Randyll Tarly

[Nyrhex]

What on earth makes you think that the center saw no action? Garlan Tyrell's attack with the vanguard created chaos in Stannis's ranks, but the bulk of the enemy army was still intact - there was still plenty of butcher's work to be carried out by the main part of the host under Tywin, Randyll, and Mace before the fight was over.

Sure, it was Mace who organized the Lannister-Tyrell rendezvous. Just like it was Mace who "won" the Battle of Ashford. Speaking of which...

It is entirely reasonable to assume the center saw little action as the van slammed into the main enemy host with Renly's "ghost" leading it, which led to many of the Stormlord to switch sides. Still, what action it did get was not something that poesd a threat anymore as the battle has been mostly won by then.

The ability to break accepted principles of warfare and achieve victory through these actions is usually considered to be a hallmark of great military ability.

Natuarlly, but ignoring basic princibles of war out of impatiance and ending up in an incunclusiove battle which allows the enemy to leave the field of battle relatively intact and thus assuring the eneamy has met his immediate goals (link up with the rest of his forces), is usually considered a failure to grasp the will of his superiors (Mace), and to understand the greater context of the battlefield. More so when simply waiting for Mace meant near certain victory had there been battle.

As I said in the above post, if Tarly had waited until Mace Tyrell (who was moving about as slugglishly as concievably possible, by all accounts) had arrived in the field, then in all probability there would never have been a battle at all - Robert would have simply withdrawn to the north with all of his forces intact, and the royalists would have gained nothing. Tarly's actions meant that they at least managed to salvage a tactical victory from the affair - and one that had a far greater impact than you are allowing. Robert's host may not have taken many casualties during the battle, but it is easy to imagine that it would have been scattered after Tarly had "swept it from the field" - and this would have rendered it vulnerable to the subsequent pursuit that was carried out by Jon Connington (all of the losses that Robert suffered prior to being trapped in the Stoney Sept were taken either at Ashford or in the pursuit, as it is explicitly stated in ADWD that Connington did not win any battles).

After the battle was over, there was no need for Tarly and the forces of the Reach to exploit the success and pursue the rebel host, because the royalist army commanded by Connington was able to do that for them. Instead, they launched an invasion of the Stormlands that succeeded in crushing all resistance except for Storm's End. Indeed, it is worth noting that this invasion may well have been a decisive factor in the rapid reduction of the size of Robert's host, as a number of the stormlords may have abandoned him to return home and try to defend their lands (just as the lords of the Riverlands abandoned Robb Stark after the Battle of Camps, to try and defend their homes from Tywin's reavers).

Again, Tarly won a tactical victory at Ashford, despite almost certainly being outnumbered, and facing one of the greatest generals of the time. That is an entirely respectable accomplishment in and of itself. And if the Battle of the Bells had gone the other way, then it would probably have been regarded as one of the decisive moments of the war.

It can also be argued that Tarly's achievment at Ashford was less of a tactical victory and more denying the enemy of one of his war goals. Mace's goal at Ashford was to destroy Robert's host. This failed as a direct result of Tarly's impatiance.

About the Stoney Sept, I'm not sure if this discussion can actually determin the long term effect Ashford had. Considering that Jon Con had won no battles, and Ashford had ended with little losses to either side, this is potentially another detail Martin has messed up: How come Robert's force is suddenly so small that it could hide in a town where the Loyalist army had complete control and could go door to door looking for Robert? Surely Robert could also get ~20,000 out of the Stormlands. Tarly's van at Ashford I believe was a good few thousends and he was outnumbered. Even if Ashford ended with half the Baratheon force scattered killed or captured, how can you hide 10,000 men in a few houses when an entire army is looking for them door to door? That would suggest that the bulk of Robbert's force had vanished. That does not sound like "swept from the field", or die-offs from Jon Con's raids or forces returning to thier homes (something which I do not recall reading, or hinted). That sounds like Cannae. And that is the last thing being said of Ashford.

Still, the point remain that Tarly's action had little effect even if Jon Con klills Robert at Stoney Sept. If Tarly sticks with Mace and there is no battle at Ashford, Robert does not suffer light losses, and still suffers bleedoffs during his march north from raids or lords returning home (again, not something I recall reading). He still gets to the same position with about the same number of men.

You have the timeline of events mixed up.

Tarly's "repulsing" of the enemy army came when the Northern host tried to attack Duskendale, but found that Tarly had preempted them by getting to the town before they could. He beat back their assault, and then trapped them against the sea and shattered their ranks in an attack that inflicted far greater casualties on the enemy than he suffered himself. The survivors of the battle fled to the north, where Gregor was waiting to hunt them down.

In their assessments of what qualifies as "military brilliance", people have an an unfortunate tendancy to assume that this term is only applicable to those who succeed in the overcoming of great odds in their battles. The truth is that there is often just as much basic ability involved in the successful organization of larger forces to carry out their required tasks, even though this is deemed to be less heroic than the former.

Again, this is when Tarly has all the cards. Now taking a battle that was pre-planned as a Lannister-Tyrell victory by Roose, as a reason to assume Tarly is a briliant commander, is a little too much don't you think? Yes, being able to execute a plan is vital, but it's only proof he is not one of the worst commanders, not a proof he is one of the best.

There are not that many characters who can claim to have decisively won two pitched battles, and to have captured a major castle without any fighting. But that is indeed for another thread.

There are also not many charachters who can claim to lose an entire army because they neglected to use scouts properly.

And I'd argue that the first two battles were against a numerically inferior fow (1st battle 4-1 I believe), and against a novice commander who had also neglected to use scouts properly (2nd battle, and a lesson Jaime had failed to learn). But yes, we need to stop before we move on to discuss Jaime and from there other commanders and it becomes another general best/worst commanders thread.

[Frey Pie]

There's not a battle you can't nitpick when that is what you want to do. What exactly was so great about Robb? The Whispering Wood was all the Blackfish. Riverrun as well and his victory in the west was the exact same as Kingslayers in the Riverlands, raw recruits unready for war let alone imminent battle. Anything we see him do without the Blackfish holding his hand tended to end badly.

Stannis gets taken in the rear by the Tyrell boy and only avoids disaster in the North because a fourteen year old boy is there to point out his fuck ups.

Kevan Lannister is a professional soldier and he considers Lord Tarly the best man to end the war. It's a solid recommendation to his abilities as a commander.

Where exactly does it say anywhere that the BF ever made the plans for Robbs battles? He was his chief advisor and commander of his scouts. Thats all

[Frey Pie]

Sometimes it irritates me the way Grey Wind distorts the military situation in the War of the Five Kings. Yes, Robb was smart enough to make use of him, but I still don't like the way it makes it harder to evaluate the genuine military capabilities of those commanders involved, because I'm sorry - a magical direwolf is not something anyone could really have accounted for when planning battle strategy. It just irks me a little.

I also see this quite alot. There are several paths into the West. The one Robb wanted to take was the closest but best guarded. Take a look at the map, its not the only way in so Robb would have got there. Just because Robbs wolf found a path doesnt detract from his victory in anyway shape or form. It would be like criticising Tywin for LF pretty much handing him victory at the BW, wildfire for Tyrion, Mel for Stannis. These shouldnt take away from the respective generals

As for Randyll Tarly, i would suggest people have a quick look at the wiki and the Battle of Ashford. Tarly is clearly an able commander, competent in the extreme. He wont make mistakes. He may be lacking in brilliance however. Hes not top tier from what we know of him, but with a few more engagements that could change

[Summer is Ending]

Where exactly does it say anywhere that the BF ever made the plans for Robbs battles? He was his chief advisor and commander of his scouts. Thats all

You're right, he only knows Kingslayers temperament and how to exploit it. Commands the scouts that are crucial to Kingslayer having no idea they're coming, leads the vanguard.

The Blackfish led the van, cutting down our sentries and clearing away the palisades for the main assault.

Leads the vanguard and does the heavy lifting while someone else takes all the credit. Sounds familiar.

[Frey Pie]

You're right, he only knows Kingslayers temperament and how to exploit it. Commands the scouts that are crucial to Kingslayer having no idea they're coming, leads the vanguard.

The Blackfish led the van, cutting down our sentries and clearing away the palisades for the main assault.

Leads the vanguard and does the heavy lifting while someone else takes all the credit. Sounds familiar.

Robb comes up with the idea, and also fights alongside his men. BF leads part of his army, as does the Greatjon and others. BF is obviously good and gives great advice. Hes not the main man though. If he was would he really be that loyal to Robb, a man who claims all the victories he masterminded? Doubt it

[King Daemon Blackfyre]

...Blackfyre's defeat if we believed that Bloodraven used magic to kill Daemon,...

Foul, treacherous sorcery indeed.

[Jon AS]

Foul, treacherous sorcery indeed.

Also known as "smart tactical maneuvering", resulting in gaining an advantageous position on the battlefield.:P

[King Daemon Blackfyre]

Also known as "smart tactical maneuvering", resulting in gaining an advantageous position on the battlefield. :P

Yeah that too, Lord Randyll would approve.

[Lion of Judah]

Sometimes it irritates me the way Grey Wind distorts the military situation in the War of the Five Kings. Yes, Robb was smart enough to make use of him, but I still don't like the way it makes it harder to evaluate the genuine military capabilities of those commanders involved, because I'm sorry - a magical direwolf is not something anyone could really have accounted for when planning battle strategy. It just irks me a little.

What did Grey Wind ever do to you? Huh?

On a serious note though, it is not unprecedented for a military commander to use animals during warfare. Hannibal used elephants in his military exploits rather effectively.

[Axrendale]

Natuarlly, but ignoring basic princibles of war out of impatiance and ending up in an incunclusiove battle which allows the enemy to leave the field of battle relatively intact and thus assuring the eneamy has met his immediate goals (link up with the rest of his forces), is usually considered a failure to grasp the will of his superiors (Mace), and to understand the greater context of the battlefield. More so when simply waiting for Mace meant near certain victory had there been battle. It can also be argued that Tarly's achievment at Ashford was less of a tactical victory and more denying the enemy of one of his war goals. Mace's goal at Ashford was to destroy Robert's host. This failed as a direct result of Tarly's impatiance.

You are continuing to ignore the central point, which is that if Tarly had done as you suggest and simply waited until Mace Tyrell had arrived on the field, it is very probable that any intention that Mace might have had of fighting a decisive battle against the enemy would have been rendered irrelevant if Robert had used the time gifted to him to simply withdraw with his forces in perfect order before the Tyrell host could even arrive in the field. In which case, the royalists would have lost a great chance to inflict a stinging defeat on their most dangerous enemy.

You are also ignoring the (very real) possibility that if Tarly had waited until the entire Tyrell host had assembled and there had been a battle, then it might not have gone nearly as well for the Tyrells as it did with just the vanguard involved in the fighting. It is very likely in my opinion that the reason that Tarly was able to "sweep Robert's forces from the field" so easily was because he launched his attack before Robert had properly formed up his soldiers for battle - while the Baratheon ranks were still in the process of assembling, and therefore unable to put up much resistance against a sudden and ferocious asault by the enemy (this explains why they were fully put to flight but did not suffer many casualties). If however the battle had not taken place until Mace had (finally) arrived, then the Baratheon host would have been fully formed up and ready for battle, and under the command of Robert (the greatest tactical commander of the day) might have been able to put up heavy resistance, and possibly even defeat the Tyrell army (which was likely why Robert was there in the first place). In which case the royalist cause would have sustained a disastrous setback, instead of a noted success.

Instead of being "impatient", it is actually far more probable that Tarly's willingness to take the initiative led to the royalists gaining more from the Battle of Ashford than they might have otherwise, because he understood the context of the battlefield far better than his superior did.

About the Stoney Sept, I'm not sure if this discussion can actually determin the long term effect Ashford had. Considering that Jon Con had won no battles, and Ashford had ended with little losses to either side, this is potentially another detail Martin has messed up: How come Robert's force is suddenly so small that it could hide in a town where the Loyalist army had complete control and could go door to door looking for Robert? Surely Robert could also get ~20,000 out of the Stormlands. Tarly's van at Ashford I believe was a good few thousends and he was outnumbered. Even if Ashford ended with half the Baratheon force scattered killed or captured, how can you hide 10,000 men in a few houses when an entire army is looking for them door to door? That would suggest that the bulk of Robbert's force had vanished. That does not sound like "swept from the field", or die-offs from Jon Con's raids or forces returning to thier homes (something which I do not recall reading, or hinted). That sounds like Cannae. And that is the last thing being said of Ashford. Still, the point remain that Tarly's action had little effect even if Jon Con klills Robert at Stoney Sept. If Tarly sticks with Mace and there is no battle at Ashford, Robert does not suffer light losses, and still suffers bleedoffs during his march north from raids or lords returning home (again, not something I recall reading). He still gets to the same position with about the same number of men.

Actually, there is a perfectly logical explanation for the rapid reduction in the size of Robert's forces over the course of their movement from Ashford to the Stoney Sept. After Tarly's actions resulted in the Baratheon host being "swept from the field" at Ashford, it was likely scattered over a fairly large area (even if it was not much reduced from its pre-battle overall size) and would therefore have been in a highly vulnerable position when Jon Connington arrived on the scene with the royal host to begin harrassing and pursuing them. The situation would have been entirely different if Tarly had not defeated Robert Ashford, but instead allowed the Baratheon forces to withdraw from the field unmolested, in which case they would have been concentrated and organized, and therefore in a far better position to resist the efforts of Connington to wear down their numbers through attrition and pursuit. As it was, Tarly's victory almost certainly played an important role in placing Robert's army in a position/condition where it was unable to properly execute a marching order of the kind that would have been required to saty one step ahead of Connington in the march to the Riverlands (this would especially have been the case if Tarly had managed to capture Robert's supplies at Ashford). Under these circumstances, it is entirely concievable that order in Robert's host might have suffered a breakdown, and his forces simply split apart under the pressure of logistics and attrition (something that happened to many medieval armies, even well-organized ones), with a large number of the men likely trying to return to the Stormlands after learning that their homes were being attacked by the Tyrells (or they may have become Broken Men). Robert would thus be left with only a small band of followers, who attempted to take refuge in the Stoney Sept, where they were cornered by Connington.

Randyll Tarly's victory at Ashford was almost certainly instrumental as a catalyst for the series of military events that left him vulnerable to Jon Connington, and if the Battle of Bells had gone the other way and the rebellion had been crushed by the royalists, then Tarly's actions would have been seen as having made a vital contribution to the outcome.

[Nyrhex]

You are continuing to ignore the central point, which is that if Tarly had done as you suggest and simply waited until Mace Tyrell had arrived on the field, it is very probable that any intention that Mace might have had of fighting a decisive battle against the enemy would have been rendered irrelevant if Robert had used the time gifted to him to simply withdraw with his forces in perfect order before the Tyrell host could even arrive in the field. In which case, the royalists would have lost a great chance to inflict a stinging defeat on their most dangerous enemy.

You are also ignoring the (very real) possibility that if Tarly had waited until the entire Tyrell host had assembled and there had been a battle, then it might not have gone nearly as well for the Tyrells as it did with just the vanguard involved in the fighting. It is very likely in my opinion that the reason that Tarly was able to "sweep Robert's forces from the field" so easily was because he launched his attack before Robert had properly formed up his soldiers for battle - while the Baratheon ranks were still in the process of assembling, and therefore unable to put up much resistance against a sudden and ferocious asault by the enemy (this explains why they were fully put to flight but did not suffer many casualties). If however the battle had not taken place until Mace had (finally) arrived, then the Baratheon host would have been fully formed up and ready for battle, and under the command of Robert (the greatest tactical commander of the day) might have been able to put up heavy resistance, and possibly even defeat the Tyrell army (which was likely why Robert was there in the first place). In which case the royalist cause would have sustained a disastrous setback, instead of a noted success.

Instead of being "impatient", it is actually far more probable that Tarly's willingness to take the initiative led to the royalists gaining more from the Battle of Ashford than they might have otherwise, because he understood the context of the battlefield far better than his superior did.

This is assuming a great deal about what could have happened if Tarly had not attacked, and it still won't explain why he did not continue the pursuit. Mace is not the best commander (understatement), yet there is little reason to think the largest army in Westeros would fail to win against one of the smallests on an open battlefield. Let's say that Tarly waits, and Mace and Robert clash. All Tarly needs to do is go for the basic flanking (preferably from the north) to hit Robert's falnk, and set Robert's army to flee the field. A flanking attempt from the north would also guarantee that Robert's army flees south or east. Away from the rest of the rebel armies. And if Robert leaves without battle, Tarly can still go north and trap him between two loyalist forces.

Actually, there is a perfectly logical explanation for the rapid reduction in the size of Robert's forces over the course of their movement from Ashford to the Stoney Sept. After Tarly's actions resulted in the Baratheon host being "swept from the field" at Ashford, it was likely scattered over a fairly large area (even if it was not much reduced from its pre-battle overall size) and would therefore have been in a highly vulnerable position when Jon Connington arrived on the scene with the royal host to begin harrassing and pursuing them. The situation would have been entirely different if Tarly had not defeated Robert Ashford, but instead allowed the Baratheon forces to withdraw from the field unmolested, in which case they would have been concentrated and organized, and therefore in a far better position to resist the efforts of Connington to wear down their numbers through attrition and pursuit. As it was, Tarly's victory almost certainly played an important role in placing Robert's army in a position/condition where it was unable to properly execute a marching order of the kind that would have been required to saty one step ahead of Connington in the march to the Riverlands (this would especially have been the case if Tarly had managed to capture Robert's supplies at Ashford). Under these circumstances, it is entirely concievable that order in Robert's host might have suffered a breakdown, and his forces simply split apart under the pressure of logistics and attrition (something that happened to many medieval armies, even well-organized ones), with a large number of the men likely trying to return to the Stormlands after learning that their homes were being attacked by the Tyrells (or they may have become Broken Men). Robert would thus be left with only a small band of followers, who attempted to take refuge in the Stoney Sept, where they were cornered by Connington.

Randyll Tarly's victory at Ashford was almost certainly instrumental as a catalyst for the series of military events that left him vulnerable to Jon Connington, and if the Battle of Bells had gone the other way and the rebellion had been crushed by the royalists, then Tarly's actions would have been seen as having made a vital contribution to the outcome.

That still doesn't sound right. If the battle is considered a skirmish, it's different from scattering the enemy army over a large area, something which is a weak reasoning for how nearly an entire army vanishes. We hear that Robert force marched his forces north. That hardly goes together with scattered, don't you think? I think you give this battle way too much credit for something which IMHO is unexplained in the books properly.

We also don't hear that Jon Connington destroys the rebel army with raids, or that any Stormlords return home. Trying to credit Tarly with the destruction of the Baratheon army is giving him, and the battle at Ashford way too much.

EDIT: Was dropped for some reason:

Also, the thought that killing Robert or destroying his army would end the rebellion has no grounding in reality. His forces were not a significent element in the battle of the bells, or the Trident. So as far as the battles that were ahead it means nothing. As far as cause of the rebellion: Lyanna is Ned's sister, she was only Robert's bethrothed. Brandon and Rickard were Ned's brother and father. The mad king demanded both thier heads, and it was Jon Arryn who raised his banners in rebellion in the first place. Hoster joined as he was bound by marriage to the Starks and Arryns. Those three armies have no reason to drop out just because one of thier allies is gone. Rhaegar might survive the Trident if he retreats in time, but that still means the Targs are overthrown. Stannis might be king if the rebels want to put someone with some legal claim, but there is no reason to think the rebels are dependant on Robert.