part). Stannis had the armoured cavalry, to which the Wildlings had no real defense. One thing the Wildlings had going for them was the Giants, but there were only a few hundred of them, among tens of thousands. Plus, the Giants are also lightly armoured (if at all), and I scarcely think it'd be that difficult to kill them, or their mammoths. The Wildlings had a lot of bodies, but not too many capable fighting men.

I am inclined to believe the giants would be difficult to kill, even for a knight armored in plate. We have seen the destruction a single one can do, let alone an especially mobile one wielding a weapon.

As for the lack of capable fighting men... what is that based on? You haven't challenged the 20,000 figure, so I can only assume that you mean the actual army was composed of few fighting men.

Quote

Stannis had less men, but they were better trained, they had better arms and armour, and they had discipline that the Wildlings simply lack. Sure, the Wildlings didn't break immediately, but why would they? They outnumbered Stannis by a massive amount, not to mention that all of their people were there, needing to be protected (the noncombatants). But when things looked bad, they ran; that's what Wildlings do, and Stannis knew that. They aren't a disciplined group, by any means. Numbers count for a whole lot, but they count for nothing at all when you're running away. Size doesn't either, just ask the Giant that Godry killed.

Saying that they would run as soon as things looked bad and that they have no discipline does not seem consistent with them holding their ground as tides of steel crash into their ranks. The knowledge of simply having a numerical advantage—not that they could tell how badly they outnumbered the enemy during battle anyhow—does not count for much as armored knights with lance and swords charge towards you—for that there is discipline and bravery.

The fact that the separate constituents of their army had their own commanders (Harma leading the raiders, Tormund the spearmen) further suggests that are not this rabble to be scoffed at as soon as knights come into the equation. Inferior to the knights man-for-man for a certainty, but the fact that they aren't a pathetic rabble lends credence to their numbers.

I also dispute this notion that they ran when things looked bad—they ran when their leader was seemingly killed. In Westeros if the king is killed the cause is lost, no matter how many well trained knights are present. Breaking as a result of that is rarely indicative of the army's quality.

Quote

I lean more towards the fact that it was a rather unimpressive victory; I feel that any idiot leading that army would have had a very similar result. The leaders of the Night's Watch ranging party believed that the 300 men they had would have been enough to scatter them, especially if they could kill Mance Rayder; they were probably correct, too.

They were planning to ambush them under radically different circumstances and in a different terrain than the battle beneath the Wall. As such that's a rather weak equivalency.

Quote

Essentially, Stannis brought his soldiers, but Mance grouped all of his peasants together and told them to pick up their pitchforks and their scythes and fight. They were obviously going to break, and that was all that was needed.

They broke when Mance was seemingly killed, so it's not that obvious. The attack was planned in such a way to prevent their numbers being used to the advantage, therefore I also dispute this notion it was as simple as charging forth wildly and something anyone could have done.

Quote

However, this is hardly a negative to Stannis. Just because it was an easy victory, it doesn't mean Stannis isn't an impressive tactician; all it says it that an impressive tactician isn't needed for a battle against such rabble. Should a man gloat over the fact that he would destroy an infant in a fist fight? No, but that doesn't mean that he can only win against infants.

In reference to the bold: What a terrible false equivalency.

Anyhow, by saying Stannis is an impressive tactician you get to the heart of the matter: the battle beneath the Wall was such a resounding success precisely because of the tactics. I view the battle as something that could have went wrong if the tactics were as base as charging forward wildly. There were clever tactics used specifically to defeat such a large host.

[Red Helm]

44 minutes ago, FrostyDornishman said:

I lean towards the "unimpressive" assessment too.  Stannis commanded as competently as anyone could have, but aside from numbers and environmental familiarity he had every advantage.  His men were more seasoned and disciplined; they were much better armed and armored; he maintained the element of surprise; his host wasn't tethered to a huge mass of non-combatants they needed to protect; and he came in with a battle plan (screen with the rangers, create a pincer with cavalry columns, and set fire to the wildling camp).  He could even claim the upper hand on the supernatural side, once Mel had Varamyr's eagle burst into flames.

By mentioning his battle plan gets to the heart of the issue: it's impressive precisely because of those very tactics that were used to defeat a much larger host. I certainly do not think it's something any bastard could have done by charging forth wildly hoping to slaughter anything that moves. The tactics used were that of a clever commander.

Quote

Perhaps it would've been a tougher fight if he hadn't had all of those factors working for him, but there was no way he was going to lose with all those advantages on his side.  If you want to give him credit for ensuring he had the upper hand the whole time, that's fine.  But anyone could've made the wildling host break under those circumstances, and once they broke it was all over.

Again, I dispute it's something anyone could have done.

Also you list more advantages Stannis had, and yes, he does have more advantages when you put them on a checklist but context is the key; I believe each advantage the Wildings had were so great and only mitigated because of clever tactics, so them simply having a shorter bucket list of advantages doesn't win the debate.

[Light a wight tonight]

How many of the Wildlings were actually effective fighters? The numbers given in the text included the elderly, children, infirm, and others. You'll remember that Jeor Mormont wasn't afraid to attack the Wildlings with 200 Night Watchmen, essentially light cavalry. Stannis had about 1000 knights in full armor, plus whatever infantry. 

[The Drunkard]

The wildlings had a major numerical advantage, the defensive position, were in familiar territory, and had some units that no soldier south of the Wall has ever dealt with. Had they been given the opportunity to form up they could easily overwhelm the attackers. So Stannis denies them that opportunity: his cavalry allows him to approach quickly, Melisandre takes out their best scout while the Haunted Forest conceals his host, Cotter Pyke's rangers lure the wildling cavalry into a vulnerable position, the three columns of heavy cavalry take out the most organised areas of Mance's army (Harma, Tormund, the giants) and pincer the latter when it holds out, one unit of knights quickly overwhelms Mance when he tries to rally, and all the while archers are firing tents and supplies to cause panic. He basically did everything correct to capitalize on his own advantages and exploit the wildling disadvantages. Narratively it's definitely played as a major achievement: it saves Jon, ends the wildlings as a threat, brings Mance low, and reinvigorates Stannis' campaign. It wasn't brilliant, but was clearly impressive.

[Red Helm]

6 minutes ago, Light a wight tonight said:

How many of the Wildlings were actually effective fighters? The numbers given in the text included the elderly, children, infirm, and others. You'll remember that Jeor Mormont wasn't afraid to attack the Wildlings with 200 Night Watchmen, essentially light cavalry. Stannis had about 1000 knights in full armor, plus whatever infantry. 

100,000 Wildings in total which includes all the women, children, sick men, etc, etc. The 20,000 figure refers exclusively to the fighters in that 100,000 figure; spearmen, raiders, cavalry, chariot riders, spearwives, Thenns, and giants on mammothback.

Mormont was also going to attack the Wildings under radically different circumstances and terrain.

Also, Stannis wanted to make haste, thus he left his infantry behind at Eastwatch-by-the-Sea. I wrote down 1,000-1,500 because we don't know how many Eastwatch men were there.

[FrostyDornishman]

1 hour ago, Red Helm said:

I dispute it's something anyone could have done.

I suppose I'm going too far to say anybody could've done it, especially if they rushed in blind.  Stannis is a smart guy and probably one of the best commanders in Westeros.  Taking that into account though, and assuming that he's always going to approach a battle in a pretty clever way, I don't think this was that impressive of a victory for him or any commander of his caliber.  Swap him out with someone on equal footing, like Randyll Tarly or Tywin Lannister, and they would've done just as well.

It's a sweet victory, and a timely one for Stannis, and if we're just looking at numbers I suppose it can be called impressive.  But similar forces could go through that scenario a hundred times and the ones with Stannis's advantages (or without the wildlings' disadvantages) would always win.  It has nothing to do with how big my "bucket list" got -- skill, discipline, and equipment are too crucial in a battle like this.

[Red Helm]

23 minutes ago, FrostyDornishman said:

I suppose I'm going too far to say anybody could've done it, especially if they rushed in blind.  Stannis is a smart guy and probably one of the best commanders in Westeros.  Taking that into account though, and assuming that he's always going to approach a battle in a pretty clever way, I don't think this was that impressive of a victory for him or any commander of his caliber.  Swap him out with someone on equal footing, like Randyll Tarly or Tywin Lannister, and they would've done just as well.

It's a sweet victory, and a timely one for Stannis, and if we're just looking at numbers I suppose it can be called impressive.  But similar forces could go through that scenario a hundred times and the ones with Stannis's advantages (or without the wildlings' disadvantages) would always win.  It has nothing to do with how big my "bucket list" got -- skill, discipline, and equipment are too crucial in a battle like this.

Fair enough. I respect your viewpoint, albeit I'm not sure if Tywin can be considered a match... but that's a thread for another time I suppose.

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

2 hours ago, Red Helm said:

I am inclined to believe the giants would be difficult to kill, even for a knight armored in plate. We have seen the destruction a single one can do, let alone an especially mobile one wielding a weapon.

One-on-one, a Giant will win a very large percentage of the time; what I was trying to say (I do admit that my wording could've been better) was that I don't think that Giants have some kind of obscure resistance to damage that a similar sized human wouldn't have. Hit the Giant with a few arrows (say, through the heart or face), it goes down, simple as that. They're obviously physically intimidating, engaging one in close combat wouldn't be wise.

2 hours ago, Red Helm said:

As for the lack of capable fighting men... what is that based on? You haven't challenged the 20,000 figure, so I can only assume that you mean the actual army was composed of few fighting men.

I misspoke; by "capable" I meant skilled; there are a lot of capable Wildlings, ones who can fight, but I don't see much evidence that there are too many Wildlings who are actually all that good at fighting. I would say a great portion of the Wildling army were just people who barely knew how to swing a weapon (hence the peasant/pitchfork comparison I made later).

2 hours ago, Red Helm said:

Saying that they would run as soon as things looked bad and that they have no discipline does not seem consistent with them holding their ground as tides of steel crash into their ranks. The knowledge of simply having a numerical advantage—not that they could tell how badly they outnumbered the enemy during battle anyhow—does not count for much as armored knights with lance and swords charge towards you—for that there is discipline and bravery.

I've never question the bravery of the Wildlings; it is not to be contested. They are incredibly courageous; were they not, their lack of discipline would've lead them to break sooner. But they do, quite simply, lack any discipline, as has been repeatedly stated in the books:

"Only fools like Thoren Smallwood despise the wildlings. They are as brave as we are, Jon. As strong, as quick, as clever. But they have no discipline."

"They're fierce warriors, but not soldiers. In formal battle, discipline is more important than courage." This one is about Tyrion's wildlings, but the point stands.

They walked the rest of the way, past more cookfires and more tents, with Ghost following at their heels. Jon had never seen so many wildlings. He wondered if anyone ever had. The camp goes on forever, he reflected, but it's more a hundred camps than one, and each more vulnerable than the last. Stretched out over long leagues, the wildlings had no defenses to speak of, no pits nor sharpened stakes, only small groups of outriders patrolling their perimeters. Each group or clan or village had simply stopped where they wanted, as soon as they saw others stopping or found a likely spot. The free folk. If his brothers were to catch them in such disarray, many of them would pay for that freedom with their life's blood. They had numbers, but the Night's Watch had discipline, and in battle discipline beats numbers nine times of every ten, his father had once told him.

Wildlings fought like heroes or demons, depending on who you talked to, but it came down to the same thing in the end. They fight with reckless courage, every man out for glory. "I don't doubt that you're all very brave, but when it comes to battle, discipline beats valor every time. In the end Mance will fail as all the Kings-beyond-the-Wall have failed before him. And when he does, you'll die. All of you."

The Thenns were hardened warriors, and more disciplined than the common run of wildling.

The wildling archers shot as they advanced; they would dash forward, stop, loose, then run another ten yards. There were so many that the air was constantly full of arrows, all falling woefully short. A waste, Jon thought. Their want of discipline is showing.

Their complete lack of discipline shows. Though they are certainly brave.

2 hours ago, Red Helm said:

The fact that the separate constituents of their army had their own commanders (Harma leading the raiders, Tormund the spearmen) further suggests that are not this rabble to be scoffed at as soon as knights come into the equation. Inferior to the knights man-for-man for a certainty, but the fact that they aren't a pathetic rabble lends credence to their numbers.

We've seen, through Jon's eyes, how little their chain of command really matters to the Wildlings; we've seen the squabbling that happens, the outward shows of disobedience towards their commanders. They are just a rabble, only thinking about what they personally wish to do. In the words of Qhorin Halfhand:

"They name themselves the free folk, and each one thinks himself as good as a king and wiser than a maester."

2 hours ago, Red Helm said:

I also dispute this notion that they ran when things looked bad—they ran when their leader was seemingly killed. In Westeros if the king is killed the cause is lost, no matter how many well trained knights are present. Breaking as a result of that is rarely indicative of the army's quality.

Sure, sometimes armies will break upon the death of their leader. Most armies are fighting at the whims of their Kings and Lords; the Wildlings were fighting because every single one of them wanted to get beyond the Wall. They all had a goal that they desperately wanted to meet, whereas most armies are just fighting for what someone else wants. If they had a personal stake, very few disciplined armies would give up just because their leader is dead, if they had such overwhelming numbers.

2 hours ago, Red Helm said:

They were planning to ambush them under radically different circumstances and in a different terrain than the battle beneath the Wall. As such that's a rather weak equivalency.

I never said it was equivalent. Of course it's a different situation; different terrain, different circumstances, Stannis had more men, etc. Both sides had less advantages than at the battle at the Wall. The point is that the Night's Watch believed that the Wildling numbers didn't account for all that much, that their lack of discipline would be their undoing, which was proven at the Wall.

2 hours ago, Red Helm said:

They broke when Mance was seemingly killed, so it's not that obvious. The attack was planned in such a way to prevent their numbers being used to the advantage, therefore I also dispute this notion it was as simple as charging forth wildly and something anyone could have done.

Yes, it's true that Stannis didn't simply charge wildly and hope for the best; but even if he did, the result likely would've been the same, just with more casualties to Stannis's side. All they needed to do was plow through to Mance Rayder and take him down; that is the extent of the plan that was necessary. Even without the screening from the Rangers, the only difference would be that the Wildlings would've had a bit more warning; they would've been a bit more prepared, though still woefully inadequate, in comparison to the force they were facing.

2 hours ago, Red Helm said:

In reference to the bold: What a terrible false equivalency.

I wasn't trying to draw any direct equivalence between the Wildling army and an infant, any more than I was for Stannis's army and a single man, or a battle and a fist fight; it was a metaphor. It was an exaggeration, but that was part of the point; one side outclassing the other, exaggerated for effect. I wasn't trying to make perfect comparisons. If I was trying to, I should've said: "Should a better trained army gloat over the fact that he would destroy a less well trained army in a battle? No, but that doesn't mean that a better trained army can only win against less well trained armies." It just doesn't have the same panache, now, does it?

2 hours ago, Red Helm said:

Anyhow, by saying Stannis is an impressive tactician you get to the heart of the matter: the battle beneath the Wall was such a resounding success precisely because of the tactics. I view the battle as something that could have went wrong if the tactics were as base as charging forward wildly. There were clever tactics used specifically to defeat such a large host.

Yes, he did use clever tactics, and yes, that saved the life of some of his men; but I do believe it's something that anyone could do, so long as they weren't completely devoid of sense.

[the trees have eyes]

Stannis's tactics were spot on for the battle and were well executed by him and his field commanders.  As such it was a resounding success and went as well as he could have expected.

But does this make it military brilliance or genius?  I think not.  I believe any seasoned or well-trained battle commander would have done the same and we see plenty of them in action to know how Westerosi culture instills military tactics in the elite - whether Robb (Whispering Wood, Riverrun, Oxcross), Jaime (Golden Tooth, first battle of Riverrun), Tarly (Ashford, Duskendale) Tywin (Green Fork, King's Landing) etc...

So there is no point in somehow slighting Stannis for his flawless victory over the Wildlings but there is also no real value in trying to present this as a stroke of genius.  As mentoined above Jeor Mormont planned to take on the Wildlings with 300 men (somewhat foolishly in my opinion but there is your marker for comparison), surprise is a huge tactical advantage, quality of troops, weapons, training and discipline are a huge battelfield advantage, concentration of troops into effective strike forces while the enemy is widely dispersed over a large area and hampered by thousands of non-combatants running scared and through the marshalling grounds, the psychological impact on morale of the appearance of a large well-trained force while you were confident in your victory and off guard and parleying with an emissary from your opponent and the realisation that you don't have the certainty of victory any more. 

These are all things to be taken into account and all support the view that 1) Stannis attacked because he knew he was likely / almost certain to win (unless you maintain that Stannis was likely to lose, thought as much, that his men thought as much but they went ahead anyway for some reason) and 2) Stannis employed tactics that any experienced or competent commander would have.  In short any general worth his stars would or at least should have done the same.  It's well planned and executed but what we would expect of any commander who had been through Sandhurst or West Point and had experience of battle.