Why didn't Stannis personally command the naval fleet at blackwater...????

[Trigger Warning]

5 hours ago, sifth said:

Maybe so, but the chain was an obvious sign of a trap. Any commander with half a brain would have taken the chain towers before entering the bay.

The mostly likely thing is that they'd attempt to split the fleet in half, but they'd still have the advantage. It's a risk but risks have to be taken, especially when you're already delayed. Tyrion pulled off something no one expected and that sucks for Stannis but tailoring the entire plan around avoiding what happened is hindsight. Now I'm not saying Imry did a particularly good job, he's clearly not the brightest bulb. More what I'm saying is that every commander should have basically done the same thing as the bare minimum, even if he had considered the new towers they alone aren't enough to call off the entire attack and if the blame for not securing them rests with anyone it rests with Stannis who has had days to prepare.

If anything Stannis' inaction being that he is supposedly this great commander would support the idea that the chain towers alone don't represent a big enough threat to call off the naval attack or on Stannis' part to risk men assaulting the one on his side or to take time to deal with them after the fleet has arrived. 

Stannis doesn't have the luxury of time, else he'd be besieging the city not storming it. 

[sifth]

1 hour ago, Trigger Warning said:

The mostly likely thing is that they'd attempt to split the fleet in half, but they'd still have the advantage. It's a risk but risks have to be taken, especially when you're already delayed. Tyrion pulled off something no one expected and that sucks for Stannis but tailoring the entire plan around avoiding what happened is hindsight. Now I'm not saying Imry did a particularly good job, he's clearly not the brightest bulb. More what I'm saying is that every commander should have basically done the same thing as the bare minimum, even if he had considered the new towers they alone aren't enough to call off the entire attack and if the blame for not securing them rests with anyone it rests with Stannis who has had days to prepare.

If anything Stannis' inaction being that he is supposedly this great commander would support the idea that the chain towers alone don't represent a big enough threat to call off the naval attack or on Stannis' part to risk men assaulting the one on his side or to take time to deal with them after the fleet has arrived. 

Stannis doesn't have the luxury of time, else he'd be besieging the city not storming it. 

Still any commander who would willingly walk into a trap, is not worth being a commander. The fact that the chain was down and the royal fleet was so small were  clear signs of a trap no matter how you look at it.

 

To be honest Stannis was a bit of a fool for attacking the city and not dealing with Tywin first.

[Trigger Warning]

50 minutes ago, sifth said:

Still any commander who would willingly walk into a trap, is not worth being a commander. The fact that the chain was down and the royal fleet was so small were  clear signs of a trap no matter how you look at it.

 

To be honest Stannis was a bit of a fool for attacking the city and not dealing with Tywin first.

 

Not really, even if there is a trap you just have to consider the potential risks based on the knowledge you have. By that logic Tyrion could have had no wildfire plan and just left the chain down because no worthwhile commander would ever walk into such an obvious trap, commanders don't always have the time or circumstances to be so careful that they act passively as to ensure that there's no risk at all whilst at the same time accomplishing none of their objectives. 

Like I said the most likely "trap" would have been raising the chain when some of the fleet has passed. Whether that trap alone is enough to call off the entire assault is up to the commander, personally I'd try and get as much of the fleet through as I could and it would have been a mistake in hindsight but a sound decision based on the information available. Sometimes you simply have to spring the trap else the enemy despite their disadvantages will not be brought to battle because you'll call off your attack at any inkling of a trap. 

Turns out the trap was much more destructive than anyone anticipated, sucks but if Tyrion hadn't had a wildfire plan and instead just intended to split the fleet everyone would be deriding Imry for being too cautious. 

I agree about Stannis, he has what 16,000+ men? Whilst still one of the weaker contenders he had more than enough men to campaign without betting everything on an all or nothing strike with enemies in the field. 

Probably be a bit boring narratively though, 

[GallowsKnight]

2 hours ago, Trigger Warning said:

I agree about Stannis, he has what 16,000+ men? Whilst still one of the weaker contenders he had more than enough men to campaign without betting everything on an all or nothing strike with enemies in the field. 

Probably be a bit boring narratively though, 

It wasn't all or nothing until the Tyrells and Tywin arrived. Stannis even with the wildfire is winning without significant land causalities by the end of the first day of the Storm attempt. It should have been a clear win to depose Joffrey and prove himself as the true-king to the realm

There's a lot of incredibly unlucky timing that happens with the Blackwater for Stannis. Had his ships not been delayed he'd have been sitting behind the walls for 2 weeks by the time Tywin turned up. Enough time to rest his men, dig in and consider his options for the Tyrells/Tywin.

Or if they'd been delayed by a further few days, Stannis would have had time to anticipate Tywin's approach, withdraw and formulate a new plan.

Edit: The timing of the Blackwater is one of the least realistic/plot driven battles of the series. The rest make sense. Armies that seeking each other (Tywin versus Roose at the Green Fork, Duskendale) and attacking besieging or encamped forces (Oxcross, Whispering Wood/Battle of the Camps).

[Trigger Warning]

16 minutes ago, GallowsKnight said:

It wasn't all or nothing until the Tyrells and Tywin arrived.

 

 

That's entirely my point. They did arrive and he was crushed, he gambled and lost. 

 

EDIT: He immediately commits his entire force to assaulting a city after he takes Storm's End with undeclared and enemy armies in the field. It's a huge gamble, he can't guarantee the city will fall in a day, or weeks. It has strong walls a large garrison and a strong citadel, as it happens it was going well for Stannis on the storming front. But he couldn't guarantee that, no one could. If anything the city was falling much easier than you'd expect considering the size of the garrison and the increase in morale the complete annihilation of the enemy fleet should have instilled in the garrison. 

It always seemed silly anyway, Stannis doesn't even have the supplies to keep his army fed let alone to placate the people of King's Landing that just had their city stormed, Renly didn't bring any supply train to Storm's End and Stannis' fleet would take months to source it from... somewhere? The gates would probably be flung open the moment the Tyrell/Lannisters arrive outside. 

Since Stannis usually seems quite pragmatic I'd sooner put this down to him buying into what Mel's telling him. 

But like I said it'd make for a dull story if Stannis spent months campaigning in the Storm Lands and South taking castles, gaining new lords and refusing to give battle to larger armies. 

[GallowsKnight]

1 hour ago, Trigger Warning said:

That's entirely my point. They did arrive and he was crushed, he gambled and lost. 

EDIT: He immediately commits his entire force to assaulting a city after he takes Storm's End with undeclared and enemy armies in the field. It's a huge gamble, he can't guarantee the city will fall in a day, or weeks. It has strong walls a large garrison and a strong citadel, as it happens it was going well for Stannis on the storming front. But he couldn't guarantee that, no one could. If anything the city was falling much easier than you'd expect considering the size of the garrison and the increase in morale the complete annihilation of the enemy fleet should have instilled in the garrison. 

It always seemed silly anyway, Stannis doesn't even have the supplies to keep his army fed let alone to placate the people of King's Landing that just had their city stormed, Renly didn't bring any supply train to Storm's End and Stannis' fleet would take months to source it from... somewhere? The gates would probably be flung open the moment the Tyrell/Lannisters arrive outside. 

Since Stannis usually seems quite pragmatic I'd sooner put this down to him buying into what Mel's telling him. 

But like I said it'd make for a dull story if Stannis spent months campaigning in the Storm Lands and South taking castles, gaining new lords and refusing to give battle to larger armies. 

I agree and have changed my mind. You are correct it was still a gamble to attack Kingslanding as it could go wrong for all those reasons. Things were indeed going very well for Stannis, mainly because Tyrion was terrible at his job. I still thing the timing was ludicrous and not just because I'm a Stannis fan, I'd do so if the sides were reverse. Actually I probably wouldn't because I'm a flawed individual. 

Yes he still has enemies in the field. But knowing that is different to them being less than 24hrs from attacking you with the largest army history has ever seen. As I said. Had the winds not knocked his fleet of course he'd have taken Kingslanding much earlier. It might not be a great position, as you've mentioned re: supplies, but it's better than where he was after the Blackwater. He can either defend or leave a garrison and move to raid/attack. Or even abandon the city but leave with a dead Joffrey, a hostage or dead Cersei and possibly a rescued Sansa.

If he'd taken Kingslanding, it's the question of whether the Tyrells would still be willing to commit to the alliance or cut their losses. Stannis has a bunch of their bannermen with him. 

To be fair about Mel though up to that point everything she'd told him had come true. I think one of his biggest mistakes was to leave her behind, she's not omnipresent but she's sure good at keeping her own skin. Put her on the first boat into the Blackwater and I'm sure she'll see the Wildfire.And had he won there's the possibility they might have another animated shadow assassin up their sleeve (a victorious Stannis might be able to survive creating another). So if the Lannister and Tyrells arrived, Tywin and/or Mace Tyrell might have died over night.

But you are right for narrative purposes the Blackwater had to happen that way to make it exciting. For that purpose many characters carrying the idiot-ball momentarily. throughout the series.

[Trigger Warning]

The issue I have with the Tyrells remaining neutral or even supporting Stannis is what Loras and Tarly did at Bitterbridge, it's far too decisive and overtly anti Stannis. Even if he takes King's Landing and seems like he could even hold it they've already put all his potential supporters in their camp to the sword and basically burnt that bridge, even without a possible match with Tommen if Joffrey is dead I think they'd still move against Stannis just to make sure he doesn't seek vengeance should he be left in King's Landing to solidify his hold. 

I think that's why Bitterbridge happened in the first place, I think the Tyrell's were always going to be in opposition to Stannis on the throne simply because he represents a lot of risk and little reward. 

What I meant by Mel was more that she didn't see Stannis losing to an army other than Renly's at King's Landing and he may have seen that as a sign that he'd be unopposed by outside forces but really we know she simply misinterpreted a future that wasn't two possible futures but one self fulfilling prophecy. 

It's a double edged sword, if he doesn't listen to Mel he doesn't gain the army at all, if he trusts in her words and thinks by attacking Renly he's avoided her visions he attacks King's Landing regardless of the enemies in the field and is crushed. 

[GallowsKnight]

42 minutes ago, Trigger Warning said:

The issue I have with the Tyrells remaining neutral or even supporting Stannis is what Loras and Tarly did at Bitterbridge, it's far too decisive and overtly anti Stannis. Even if he takes King's Landing and seems like he could even hold it they've already put all his potential supporters in their camp to the sword and basically burnt that bridge, even without a possible match with Tommen if Joffrey is dead I think they'd still move against Stannis just to make sure he doesn't seek vengeance should he be left in King's Landing to solidify his hold. 

I think that's why Bitterbridge happened in the first place, I think the Tyrell's were always going to be in opposition to Stannis on the throne simply because he represents a lot of risk and little reward. 

What I meant by Mel was more that she didn't see Stannis losing to an army other than Renly's at King's Landing and he may have seen that as a sign that he'd be unopposed by outside forces but really we know she simply misinterpreted a future that wasn't two possible futures but one self fulfilling prophecy. 

It's a double edged sword, if he doesn't listen to Mel he doesn't gain the army at all, if he trusts in her words and thinks by attacking Renly he's avoided her visions he attacks King's Landing regardless of the enemies in the field and is crushed. 

I agree they burnt some big bridges at...Bitterbridge. I don't think that willing go to Stannis with open arms. But there might be a point where they feel they need to cut losses and throw Loras and Tarly under the bridge. Or that bannermen who who weren't purged might start to think Stannis is a better idea, and consider defecting or a coup.

At this point if Stannis has taken KL the Lannister star has considerably fallen. With Jaime in chains, Robb running wild in the West.

I think the problem with Mel is that she isn't honest with her limitations. Her powers (both in visions and animated shadows) are very useful but as you say she misinterpreted the visions. He should definitely listen to her council, but not follow her blindly. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

5 hours ago, Trigger Warning said:

The issue I have with the Tyrells remaining neutral or even supporting Stannis is what Loras and Tarly did at Bitterbridge, it's far too decisive and overtly anti Stannis. Even if he takes King's Landing and seems like he could even hold it they've already put all his potential supporters in their camp to the sword and basically burnt that bridge, even without a possible match with Tommen if Joffrey is dead I think they'd still move against Stannis just to make sure he doesn't seek vengeance should he be left in King's Landing to solidify his hold. 

Both Renly and Littlefinger point out the problem with Stannis - he would slash and burn the kingdoms. The Tyrells were never going to back him, particularly after he killed Renly. They could have got into bed with the Starks though.

[John Doe]

4 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Both Renly and Littlefinger point out the problem with Stannis - he would slash and burn the kingdoms. 

He wouldn't though.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

4 minutes ago, John Doe said:

He wouldn't though.

He would though. 

[sifth]

14 hours ago, Trigger Warning said:

 

Not really, even if there is a trap you just have to consider the potential risks based on the knowledge you have. By that logic Tyrion could have had no wildfire plan and just left the chain down because no worthwhile commander would ever walk into such an obvious trap, commanders don't always have the time or circumstances to be so careful that they act passively as to ensure that there's no risk at all whilst at the same time accomplishing none of their objectives. 

Like I said the most likely "trap" would have been raising the chain when some of the fleet has passed. Whether that trap alone is enough to call off the entire assault is up to the commander, personally I'd try and get as much of the fleet through as I could and it would have been a mistake in hindsight but a sound decision based on the information available. Sometimes you simply have to spring the trap else the enemy despite their disadvantages will not be brought to battle because you'll call off your attack at any inkling of a trap. 

Turns out the trap was much more destructive than anyone anticipated, sucks but if Tyrion hadn't had a wildfire plan and instead just intended to split the fleet everyone would be deriding Imry for being too cautious. 

I agree about Stannis, he has what 16,000+ men? Whilst still one of the weaker contenders he had more than enough men to campaign without betting everything on an all or nothing strike with enemies in the field. 

Probably be a bit boring narratively though, 

That's the thing though, Tyrion got lucky that Stannis chose to put and idiot in charge of his fleet. Things would have been very different if a person with half a brain was put in charge of his fleet. The point of a battle is to win, not win as quickly as possible. The fact that the towers were all but ignored by Stannis forces is just something insane when you think narrative wise. Stannis was said to be a smart battle commander and yet he just leaves an obvious trap in place, while the commander of his fleet does exactly the same.

[Trigger Warning]

5 minutes ago, sifth said:

That's the thing though, Tyrion got lucky that Stannis chose to put and idiot in charge of his fleet. Things would have been very different if a person with half a brain was put in charge of his fleet. The point of a battle is to win, not win as quickly as possible. The fact that the towers were all but ignored by Stannis forces is just something insane when you think narrative wise. Stannis was said to be a smart battle commander and yet he just leaves an obvious trap in place, while the commander of his fleet does exactly the same.

 

Why storm the city at all then?

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

15 hours ago, sifth said:

Still any commander who would willingly walk into a trap, is not worth being a commander. The fact that the chain was down and the royal fleet was so small were  clear signs of a trap no matter how you look at it.

 

To be honest Stannis was a bit of a fool for attacking the city and not dealing with Tywin first.

But his battle plan cannot revolve around prevention of a trap involving technology they do not know exists, They are prepared for some wildfire, but they cannot possibly know the quantity available to Tyrion, and it would be silly to waste time anticipating it. The chain could simply have been a futile attempt to split Stannis' fleet. Davos is quite a cautious man in such matters, which makes sense because he survived as a smuggler for so long by being a cautious man.

Regardless the chain and wildfire trap was a futile attempt, as it didn't stop Stannis, and didn't do a huge amount in slowing him down, it is only in hindsight that we know the time and ships lost by Stannis turned out to be crucial.

Tywin was hundreds of miles north in the Riverlands, at least that is what Stannis believed at the time. Now I don't know where the easternmost ford of the Blackwater is, but it may require him to travel into the Reach to cross, then of course he could come into conflict with Rivermen and Northmen, and this is all before actually taking the battle to Tywin.

Generally trying to hunt down armies in the field is not the best idea, especially if they are a long way away and you don't know where they are going (or where they are currently).

Now it wouldhave been smart to go after Renly's infantry in the Reach, but the plot did not demand that and it does make sense that many lords and knights wish to go on the offensive against the Lannisters. 

[dornishdragon]

Yes Stannis was a kind of leader that leads from behind unlike his brother Robert, which in my view is the best kind of leader atleast in most warfare situations. 

[Universal Sword Donor]

16 hours ago, Trigger Warning said:

Sending scouts would be ridiculous, what would you be expecting them to find? The reader's knowledge of the wildfire is the only reason to send scouts. The fleet can see Joffrey's fleet, Stannis army can see the fleet, you'd send scout ships up the river against Joffrey's fleet and through the Red's Keep's gauntlet of fire and to achieve what? To get a closer look at the fleet? Not that they'd get close enough to see that the hulks were crammed with wildfire they'd probably just assume they're crammed with soldiers. Davos was being overly cautious, Imry was already delayed and they could see the enemy fleet, they saw everything they needed to know, if anything the chain boon would likely be used to cut the fleet in half and they'd still have the advantage against Joffrey's fleet. 

The only thing the scout ships would confirm is that there's a chain boon, then there's the option commit to the attack or don't and if Imry had called off the assault and delayed his crossing because there was a new tower with a chain boon at the river mouth and that alone Stannis would have smashed into him for being a fool. 

No scout ship is going to run the gauntlet against enemy warships to find wilfire unless it's from the perspective of the reader, knowing what's there and the threat it represents. Not that they'd ever get close enough to find out, Stannis army can see those ships as well, better than a scout ship would I'd dare, they've been staring at them for days, do you think they thought anything other that that they were crammed with soldiers?

In any other circumstance Imry would have done the right thing and in this circumstance, he'd basically need to have his scouts board a wilfire hulk and inspect it to have good enough information to warrant calling off the assault.

Can't find a post from a similar thread, but yeah there are a bunch of reasons to send scouts.

1) Imry knows from fishermen that the chain towers have been constructed (or at least started):

“The dwarf had been busy building some sort of boom to close off the mouth of the river, though the fishermen differed as to whether the work had been completed or not.”

If he sends scouts in he can determine, as one would want to, whether or not his ships would be trapped in the harbor by a giant chain they can't control.

2) His battle plan involves 40 ships going to attack the KL royal fleet, which we know is bigger. He might not. That's useful information considering that he is trying to use the first 40 ships to "smash the boy king's fleet" while landing men with his next three lines. Having 5-10 warships with unfettered access to troop ships isn't grand strategy.

3) Being trapped by a chain might not seem like a big deal -- they can just attack and seize the towers after KL -- but Imry himself knows that KL will have scorpions. He orders their sails furled. He clearly recognizes that counter-siege weapons are a danger.

“Ser Imry had decreed that they would enter the river on oars alone, so as not to expose their sails to the scorpions and spitfires on the walls of King’s Landing.”

Yet he still doesn't send scouts ahead to see if the chain is functional, fully exposing his entire fleet to counter-siege weapons like scorpions, ballistae, catapaults, trebuchets, burning pitch, and others with the possibility of being jammed together in the narrow river mouth. Even ignoring the wild fire, that is pants on head retarded. 

The worst part is he delivers people to the mud gate, which is entirely unnecessary and a bad idea when thinking of the chain. They can safely deliver men to the north bank and the Iron gate while completely avoiding being trapped by the boom.

tl;dr: I think Imry is a complete moron and I don't even think I listed everything I wrote up last time

[Tucu]

32 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Can't find a post from a similar thread, but yeah there are a bunch of reasons to send scouts.

1) Imry knows from fishermen that the chain towers have been constructed (or at least started):

“The dwarf had been busy building some sort of boom to close off the mouth of the river, though the fishermen differed as to whether the work had been completed or not.”

If he sends scouts in he can determine, as one would want to, whether or not his ships would be trapped in the harbor by a giant chain they can't control.

2) His battle plan involves 40 ships going to attack the KL royal fleet, which we know is bigger. He might not. That's useful information considering that he is trying to use the first 40 ships to "smash the boy king's fleet" while landing men with his next three lines. Having 5-10 warships with unfettered access to troop ships isn't grand strategy.

3) Being trapped by a chain might not seem like a big deal -- they can just attack and seize the towers after KL -- but Imry himself knows that KL will have scorpions. He orders their sails furled. He clearly recognizes that counter-siege weapons are a danger.

“Ser Imry had decreed that they would enter the river on oars alone, so as not to expose their sails to the scorpions and spitfires on the walls of King’s Landing.”

Yet he still doesn't send scouts ahead to see if the chain is functional, fully exposing his entire fleet to counter-siege weapons like scorpions, ballistae, catapaults, trebuchets, burning pitch, and others with the possibility of being jammed together in the narrow river mouth. Even ignoring the wild fire, that is pants on head retarded. 

The worst part is he delivers people to the mud gate, which is entirely unnecessary and a bad idea when thinking of the chain. They can safely deliver men to the north bank and the Iron gate while completely avoiding being trapped by the boom.

tl;dr: I think Imry is a complete moron and I don't even think I listed everything I wrote up last time

But scouts ships would have revealed nothing new about the boom or the unexpected dragon-enhanced wildfire.

[Universal Sword Donor]

1 hour ago, Tucu said:

But scouts ships would have revealed nothing new about the boom or the unexpected dragon-enhanced wildfire.

Scout ships would have been able to see if the boom towers were completed, whether or not there was a chain in place, and provide a count of ships in Joffrey's fleet. You can't say they wouldn't. Davos gives us a blow by blow from the same position they'd be in.

[Tucu]

3 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Scout ships would have been able to see if the boom towers were completed, whether or not there was a chain in place, and provide a count of ships in Joffrey's fleet. You can't say they wouldn't. Davos gives us a blow by blow from the same position they'd be in.

The scouts would have seen the undeployed chain, missed its true purpose as Davos did and the invasion would have continued as it did.

[Universal Sword Donor]

4 minutes ago, Tucu said:

The scouts would have seen the undeployed chain, missed its true purpose as Davos did and the invasion would have continued as it did.

I outlined why Davos' misidentification is largely irrelevant. You neither want to be trapped behind a chain nor trapped in a narrow area where siege weapons are going to fire missiles and big fucking rocks at you. It's bad for the paintjobs on the boat. That kind of maintenance just ruins the war budget. You have to get it detailed and repainted after every amphibious invasion.