Is Mace Tyrell actually competent?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

2 hours ago, marsyao said:

No, Robert Baratheon was the winner, Stannis Baratheon contributed greatly to his elder brother's victory, but Stannis did not defeat army of the Reach, Had Robert not won the war, the Storn's end would have fallen because of starvation despite the delivery of food by Onion Knight

I don't see it. The one who was the winner from the siege was Stannis, without him SE would had fallen even if Robert was the winner of the war.

[marsyao]

18 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

I don't see it. The one who was the winner from the siege was Stannis, without him SE would had fallen even if Robert was the winner of the war.

No, after Robert won the crown, it would not be a valid option for the Reach to fight further, I never say Stannis was not a winner in the trimph of the House Baratheon, just saying he did not defeat the army of the Reach

[Protagoras]

He might not be that intelligent, but he is certainly not a coward and looks to be a decisive man. He was the one who took the decision to support Renlys bid after all. If he is a bumbling fool, why would he even do that. Then again, he seem to be completely unaware about the informal Tyrell power network led by Olenna so he clearly lacks understanding and knowledge about the goings-on in his own family.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

17 hours ago, marsyao said:

No, after Robert won the crown, it would not be a valid option for the Reach to fight further, I never say Stannis was not a winner in the trimph of the House Baratheon, just saying he did not defeat the army of the Reach

Yet even with Robert winner SE could had fallen. The fact that SE hadn't fall was what made Stannis the winner.

[leonardof]

On 02/04/2017 at 4:17 PM, shardofNarsil said:

[...] he then spends the rest of the Rebellion besieging Storm's End where he is in a good position no matter who wins at the Trident. [...]

His "good position" consisted in being in one piece when the war ended, so that he could bend the knee to Robert. He could have changed sides, but he kept his loyalty to House Targaryen even after the Trident. And while Robert's (and Ned's) attitude was the right thing to do (or else no lord would bend the knee, as Tywin said later), one cannot take for granted receiving amnesty from a former enemy at the end of war.

[marsyao]

On 4/7/2017 at 9:22 AM, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Yet even with Robert winner SE could had fallen. The fact that SE hadn't fall was what made Stannis the winner.

The only reason SE did not fall eventually was because Robert had won his war and send a relieve army to the SE

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Just now, marsyao said:

The only reason SE did not fall eventually was because Robert had won his war and send a relieve army to the SE

If that was the reason SE and not Stannis' power there is no reason why SE wouldn't had fallen months before that.

[marsyao]

46 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

If that was the reason SE and not Stannis' power there is no reason why SE wouldn't had fallen months before that.

Hey, I never say Stanni lost, just saying his food suplly was almost exhuasted, and the SE would have falled had not the food the Onion Knight smuggled a boat of food into SE, but how long these food could last ? 2 weeks ? may be a month top ?

I think everybody have missed my point, I never say Stannis lost the siege of SE or he did not play an important role in Robert's rebellion, it was his holding SE that prevent the army of the Reach to join royal army at the battle of Triden, and that was one of the major reason Robert won the war and his crown  I know all that, my point was merely Stannis did not actually defeat army of the Reach, he just held them at bay and win enough time for Robert to win his war

[Seeeyeare]

36 minutes ago, marsyao said:

Hey, I never say Stanni lost, just saying his food suplly was almost exhuasted, and the SE would have falled had not the food the Onion Knight smuggled a boat of food into SE, but how long these food could last ? 2 weeks ? may be a month top ?

I think everybody have missed my point, I never say Stannis lost the siege of SE or he did not play an important role in Robert's rebellion, it was his holding SE that prevent the army of the Reach to join royal army at the battle of Triden, and that was one of the major reason Robert won the war and his crown  I know all that, my point was merely Stannis did not actually defeat army of the Reach, he just held them at bay and win enough time for Robert to win his war

This is frankly nonsense.

What is a siege? A quick google search gives the following definition:

"A military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling those inside to surrender."

So what does this mean? By its most basic definition, the purpose of a siege is to compel the enemy inhabitants to surrender. If you do not succeed in this purpose, you have failed the siege. Looking at history, when Krak des Chevaliers fell, they lost. The attacker wins if the defender surrenders. The defender wins if the attacker cannot force its surrender. 

Did Stannis surrender? No. Who attacked Stannis? Mace. Did Mace force Stannis's surrender? No. Therefore Mace failed in his operation against Stannis. 

"But.. but... but... that only happened because Robert won the crown," you keep saying. Despite how much you keep repeating this, it's still irrelevant. The siege wasn't a war in itself. It was a battle. You can win a battle but still lose the war, and likewise you can win a battle but still lose the war. 

Mace not only lost the battle he initiated against Stannis (based on the very simplistic definition, which should in no way be difficult to grasp), but he also lost the overall war alongside the Targaryen side. He lost twofold, in other words. 

"But... but... but... he was almost starved and then he would have surrendered!" you also argue, hilariously. 

Why is this hilarious?

The defenders' objective in a siege isn't to do anything other than keep themselves from surrendering. Holding out until someone else relieves them, is the entire bloody point of it all. The fact that they held out is what they were supposed to be doing. There is nothing more to it.

Why? Because a siege and a blockade's modus operandi is first and foremostly the cutting off of supplies. The defenders starving out and surrendering, or being forced to exit the besieged castle, town, etc so that they may attempt an attack, is the direct consequence of a siege. Or at least it should be. 

If Mace failed in forcing their surrender (in realising the aforementioned and easily obtainable consequence) before outside events ended the overall war, he failed his most basic purpose, since his job is not only to siege Stannis, but for the siege to succeed, so that the victory would have some tactical or strategic purpose to it in order to contribute to the overall war at hand. 

It doesn't matter if Stannis is one minute from starving, if he doesn't surrender before the end of the war or until he is relieved from the siege. Mace fails his objective (winning the battle), and since he fails his objective (winning the battle) he has no effect on the overall war. 

 

tl;dr: If you don't force a defender's surrender, you fail against that defender. 

[Universal Sword Donor]

2 hours ago, Seeeyeare said:

This is frankly nonsense.

What is a siege? A quick google search gives the following definition:

"A military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling those inside to surrender."

So what does this mean? By its most basic definition, the purpose of a siege is to compel the enemy inhabitants to surrender. If you do not succeed in this purpose, you have failed the siege. Looking at history, when Krak des Chevaliers fell, they lost. The attacker wins if the defender surrenders. The defender wins if the attacker cannot force its surrender. [..]

Why is this hilarious?

The defenders' objective in a siege isn't to do anything other than keep themselves from surrendering. Holding out until someone else relieves them, is the entire bloody point of it all. The fact that they held out is what they were supposed to be doing. There is nothing more to it.

Why? Because a siege and a blockade's modus operandi is first and foremostly the cutting off of supplies. The defenders starving out and surrendering, or being forced to exit the besieged castle, town, etc so that they may attempt an attack, is the direct consequence of a siege. Or at least it should be. 

If Mace failed in forcing their surrender (in realising the aforementioned and easily obtainable consequence) before outside events ended the overall war, he failed his most basic purpose, since his job is not only to siege Stannis, but for the siege to succeed, so that the victory would have some tactical or strategic purpose to it in order to contribute to the overall war at hand. 

It doesn't matter if Stannis is one minute from starving, if he doesn't surrender before the end of the war or until he is relieved from the siege. Mace fails his objective (winning the battle), and since he fails his objective (winning the battle) he has no effect on the overall war. 

 

tl;dr: If you don't force a defender's surrender, you fail against that defender. 

Not every siege is meant to meant to take the castle. We have no idea if he was ordered to take the castle, merely prevent Robert's brother from gathering reinforcements, or just keep Stannis under threat. No one has ever taken SE by force or siege, so "requiring" him to succeed where literally no one has succeeded in 8000 years is also "frankly nonsense." 

Now to expand on my views, Stannis absolutely succeeded in resisting the siege, but he didn't win any more than a team forcing a tie into the last minute. Mace didn't win, but he certainly didn't lose to Stannis*. He had nothing but time on his side and leverage with Robert because of the situation inside the castle. Ned and the relief army are the equivalent of the guy hitting the game winning shot. If Mace had really wanted to make a fight of it, he could but it wasn't worth it.

When Ned appeared, Aerys, Rhaegar, and Aegon were dead, and Viserys fled. There was no one left to fight for, and the war was clearly lost anyway.

The modern concept of "total war" really didn't exist in the medieval period. Armies were personal, as were loyalties. The leader who wanted to fight on till the last drop of blood might well have found himself fighting on alone, since his vassals were likely to have better sense, and their levies were more likely to follow their own lord than the "general." Tyrell's surrender was pretty much warfare as usual. If he had =tried= to give battle to Ned in a lost cause, he might well have found his more opportunistic bannermen deserting to the other side.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/The_Siege_of_Storms_End

* I don't think Mace lost at all but that is a rather subjective matter

[marsyao]

3 hours ago, Seeeyeare said:

This is frankly nonsense.

What is a siege? A quick google search gives the following definition:

"A military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling those inside to surrender."

So what does this mean? By its most basic definition, the purpose of a siege is to compel the enemy inhabitants to surrender. If you do not succeed in this purpose, you have failed the siege. Looking at history, when Krak des Chevaliers fell, they lost. The attacker wins if the defender surrenders. The defender wins if the attacker cannot force its surrender. 

Did Stannis surrender? No. Who attacked Stannis? Mace. Did Mace force Stannis's surrender? No. Therefore Mace failed in his operation against Stannis. 

"But.. but... but... that only happened because Robert won the crown," you keep saying. Despite how much you keep repeating this, it's still irrelevant. The siege wasn't a war in itself. It was a battle. You can win a battle but still lose the war, and likewise you can win a battle but still lose the war. 

Mace not only lost the battle he initiated against Stannis (based on the very simplistic definition, which should in no way be difficult to grasp), but he also lost the overall war alongside the Targaryen side. He lost twofold, in other words. 

"But... but... but... he was almost starved and then he would have surrendered!" you also argue, hilariously. 

Why is this hilarious?

The defenders' objective in a siege isn't to do anything other than keep themselves from surrendering. Holding out until someone else relieves them, is the entire bloody point of it all. The fact that they held out is what they were supposed to be doing. There is nothing more to it.

Why? Because a siege and a blockade's modus operandi is first and foremostly the cutting off of supplies. The defenders starving out and surrendering, or being forced to exit the besieged castle, town, etc so that they may attempt an attack, is the direct consequence of a siege. Or at least it should be. 

If Mace failed in forcing their surrender (in realising the aforementioned and easily obtainable consequence) before outside events ended the overall war, he failed his most basic purpose, since his job is not only to siege Stannis, but for the siege to succeed, so that the victory would have some tactical or strategic purpose to it in order to contribute to the overall war at hand. 

It doesn't matter if Stannis is one minute from starving, if he doesn't surrender before the end of the war or until he is relieved from the siege. Mace fails his objective (winning the battle), and since he fails his objective (winning the battle) he has no effect on the overall war. 

 

tl;dr: If you don't force a defender's surrender, you fail against that defender. 

What you said would only valid if there was a battle between the army of Reach and the relieved army, since if the relieve army was defeated, then the siege would be continue, in the fact Mace decided to laid down arm when he heard the Targaryn's were overthrown becuase he considered there was no point to fight anymore, and he could get a better deal when his army was still UNDEFEATED

[Whitering]

On 4/2/2017 at 2:52 PM, Renly's Banana said:

Which is why he forced his young and inexperienced son to joust against the Red Viper of Dorne, causing him to break his leg, all because of his pride and a feud. 

The simple truth of the matter is we don't know anything about the Tyrells behind closed doors. They're schemers and ruthlessly callous when it comes to their ambitions. They butter up Sansa and make her feel like she's cared for, but as soon as their plans for her fall apart they give her the cold shoulder and don't even attend her wedding. The three sons seem to be pretty okay guys, but I wouldn't trust Margaery, Mace or Olenna as far as I can throw 'em. Yeah they're not as bad as the Lannisters or Greyjoys, but they ain't the most trustworthy either. 

As for Mace, I think he's a pompous blowhard who's been coasting on luck + the good advice of his bannermen and mother.

Did he force him to joust or was it a Harry the Heir thing where he demanded it? He seems a bit Rhaegarish.

Here's what we know though, even if they are showmen, they know the show to put on, something we've not seen from anyone else though Jaime seems to counsel just such action in his last few chapters. We've not seen a single act, other than Olenna of the family not getting along or supporting each other.

Relying on advisors isn't a sign of weakness, in fact if you don't know what you are doing it's the most intelligent thing you can do short of sitting down and learning how to do it yourself.

Garlan attended Sansa's wedding at least, is that a show thing you are getting confused with? I feel like they were at her Wedding.

Garlan seems to be truly astute and charismatic at least.

[Renly's Banana]

@Whitering 
By all accounts, Mace seems to have forced a very young Willas into jousting against people much older and skilled than him. Oberyn and Olenna both say this. He wanted to turn his firstborn son into a famous knight (he's desperate to make his family famous somehow) but he ended up crippled. Once Loras came around and showed that he had some skill, suddenly Loras became is "favorite." Mace Tyrell values jousting skill and a flashy appearance more than intelligence and wise counsel -- another thing we see from him time and again. Him pushing Willas aside and ignoring his mother's advice is why I highly doubt he's the secret master schemer some people on here claim he is. 

And no, Garlan did not attend Sansa's wedding. Margaery and Loras did in the show, but none of the Tyrells were there in the book. They come late only to the banquet that's held after the ceremony; Garlan is the only one to speak to her, the rest ignore her. Which is a shrewd thing for Olenna to do, but it also shows that they're just as cold and manipulative as everybody else. 

[Universal Sword Donor]

2 hours ago, Renly's Banana said:

@Whitering 
By all accounts, Mace seems to have forced a very young Willas into jousting against people much older and skilled than him. Oberyn and Olenna both say this. He wanted to turn his firstborn son into a famous knight (he's desperate to make his family famous somehow) but he ended up crippled. Once Loras came around and showed that he had some skill, suddenly Loras became is "favorite." Mace Tyrell values jousting skill and a flashy appearance more than intelligence and wise counsel -- another thing we see from him time and again. Him pushing Willas aside and ignoring his mother's advice is why I highly doubt he's the secret master schemer some people on here claim he is. 

And no, Garlan did not attend Sansa's wedding. Margaery and Loras did in the show, but none of the Tyrells were there in the book. They come late only to the banquet that's held after the ceremony; Garlan is the only one to speak to her, the rest ignore her. Which is a shrewd thing for Olenna to do, but it also shows that they're just as cold and manipulative as everybody else. 

We have literally no one's word except for Oberyn's. Horas and Hobber are of an age with Sam, and they rode in the Hand's Tourney. Rhaegar, the crown prince, was riding in tourneys at 17. Brandon Stark rode in them young as well. He pushed all 3 sons into jousting and two of them are two of the finest knights in the kingdom. Seems more like to me Willas' injury was a freak accident, which he himself and Oberyn both maintain, than malice or something akin to it.

On another note how does he push Willas aside? He names him heir, has him rule as castellan, and marshal troops when he's at SE and KL. He barely shows Garlan any attention or patronage until he has a title with accompanying lands to give him. Loras might well be his favorite, but that doesn't mean he shunted Willas aside because he was cripple. Both your parents and my parents have a favorite child -- it's not me -- but it's not as if my parents shoved me aside. 

Mace isn't a scheming genius. I don't think anyone here is even remotely claiming that. The title literally says "is mace tyrell actually competent." He appoints Tarly as commander for his van, which he wins Ashford with. He appoints Mathis Rowan, described by Kevan as prudent, sensible, and well-liked, as commander of the SE siege when he rushes to KL. He didn't vainly force an attack on SE. He was content on starving out Stannis, which would have worked if the crown hadn't been routed at the Trident. Even then he came out unscathed from opposing the rebels until the bitter end. 

He certainly at leasts pretends to effect the appearance of style of substance, but his track record of useful decision completely outside of the sphere of his mother shows me that he at leasts listens to vassals and can appropriately judge people and situations. He might not be a diabolical evil genius, but he's clearly not an impotent moron that people make him out to be unless he is completely willing to do whatever someone close to him wants. That explanation falls apart when you look at the number of close confidants and family members he have whose orders would conflict to  a large degree (or constitute such a large conspiracy web it makes the GNC look like a child's game).

[Seeeyeare]

14 hours ago, marsyao said:

What you said would only valid if there was a battle between the army of Reach and the relieved army, since if the relieve army was defeated, then the siege would be continue, in the fact Mace decided to laid down arm when he heard the Targaryn's were overthrown becuase he considered there was no point to fight anymore, and he could get a better deal when his army was still UNDEFEATED

A siege may be a war, or it may be a battle. In this case, it is one battle within the broader war. A battle is defined as a battle between opposing groups. The groups in question are those under Stannis and those under Mace. 

Furthermore, you keep ignoring the point of sieges. A siege is an operation where you need to force a defender's surrender. If you do not force their surrender, you lose the military operation. The siege in question was, again, between the Stannis and Mace groups. Mace did not successfully force Stannis's surrender. In other words, he failed his military operation against Stannis. 

1) Mace lost against Stannis, and

2) Mace surrendered and therefore lost the overall war along with the Targaryen side, as well

Now, what is a military operation? A military operation is the implementation of a plan (or group of plans) drawn up by the commanders of a force whereby they attempt to realise the plans (achieve their objectives) during a conflict. 

 

Let's break this down:

Besieger: Initiator of a military operation whereby the initiator attempts to force the defender's surrender.

Besieged: Defender in a military operation whereby the defender prevents his own downfall.

 

Let's apply this:

Besieger:

Who? Mace's forces

Does what? Besiege Storm's End (Stannis's forces)

For what purpose? To force Stannis's surrender and capture Storm's end

Besieged:

Who? Stannis's forces

Does what? Resist Mace's attacks

For what purpose? To avoid the downfall of Storm's End

 

Was the besieger (Mace) successful in the realisation of his military operation? No. 

Was the besieged (Stannis) successful in the realisation of his military operation? Yes. 

Against whom was the besieged (Stannis) successful? The besieger. (Mace)

 

Do you catch this? Post after post, you conveniently ignore the fact that conflicts have two opposing sides.

1) There are two forces [Stannis and Mace]

2) There are two objectives [Capture and resist]

If there are two counteracting objectives, it means that for one objective to succeed, the other objective must fail.

 

Did Stannis fail? No.

Did Stannis succeed? Yes. 

If Stannis succeeded, against whom did he succeed? The agitator. 

Who was the agitator? Mace.

 

If you argue that Mace didn't lose against Stannis, you are also arguing that Stannis didn't succeed in his objective. This is false. His objective (resisting Mace's forces to avoid Storm's End's capture) was 100% met.

Stannis didn't win against fairies. He won against something. Who was that something he won against? Mace.

 

And by the way, since Mace also surrendered to the Vale-North-Riverland-Stormland(-Westerland) army, that also means he lost to them. That is, after all, what surrendering means. There were still Targaryens alive. He chose to surrender in spite of that. 

So not only is Mace not undefeated, he is also 0-2, or written differently 0 Wins 2 Losses. 

[Whitering]

17 hours ago, Renly's Banana said:

@Whitering 
By all accounts, Mace seems to have forced a very young Willas into jousting against people much older and skilled than him. Oberyn and Olenna both say this. He wanted to turn his firstborn son into a famous knight (he's desperate to make his family famous somehow) but he ended up crippled. Once Loras came around and showed that he had some skill, suddenly Loras became is "favorite." Mace Tyrell values jousting skill and a flashy appearance more than intelligence and wise counsel -- another thing we see from him time and again. Him pushing Willas aside and ignoring his mother's advice is why I highly doubt he's the secret master schemer some people on here claim he is. 

And no, Garlan did not attend Sansa's wedding. Margaery and Loras did in the show, but none of the Tyrells were there in the book. They come late only to the banquet that's held after the ceremony; Garlan is the only one to speak to her, the rest ignore her. Which is a shrewd thing for Olenna to do, but it also shows that they're just as cold and manipulative as everybody else. 

Okay, thank you.

[marsyao]

8 hours ago, Seeeyeare said:

Did Stannis fail? No.

Did Stannis succeed? Yes. 

If Stannis succeeded, against whom did he succeed? The agitator. 

Who was the agitator? Mace.

 

You do miss one point:

Did Stannis fail? No.

Did Stannis succeed? Yes. 

If Stannis succeeded, against whom did he succeed? The agitator. 

Who was the agitator? Mace.

Was Mace's army defeated? The answer is of course NO, because the army of the Reach was intact to the very end, it was possible for them to defeat Ned's relieved army and then forced Stannis to surrender the SE before Robert could take the force of the entire region to against the Reach.

And you missed a very important point, we all know the Reach could easily levy an army more than 50 thousands, then why Mace not left his navy and an observation Corp of 5 thousand men to laid a siege to  SE, and he let the main force of his army marched to join the loyal army?

[Universal Sword Donor]

1 hour ago, marsyao said:

You do miss one point:

Did Stannis fail? No.

Did Stannis succeed? Yes. 

If Stannis succeeded, against whom did he succeed? The agitator. 

Who was the agitator? Mace.

Was Mace's army defeated? The answer is of course NO, because the army of the Reach was intact to the very end, it was possible for them to defeat Ned's relieved army and then forced Stannis to surrender the SE before Robert could take the force of the entire region to against the Reach.

And you missed a very important point, we all know the Reach could easily levy an army more than 50 thousands, then why Mace not left his navy and an observation Corp of 5 thousand men to laid a siege to  SE, and he let the main force of his army marched to join the loyal army?

More importantly, expecting Mace to take SE by force or starvation just isn't realistic. It's never fallen. Mace did his job, self-appointed or commanded by Aerys, in besieging SE and preventing Stannis from doing anything other than going hungry. If Mace lost, he sure as hell didn't lose to Stannis. He lost to Ned and the relief army, which let him march home completely intact and no punishment after bending the knee to Robert.

Dagmer didn't successfully take Torrhen's Square but he accomplished his mission and fulfilled his orders 100%. You cannot assume the ultimate goal of a siege is to take the castle, draw attention to it, or a combination of both. History is littered with examples of both. Edward needed to take Stirling Castle, but he wanted to demonstrate how powerful he was with his trebuchets (werewolf?). Edward III wanted to draw the French army into battle with the Siege of Calais, but he also wanted to take Calais.

[Seeeyeare]

3 hours ago, marsyao said:

You do miss one point:

Did Stannis fail? No.

Did Stannis succeed? Yes. 

If Stannis succeeded, against whom did he succeed? The agitator. 

Who was the agitator? Mace.

Was Mace's army defeated? The answer is of course NO, because the army of the Reach was intact to the very end, it was possible for them to defeat Ned's relieved army and then forced Stannis to surrender the SE before Robert could take the force of the entire region to against the Reach.

And you missed a very important point, we all know the Reach could easily levy an army more than 50 thousands, then why Mace not left his navy and an observation Corp of 5 thousand men to laid a siege to  SE, and he let the main force of his army marched to join the loyal army?

...

What. 

What the heck does this have to do with anything? The defender's purpose in a siege is not automatically the defeat of the agitators. This is not what the definition of a siege is. This has never been the definition of a siege. It will also never be the definition of a siege. The fact that Mace's armies were untouched has no bearing on the fact that he didn't win the siege.

As for the bolded, you aren't even arguing the point anymore. The question isn't what Mace could have done. It is what he has done. What has he done? He has lost. 

If x did y instead of z is revisionist history. You can't argue that someone technically won, because they may have won if the did y instead of z. History declares the loser as such, and the winner as such. What Mace could have done with his 50000+ troops is irrelevant. 

1 hour ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

More importantly, expecting Mace to take SE by force or starvation just isn't realistic. It's never fallen. Mace did his job, self-appointed or commanded by Aerys, in besieging SE and preventing Stannis from doing anything other than going hungry. If Mace lost, he sure as hell didn't lose to Stannis. He lost to Ned and the relief army, which let him march home completely intact and no punishment after bending the knee to Robert.

Dagmer didn't successfully take Torrhen's Square but he accomplished his mission and fulfilled his orders 100%. You cannot assume the ultimate goal of a siege is to take the castle, draw attention to it, or a combination of both. History is littered with examples of both. Edward needed to take Stirling Castle, but he wanted to demonstrate how powerful he was with his trebuchets (werewolf?). Edward III wanted to draw the French army into battle with the Siege of Calais, but he also wanted to take Calais.

I'm sorry, what? 

Stannis had how many troops at his disposal? Compared to Mace's how many? Holding an 18 year old with only the garrison of the castle itself at bay has absolutely no effect on the war at all. I'm honestly amazed that you'd call that an achievement by any stretch. 

Also, you still aren't describing a siege. It's true that sieges come in different flavours, as I've already pointed out. That's why context is important.

1) The troop ratios are utterly disproportionate. Around 1000 (probably far less) troops against the Reach's forces is unlike any conflict in our history where, sometimes, the siege (successful or not) itself culminated in the end of the war. 

2) This is clearly a single battle. Various wars in our history were entirely dependent on the sieges itself. The siege of Storm's End wasn't the war itself in this case. 

So, for the third time, I'll explain this very basic principle. 

A siege is an operation. This operation has two sides to it. The objective of the besieger to take over the castle (or town or whatever) and likewise the objective of the defender to stay put. 

If the defender fails, the besieger wins. If the besieger fails, the defender wins. THIS IS WHAT A SIEGE IS BY ITS MOST BASIC DEFINITION. The objective not to fall. That's it. If you defeat the agitators in the process, kudos to you, but this is not your primary objective, at least not when a siege in question is only a battle in itself and not the war in its entirety. 

[Universal Sword Donor]

1 minute ago, Seeeyeare said:

I'm sorry, what? 

Stannis had how many troops at his disposal? Compared to Mace's how many? Holding an 18 year old with only the garrison of the castle itself at bay has absolutely no effect on the war at all. I'm honestly amazed that you'd call that an achievement by any stretch. 

Also, you still aren't describing a siege. It's true that sieges come in different flavours, as I've already pointed out. That's why context is important.

1) The troop ratios are utterly disproportionate. Around 1000 (probably far less) troops against the Reach's forces is unlike any conflict in our history where, sometimes, the siege (successful or not) itself culminated in the end of the war. 

2) This is clearly a single battle. Various wars in our history were entirely dependent on the sieges itself. The siege of Storm's End wasn't the war itself in this case. 

So, for the third time, I'll explain this very basic principle. 

A siege is an operation. This operation has two sides to it. The objective of the besieger to take over the castle (or town or whatever) and likewise the objective of the defender to stay put. 

If the defender fails, the besieger wins. If the besieger fails, the defender wins. THIS IS WHAT A SIEGE IS BY ITS MOST BASIC DEFINITION. The objective not to fall. That's it. If you defeat the agitators in the process, kudos to you, but this is not your primary objective, at least not when a siege in question is only a battle in itself and not the war in its entirety. 

You'd be amazed because you're look at this in a vacuum in black and white in 2-D with no thought to anything outside of Mace vs Stannis. And if you do a CTRL+F for "achievement" in that post, you'll note I typed nothing of the sort. I just said his actions at SE give merit to the idea he's not a complete moron. He besieged a fortress that has never fallen in its 8000 year history, prevented reinforcements from reaching Robert, and marched home with his force completely intact and unpunished despite opposing the eventual victors the entirety of the war. If JonCon does his job, Mace gets lauded for his work, no differently than Ned gets credit for letting Mace make the obvious choice.

And yes I am describing a siege. Literally everything I described in that post is a siege. Torrhen's square isn't a siege? 

“Leobald will not know that. When he sees you raising siege towers, his old woman’s blood will run cold, and he will bleat for help.”

Why are we using siege towers if it's not a siege? Surrounding a fortified position over a long period of time to cut off supplies and movement with men and siege weaponry. There's a word for it. I'm trying to find it. It's siege. The Sieges of Stirling Castle and Calais, though, I have to admit you're right. Those were definitely not sieges, merely prolonged negotiations to peacefully surrender with no structural damage or loss of life.

1) Troop ratios are irrelevant. SE has never fallen. Expecting Mace to take it is completely out of the question. He's come as close or closer than anyone else in history as far as we know. Stannis' ability to reform Robert's allies who left him before Stoney Sept, however, is not irrelevant. I can type this out slowly for effect but you won't see the length of time. So I will repeat, we have absolutely NO IDEA what Mace's objective was or orders were. Say Mace sends soldiers off to Rhaegar via the Robert chase and goes home with his strength. Stannis can now reform Robert's remnants and besiege Ashford again. He can oppose or bottleneck the Dornish as they march to KL. Hell he can even threaten KL if he wants.

2) This is a single battle in the middle of a year long war. This siege doesn't have to be the war. You can't look at a battle in a vacuum and declare Stannis the victor. If Ned never shows up -- after all this is a single battle now isn't it --  Stannis almost certainly gets starved out. 

So for the third time, we will disagree because your scope is ridiculously limited and entirely arbitrary. Mace and Stannis were in a stalemate. Neither lost to each other, that's for certain. Again, I won't argue that Mace lost if you want to advance that, but you can't divide a concept into black and white and then lump in other factors for the final result. It's sloppy, wrong, and frankly just bad form.