My biggest pet peeve with this series- sieges

[Badjokessoldhere]

I adore these books and think Martin is brilliant, but I just love how hilarious he describes sieges. I could be wrong about this myself, but here goes-

It seems like every castle in the book is some incredible defensive stalwart. Sooo many castles are described as "untakeable"- Winterfell, the Dreadfort, Storm's End, Yunkai, Dragonstone, even Riverrun, etc... Apart from the Wall, what actual defense could these castles have that make them that formidable?

Everytime someone sits with an army in one of those places, cue the cries of "No one will EVER get them out of there, now the castle is absolutely taken!" Examples: Tyrells' presumed reasoning for trying to starve out Stannis, Winterfell is constantly described as impossible to breach, the Lannisters won't be bothered to take Riverrun, etc.)

Closer look- Stannis holds Storm's End for a year with 500 men. Against a host that I've heard described as being pretty massive.

What the hell? 500 men? Against thousands? They could have stormed it in a day, then happily marched to the Trident. Unconvinced? Take up some old war video game and line up 500 men v. say 10,000, you'll see the difference in scale immediately. The idea that 500 men could hold against a sizeable army is hilarious, they'd get swarmed in an afternoon.

Theon takes Winterfell with a rowboat-full of Ironborn (I exaggerate, but not by much if I recall) and thinks he can hold it???? What? Do the walls fight on their own? Has gravity pledged fealty to him?

Maybe the Others are holding off on their attack because even at it's weakest, the Night's watch still has fifty men or so on the wall- UNTAKEABLE!!!!!

It's kinda hilarious, and unless I'm missing something huge, a misconception on the part of Martin. I could be wrong, which is why I'm posting here- what am I missing?

[E-Ro]

ok, go outside, try climbing up a tree or something with a ladder, now imagine doing that with a guy waiting at the top to knock you down/put a sharp object through you.

[ab aeterno]

Where Storm's End is concerned, I believe that Mace didn't even try to take the castle. This was partly due to it's reputation and massive walls, but also partly, I suspect, due to the fact that Mace is a crappy soldier, quite possible a coward, and didn't want to actually have to fight anyone during the war if he could help it, so he just sat around eating for a year.

Where Winterfell is concerned, Theon a) isn't especially bright and b ) is expecting reinforcements.

[KingInTheCave]

It seems like every castle in the book is some incredible defensive stalwart. Sooo many castles are described as "untakeable"- Winterfell, the Dreadfort, Storm's End, Yunkai, Dragonstone, even Riverrun, etc... Apart from the Wall, what actual defense could these castles have that make them that formidable?

This is not a coincidence, most castles are built with the purpose of being defense stalwarts. And just because someone describes them as untakeable doesn't mean they really are. The only castle that I would describe as almost untakeable is the Eyrie. Other than that most castles are hard to conquer for the obvious reasons, Winterfell was taken easily because it was empty when Theon came in.

[N/A]

i'm sorry if this is blunt but this is just not accurate at all, sieges are hard and long (some reached years) and as E-RO said it simply isn't that easy

[Crevek]

Winterfell, Storm's End and The Wall were built about 8000 years ago (age of heroes, Bran the Builder may have assisted in Storms End) using magic. And if there are 2 things I've learned from ASOIAF: Magic is the most powerful thing in the world. I learned it twice.

[Ser Josh]

You forgot Casterly Rock which has never been taken. But even then it's not "soo" many. If ten castles in Westeros, larger than Europe, were so strong that were described as "untakeable " I dont think that would be unrealistic.

[conon394]

It seems like every castle in the book is some incredible defensive stalwart. Sooo many castles are described as "untakeable"- Winterfell, the Dreadfort, Storm's End, Yunkai, Dragonstone, even Riverrun, etc... Apart from the Wall, what actual defense could these castles have that make them that formidable?

Be careful first let's make sure we differentiate Cities from Castles. Second let's recall that in real life either can be technically strong but the facts of any one siege vary a great deal.

Obviously you can assault any place no matter how strong but you have to pay the price in blood...

The Persians could not force the pass at Thermopylae and that was an army under an absolute ruler - even a Roman commander had crucifixion and decimation to enforce discipline and one more into the breech, but what of an Athenian commander with no such tools where his men all had a vote and the chance to bring charges in court? Sitting around and letting starvation do the job looks good if you have the supply lines and time and budget... The Romans sat around Syracuse for what 2 years, even with 8 legions and unlimited budget it took Sulla 8 months to storm decrepit Athens

Let's recall the castles in question you name are the seats of the most successful houses in in Westros they are sure to be strong and kept so no doubt improved to deal with new threats and old weakness.

Can they fall they do, but under fairly realistic circumstances.

Take Riverun, so our basis it is strong well built Castle and large. Under Edmure it was doomed allowed to fill up with small folk and it would fall. Under the Blackfish with only a loyal garrison sure we know it would fall again since the fish only wanted a glorious last stand. But at what cost Jamie talks a big talk but his logistics are weak and even if he tries to use the RIverun lords and Freys first how many assaults until men melt away (how many would balk to begin with).

Tyrells' presumed reasoning for trying to starve out Stannis

How much artillery did Stannis have how many realistic paths to an assault were available? What butcher bill was his enemy willing to pay?

What the hell? 500 men? Against thousands? They could have stormed it in a day, then happily marched to the Trident. Unconvinced? Take up some old war video game and line up 500 men v. say 10,000, you'll see the difference in scale immediately. The idea that 500 men could hold against a sizable army is hilarious, they'd get swarmed in an afternoon.

Re: Spartans + Greeks at you now a little path - see above

Theon takes Winterfell with a rowboat-full of Ironborn (I exaggerate, but not by much if I recall) and thinks he can hold it???? What? Do the walls fight on their own? Has gravity pledged fealty to him?

If I recall he banks on getting his Sister and Father to be impressed and send help...

[E-Ro]

Another thing to consider, the men attacking a castle are just that, MEN. You can only send so many of them to their deaths before you order the next guy up to attack and he says no. Once the first guy says no, you might have a nice little trend of desertion on your hands. The death of any army, desertion in large numbers.

Sieging not storming a castle when there is no enemy army around, is a far better option.

[Rhaegar Estellion]

As my pre-posters said, saying a fortress is untakeable is not the same as a fortress being untakeable. And just keep in mind: When was the last time, Winterfell was seriously attacked? The Starks were Kings of Winter for thousand of years, apart from the Boltons who I never took for a real military threat, their bannermen were extremely loyal and any invader would first have to take Moat Cailin. The latter being really strong to attack due to the swampy environment. And I think Storm's End was also barely attacked. Yes, by Mace Tyrell, but he did not seem to be really eager to waste troops when he could simply starve them out.

The others, well. The Dreadfort was taken by the Stark forces in the last Bolton Rebellion. Dragonstone was captured by Stannis. Yunkai, well by Dany

The reason why the others haven't attacked the wall yet is not due to the Night's Watch, but rather the protective charms Brandon the Buidler equipped it with. Don't forget, that Coldhands could not get through the secret gate at the Nightfort. And apart from that the Wall IS hard to take. If you doubt it, forget the tree E-RO mentioned and climb an ice wall.

[Chaircat Meow]

I think GrrM has too many castles fall in too short a time ... WF, Harrenhal, Raventree, Stone Hedge, Castle Darry. And the Red Keep was projected to fall, SE did because of the shadowbaby.

Yes, some of these were well explained, but it is as though he knows sieges are long and boring and needed to put some rocket boosters under the plot, so we have wolves, crazy castellans, shadowbabies, political infighting etc.

[Thorion2]

True. Sieges primary purpose is to take the castle but not always by force. The secondary and tertiary strategies are to starve them out and harass daily to lower morale.

[Rhaegar Estellion]

Since Badjokessoldhere asked for it:

What the hell? 500 men? Against thousands? They could have stormed it in a day, then happily marched to the Trident. Unconvinced? Take up some old war video game and line up 500 men v. say 10,000, you'll see the difference in scale immediately. The idea that 500 men could hold against a sizeable army is hilarious, they'd get swarmed in an afternoon.

Please check this out. It's not 10.000 but you get the idea. ;-)

[Badjokessoldhere]

All right then, granted, I don't mean they're easy. I just find it a bit exaggerated.

I totally get that siege assaults are incredibly bloody and violent and difficult, but it just seems a tad too much to me. The Blackwater on the TV series seemed a pretty good depiction of a siege battle, and the numbers (especially after the Wildfire) were not as slanted as in the Storm's End situation.

[Duncan the Average Sized]

I think the point isnt that these places are untakeable but that the cost is incredibly high, if the Aurane Waters account of the storming of Dragonstone is to believed the casaulties can reach over 1000 including Knights and Lords, the best and most highly trained of your force.

That said I think OP's conception of siege sacking will be born out in "Winds" with (f)Aegons attempt on Storms End, and if the Gods are good the Dreadfort.

“The North will only know peace when the body of the last Frey covers the grave of the last Bolton”

[Badjokessoldhere]

Since Badjokessoldhere asked for it:

Please check this out. It's not 10.000 but you get the idea. ;-)

Perfect! Now use the same game, get three huge units of Roman legionaires, defend a city with EPIC walls against a maxed out army. You'll hold for five minutes.

Phalanax formation is very different from a siege :)

[Black Mike Secret]

I think Jaime made it pretty clear that if Edmure didn't surrender Riverrun, he would have the castle torn down and have a river directed over it.

Don't believe everything you hear about every castle.

[conon394]

I totally get that siege assaults are incredibly bloody and violent and difficult, but it just seems a tad too much to me. The Blackwater on the TV series seemed a pretty good depiction of a siege battle, and the numbers (especially after the Wildfire) were not as slanted as in the Storm's End situation.

It still comes down to how many options the attacker has, how much blood he is willing and able to spend and if just sitting there is not a better choice. Look the Spartans sat outside Plataea for over a year when it had ~325 men. They wanted a surrender (for legal fiction reasons) and they cared not at all to pay the price of a failed assault and once it was clear Athens would try and lift the siege it was just that much more easy.

We have not seen much about Storms end but a few recollections but given its construction I think we can rule out under-mine attacks. If the defender has the edge in artillery and that is possible - see Syracuse or Rhodes that is also ruled out. So know we don't have a city but a fort with a garrison pared down to loyal men - so no faction to betray, and if well situated possibly only one or two tiny avenues for assault? 500 men might well be enough to make somebody just go for starvation.

-------------------------

I think Jaime made it pretty clear that if Edmure didn't surrender Riverrun, he would have the castle torn down and have a river directed over it.

Difference the Riverun had no hope of rescue. Jamie could easily boast he would spend men recklessly on an assault

[Rhaegar Estellion]

Perfect! Now use the same game, get three huge units of Roman legionaires, defend a city with EPIC walls against a maxed out army. You'll hold for five minutes.

Phalanax formation is very different from a siege :)

Please wait two more months, then I can use the next generation of the game :-)

I will tell you the cost of my enemies.

Because that is the sense behind it. Mace Tyrell would have been able to take SE. However, he would have lost a vast part of his army. Also he would have conjured the wrath of Robert who at the moment had good chances to win. I am sure Robert was far more willing to forgive a man who besieged his home caste, than a man who conquered his home castle and killed his brother. And if Rhaegar would have won, he stll could have starved them out by them.

[Badjokessoldhere]

Sure, I can get that. I guess I see it the other way around- that if the Tyrells had just launched an assault and bitten the bullet the rebellion would have ended. Instead they just feasted outside. But maybe that's why the Tyrells are Tyrells and Stannis is Stannis ;)

I also dearly hope that game will soon be available for Mac. When I wrote this topic, I was thinking about it was the best reference for this- because clearing a city with 500 guys is a wonderful opportunity that has to be taken :) Not good to compare games with real life obviously, but it gives you a scope of how little 500 men actually is.