Stannis's huge victory at the wall.

[By the Old Gods Not theNew]

Nope. Jon describes "not only knights now but freeriders and mounted bowmen and men-at-arms in jacks and kettle helms" The first three are described as mounted, but not the men-at-arms. And judging from their equipment, they shouldn't be. It's infantry equipment.

The sentence isn't conclusive. The men-at-arms may or may not be mounted. Their equipment isn't conclusive. The bowmen are mounted even though the bow is an infantry weapon. The same logic applies to mounting the both - horses are faster and allow the the foot to keep pace w/ the heavy cavalry. There are about 5(+) references to attackers on horseback and one inconclusive sentence about men-at-arms.

It kind of is. The mammoths did not smash a third of Stannis' force, and "smash" does not mean kill. Of the heavy cavalry, Stannis made three columns, and a reserve under his personal command. The central column was stopped by the mammoths - The horses don't like the smell, and there are half a dozen bowmen on each. "Smash" here means stop, as up until now the cavalry moved forward in an ever-advancing wave. If they lost 500 cavalry someone would point it out. Instead Massey mentiones how they went through the wildlings like nothing. Losing between a third and half your horses is not "like nothing".

Up to the march, and the "cold count", there is no significent loss of life on Stannis' side since the Blackwater.

The mammoths did smash the central column, which was essentially a 3rd of Stan's forces. I never said smash meant kill. I've only said stannis undoubtably lost some horse in the battle under the wall therefore the number 800 at the start of the march isn't representative of the number at the start of the attack on the free folk. And even if Stannis lost the full 500 horse (your number, not mine) it would be an insignificant loss relative to the gains. If he only lost a handful of men and 500 horse despite facing 20x his number and a force of mammoths carrying giants/a dozen bowmen that's not such a loss, it's to be expected.

Like i have said before, as far as i know, there is no prior example of post-battle account that included the number of dead horses. Probably because it's not all that significant. You seem to be conflating dead/lost horses with dead soldiers/cavalry. I never said they lost 500 of their cavalry...if they've got mounted bowmen...and a bowmen loses their horse...well that's a lost horse...it doesn't mean the cavalry has lost any strength.

The number 800 is near enough to what Stannis had at the battle for the Wall.

only if you assume there were near enough no lost horses in the battle below the wall, which given the description of the central column seems suspect.

Regarding the mounted bowmen - That is another point why it is less likely that so many horses were lost to the mammoths:

1. They are not that uncommon in Westeros. Robb had them. Tywin had them. Renly had them. Those are not Mongol horse archers, they dismount before combat.

2. Stannis used his archers to set the wildling camp afire, then sent them to join the battle as light cavalry, not as horse archers. "Mounted" as in "mounted infantry". They have a horse to move faster from one spot to another.

I know Cat mentions Robb crossing the Twins w/ mounted bowmen, i can't recall any other reference to mounted bowmen in westeros in the texts, obviously i could be wrong. the point is they're mounted so they can keep up w/ the heavy cavalry.

3. They are mentioned after the central column was smashed by the mammoths. They were not a part of it. If the rest of Stannis unmounted force joined the fight, it should be around the time Jon went inside the tent. No reason to bring ~500 infantry to a fight with ~20,000 before they are running. Better use all of your horses first to break the enemy.

so, some of the infantry is mounted because it makes them faster, but others aren't because...jon was in the tent.

[Nyrhex]

1. The mammoths did smash the central column, which was essentially a 3rd of Stan's forces. I never said smash meant kill. I've only said stannis undoubtably lost some horse in the battle under the wall therefore the number 800 at the start of the march isn't representative of the number at the start of the attack on the free folk. And even if Stannis lost the full 500 horse (your number, not mine) it would be an insignificant loss relative to the gains. If he only lost a handful of men and 500 horse despite facing 20x his number and a force of mammoths carrying giants/a dozen bowmen that's not such a loss, it's to be expected.

2. Like i have said before, as far as i know, there is no prior example of post-battle account that included the number of dead horses. Probably because it's not all that significant. You seem to be conflating dead/lost horses with dead soldiers/cavalry. I never said they lost 500 of their cavalry...if they've got mounted bowmen...and a bowmen loses their horse...well that's a lost horse...it doesn't mean the cavalry has lost any strength.

3. only if you assume there were near enough no lost horses in the battle below the wall, which given the description of the central column seems suspect.

4. so, some of the infantry is mounted because it makes them faster, but others aren't because...jon was in the tent.

1. Undoubtly Stannis lost some horses. But the description is of horses not liking the mammoths and staying clear, not being kiiled by the hundreds. The number 500 is the difference between the claim that Stannis has 1,300 men, and 800 horse, and Stannis being fully mounted. We have two numbers. 500 horses lost is not a number that can be ignored. It's not a coupld of horss that broke thier legs in the mountains. From the description of the wounded there are roughly a few dozen, between both the NW and Stannis' men together. The thought that near all of those 500 who find themselves without a horse wee flung from thier dying horses is a strech, and there is no reason because Stannis is never claimed in the books to be fully mounted.

2. It does matter if they give the cold count of both men and horses later. Losing close to half the horses is not something that can be ignored, regardless of the victory, in any account of the battle.

3. That is exactly what I am saying. There are nearly no causalties. Everyone looks at the battle like smooth sailing, with a minor bumper in the form of the mammoths, that was easily surpassed. The cavalry is described as a steel tide around the mammoths, like little islands. If it was a horse death trap for some unexplained reason, the description would have been different.

4. No, some of the infantry kept thier horses when they boarded Saan's ships, and so had horses during the battle. Some did not, and are either described as men-at-arms like BBE suggested, or they would only have a reason to show up right about then. There is no use for them up to that point, and using them would risk losing them. They are too few, and only those who are mounted gain the advantage over the overwhelmingy larger foe.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

The sentence isn't conclusive. The men-at-arms may or may not be mounted. Their equipment isn't conclusive. The bowmen are mounted even though the bow is an infantry weapon. The same logic applies to mounting the both - horses are faster and allow the the foot to keep pace w/ the heavy cavalry. There are about 5(+) references to attackers on horseback and one inconclusive sentence about men-at-arms.

All of them prior to the men-at-arms showing up.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

Guys the horse count is just not serious! Knights go to war unlist with two: one for transportation and one for battle. We do not know how many Stannis got with him when he arraived, and how many he lost by just one random number given.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Guys the horse count is just not serious! Knights go to war unlist with two: one for transportation and one for battle. We do not know how many Stannis got with him when he arraived, and how many he lost by just one random number given.

Three. No packhorse means no armor. No armor means no knight.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

Three. No packhorse means no armor. No armor means no knight.

right!

[haemonculus]

The wildlings are obviously capable of putting up quite the fight, man to man, even against the much better equipment of the NW, which I kinda question tbh. Realistically speaking attacking chain-mail clad soldiers with stone and bone weapons would be a one-sided massacre, but that's how it is in the books, whatever.

Still, taking a cavalry charge in the flank has broken armies countless of times in real history, and ones that were used to fighting (heavy) cavalry, unlike the wildlings. I think under those circumstances the mass rout was inevitable, and I like that Martin wrote the actual casualties to be quite low. The moment the flank gets hit, even trained soldiers' moral will waver, and once the first guys start to run, the chain reaction is going to happen. The guys next to them don't know why their pals are running, they have no idea how many attacked them, it is utter chaos and mayhem. Herd instinct sets in, and you basically get what happens at mass panics in stadiums or the like.

Setting all that up takes good planing, elimination of scouts, and so forth, but all of those are pretty much by the book really.

Once it is set up the actual battle plan is fairly uncomplicated (and leaves not much room for skillful maneuvering anyway). Hit them as fast and as hard as you can. If they break -> mass rout, victory. If they don't you get bogged down and killed (given the numbers in play).

[Jasta11]

The wildlings are obviously capable of putting up quite the fight, man to man, even against the much better equipment of the NW, which I kinda question tbh. Realistically speaking attacking chain-mail clad soldiers with stone and bone weapons would be a one-sided massacre, but that's how it is in the books, whatever.

I'm re-reading the books and there's several mentions of iron weapons, as well as helmets, some of them passed down the family or somesuch. I very much doubt the Wildlings run around with bone clubs like cavemen. They're not as well-equipped as the rest of Westeros, of course, but they have enough basic equipment to suit their needs.

As for someone pointing out the Wildlings were a threat to Stark armies before, we don't know the full story. Perhaps those Starks actually crossed the Wall to face their enemies, putting themselves at a big disadvantage. The situation at the Wall was pretty much the worst possible one for an unorganized Wildling army, having to siege a determined defence sitting in a formidable fortification that they cannot surround, and exposing their flanks wide open. It says nothing against the Free Folk that they broke and ran at a completely unexpected heavy cavalry charge in that situation.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

I'm re-reading the books and there's several mentions of iron weapons, as well as helmets, some of them passed down the family or somesuch. I very much doubt the Wildlings run around with bone clubs like cavemen. They're not as well-equipped as the rest of Westeros, of course, but they have enough basic equipment to suit their needs.

As for someone pointing out the Wildlings were a threat to Stark armies before, we don't know the full story. Perhaps those Starks actually crossed the Wall to face their enemies, putting themselves at a big disadvantage. The situation at the Wall was pretty much the worst possible one for an unorganized Wildling army, having to siege a determined defence sitting in a formidable fortification that they cannot surround, and exposing their flanks wide open. It says nothing against the Free Folk that they broke and ran at a completely unexpected heavy cavalry charge in that situation.

Nope, in Willem Stark story, the wildings passed the wall without the NW being noticed. Things got nasty and the Starks and the Umbers needed to rush to stop the invaders. The lord of WF died in battle, and the NW arraibed just to late. The new lord of WF made them bury the fallen bodys of the battle as a shame punishment.

And this was just 100 years before AGOT.

[Jasta11]

Nope, in Willem Stark story, the wildings passed the wall without the NW being noticed. Things got nasty and the Starks and the Umbers needed to rush to stop the invaders. The lord of WF died in battle, and the NW arraibed just to late. The new lord of WF made them bury the fallen bodys of the battle as a shame punishment.

And this was just 100 years before AGOT.

My mistake then. Still seems pretty surprising that a Wildling army strong enough to challenge the Starks could just sneak past the Watch, I mean it's not like they would number a few dozens. You'd need, what, a few thousand guys climbing at least? Cause they sure as hell didn't slip by the front gate at Castle Black. Maybe it was a small force, the Stark underestimated them and paid the price.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

My mistake then. Still seems pretty surprising that a Wildling army strong enough to challenge the Starks could just sneak past the Watch, I mean it's not like they would number a few dozens. You'd need, what, a few thousand guys climbing at least? Cause they sure as hell didn't slip by the front gate at Castle Black. Maybe it was a small force, the Stark underestimated them and paid the price.

Here it is brah,

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Battle_of_Long_Lake

[Jasta11]

Here it is brah,

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Battle_of_Long_Lake

700 foot long ladders? Dayum. These Wildlings really don't like their homes.

Thanks for the link, had never saw this. Damn, it must have been pretty damn embarassing for the Watch. Wonder why Mance didn't try that one, along with ye olde frontal assault. It has more chances of success than sending a few dozen guys with an unreliable guide, surely.

[James Arryn]

So, if I say that I hope I am not condecending, you take it as a Q to take a jab at Stannis fans? Realy?

Not really. My response was more to the 'you don't know what the hell you're talking about' thing before the condescension bit. And a little bit your very interesting theory that people judge military exploits and their worth based just on favouritism. I found that to be a powerful idea, and as expressed, am interested in exploring it more.

I am not saying this as a Stannis fan.

Oh. Oh, I see. I get it. You aren't subject to the same theory about why and how people judge these things based on what character they like. That's just something that the rest of us do, is it?

So, like, when you said it was dead simple, it's just a matter of favourites...you meant it wasn't that simple. You meant something more like 'when non-Stannis fans judge these things, their views are skewed by bias.'

Am I getting that right? Because you see I was confused. You told me specifically that my judgment on this was skewed by my favouritism for Robb. As you had earlier said was true of everyone with regards to analysing these things...pure avourtism. right?

And I took the time to respect your theory, and point out that, on record, Robb was not in fact my favourite. Not even in my top 5. And that as it happens, several people who aren't favourites of mine I ranked ahead of several characters who are in that poll thing you brought into this discussion.

So you can see my keen interest in your espoused 'I know why everyone says what they say about this.' procolmation. I mean some people would have taken offence at being to,d that they had no idea,what they were talking about AND that they were merely spouting off the bi-products of bias. But I wasn't. I wanted to know more. I wanted to know, for example, who your favourite characters were, and what bearing that brought to bear on your favouritism in this discussion.

And what I got was 'I am not saying this as a Stannis fan.'

Knocked me for a loop, I can tell you. So this theory on how everyone frames their opinion excludes you. Everyone else is plagued by conscious or subconscious bias. Me, for example, in spite of not having Robb as a favourite character, was clearly in your eyes ranking him highest due to my "blatant favouritism."

But not you. Nope. You are outside such human frailty, you've got your head on straight, are fit to label the opinions of others as counterfeit, and yet can speak clearly and objectively about your favourite character. Because, well, it's you. The usual rules don't apply to you. There is the simple truth for everyone, and then there's you.

All I can say is this: you have the perfect favourite character, mate. You and Stannis, it's a natural fit.

I'll leave this here for now, if you don't mind. If you'd like to address the clear hypocrisy in your posts, I'd be happy to talk further about the rest of your post. There are areas of mutual interest there. But maybe you'll understand my reluctance to waste my time illustrating my arguments to see them dismissed as 'pure favouritism' for characters who aren't actually favourites by a Stannis fan while talking about Stannis who is, by his own account, just better than that kind of thinking.

It's a bit insulting, if you get my drift. Overtly you're insulting my opinion by dismissing it as 'pure favouritism, nothing more'. You're also insulting my intelligence by applying that as a given to me and everyone who disagrees with you, and holding yourself outside that because, well...it's you.

[Nyrhex]

Not really. My response was more to the 'you don't know what the hell you're talking about' thing before the condescension bit. And a little bit your very interesting theory that people judge military exploits and their worth based just on favouritism. I found that to be a powerful idea, and as expressed, am interested in exploring it more.

Yes it is. You just insulted Stannis fans in general, and dismissed thier collective opinions, insulted thier intelligence, because they disagree with you, just because I said that you don't know what you are talking about, when you look at the description of the battle, and wave it off as luck, while hours ago playing Robb's two victories as briliance in the field, even though they both hinged on pure luck, aided with some planning. There is no explenation other than favouritism, or not knowing what you are talking about, and randomly attributing victories to luck or skill. The argument that favouritism is what keeps people calling the Battle of Castle Black a cheap victory was made in post #16. I repeated that in regards to yourself after in post #20 you knocked down even Fair Isle, which keeps being hammered out as a massive victory. Where did you come up with "It's basically Salamis without the feint and with inverted numbers"? Who said the Royal Navy had the numbers? Who said there was no fient? Why would Victarion be in the straits in the first place, with Stannis having two parts of his fleet on either end? Handwaving Stannis' victories may not be favourites with another commander, but it shows a bias against him when you knock down his achievements with no reason, and invented facts.

[EstEst]

<snip>

Oh. Oh, I see. I get it. You aren't subject to the same theory about why and how people judge these things based on what character they like. That's just something that the rest of us do, is it?

So, like, when you said it was dead simple, it's just a matter of favourites...you meant it wasn't that simple. You meant something more like 'when non-Stannis fans judge these things, their views are skewed by bias.'

<snip>

And what I got was 'I am not saying this as a Stannis fan.'

You're wrong. Nyrhex tries to judge the situation objectively, based on his expertize and experience in the field. He always supports his statements with quotes from the text, which is objective. You, on your side, cannot even read the "massive quote", which tells me that you even don't want to understand someone else's position. I think if you cannot believe in someone's objective approach, that's indicative that you yourself is incapable of that.

[King Aerys the Just]

700 foot long ladders? Dayum. These Wildlings really don't like their homes.

Thanks for the link, had never saw this. Damn, it must have been pretty damn embarassing for the Watch. Wonder why Mance didn't try that one, along with ye olde frontal assault. It has more chances of success than sending a few dozen guys with an unreliable guide, surely.

He was also dumb to not send more climbing parties to scale the Wall out of line of sight of Castle Black and then attack the NW from the flanks, after the Magnar's attempt failed. He had the time and the men, and it would surely have had greater probabilities of success than trying to storm an enormously high ice wall by plugging the only gate with a dead giant.

[Heyo Winter Comin']

He was also dumb to not send more climbing parties to scale the Wall out of line of sight of Castle Black and then attack the NW from the flanks, after the Magnar's attempt failed. He had the time and the men, and it would surely have had greater probabilities of success than trying to storm an enormously high ice wall by plugging the only gate with a dead giant.

He was going to send men across the bay of seals, assault the shadow tower and dig out disused gates if he needed to, but he told Jon he didn't want his people to bleed if they had to. As people have said, he very nearly took Castle Black and definitely would've if Stannis hadn't shown up.

[Pootie Tang]

Comparing the two battles of the bridge of skulls and the one beneath the wall is unfair. Stannis had a huge element of surprise which means that the wildlings that actually are untrained and unarmed compared to that of Stannis' men couldn't fight at the same capacity as when at the Bridge of skulls. At the bridge of skulls it could even be that the wildlings had the element of surprise, was led by the weeper IIRC and was up against men led by Bowen Marsh, a man of at least questionable competence.

That being said though, the mere fact that stannis is able to recognize the propper opportunity to sweep the floor with a hist 20 times the size of his does not exactly speak against his tactical prowess.

[Teiresias]

I think it's a pretty good victory all in all. Yes, Stannis's men are better trained and armoured, but Stannis is clever enough to come up with a plan that maximises his strengths and minimises his opponent's. It's not a hugely original plan but it shows he knows what he's doing and that he doesn't tend to make silly mistakes like underestimating his enemies just because the wildlings are 'untrained savages with sticks'.

[Nictarion]

You're wrong. Nyrhex tries to judge the situation objectively, based on his expertize and experience in the field.

Experience and expertise in medieval warfare? Damn, he must be really old.