Stannis's huge victory at the wall.

[EstEst]

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

:D Sorry, that was clumsy of me. I hope you got my actual meaning. I mean, he admitted to have an expertise in some kind of warfare, while I think little people on this board have any. Well, I surely don't.

[DExit]

Agree with OP, ridiculous situation. Like when everyone in class gets an F for a test and you get an A, and everyone is like 'nah not impressive, the test was easy, the rest of us just fucked up and did not study'.

Also the fault of Jon, people read trough his mind and the bastard bugger hates southron men. I have a hunch that if the Greatjon had come out of the forests with 1500 hardened northmen at his back, smashed 20 times his own numbers and captured the king beyond the wall everyone would've been totally smitten with him.

Also very dissapointed in the men of the NW, that losers got their as kicked time after time, Stannis comes in and saves the day, the wall, the watch and their lives and they are only talking smug about him and his men.

[Usrnmhsnomning]

Agree with OP, ridiculous situation. Like when everyone in class gets an F for a test and you get an A, and everyone is like 'nah not impressive, the test was easy, the rest of us just fucked up and did not study'.

Also the fault of Jon, people read trough his mind and the bastard bugger hates southron men. I have a hunch that if the Greatjon had come out of the forests with 1500 hardened northmen at his back, smashed 20 times his own numbers and captured the king beyond the wall everyone would've been totally smitten with him.

Also very dissapointed in the men of the NW, that losers got their as kicked time after time, Stannis comes in and saves the day, the wall, the watch and their lives and they are only talking smug about him and his men.

A more accurate comparison would be someone looking over a test and saying "Oh this? Looks hard, but it actually isn't. This is how I'd pass it" and then later on someone else comes along and uses similar strategies to pass the test. The majority of people aren't saying "Oh nah the battle doesn't count at all cause wildlings have no weapons", they are saying "Stannis made use of the advantages that Jeor pointed out two books ago, so it's a good win and congratulations but it's not a great win comparable with other famous victories". People have said that this win is a plus for Stannis, but that he already has other far more impressive wins so this is just par the course. I think that some hardcore Stannis fans just have a propensity to take it as a personal attack that completely disregards the victory, when really it's an objective critique of the opinion that it's a "huge victory" as opposed to just 'a victory'. Stannis has had, and will have, more impressive wins. For every "oh Mance had 20,000 men" poster, there's a "Yeah, and Jeor was confident he'd beat the same 20,000 men with nearly one seventh of the force Stannis had so it's not like it's that good." poster. There's no single reason why people think a "huge victory" is an exaggeration, there are multiple reasons why people think it's a "good victory, but expected and not overly amazing compared to other victories". Objectively, the way GRRM wrote the story, the Wildling warriors were always going to lose to a smaller, more disciplined, better armed force of actual soldiers.

[Señor de la Tormenta]

A more accurate comparison would be someone looking over a test and saying "Oh this? Looks hard, but it actually isn't. This is how I'd pass it" and then later on someone else comes along and uses similar strategies to pass the test. The majority of people aren't saying "Oh nah the battle doesn't count at all cause wildlings have no weapons", they are saying "Stannis made use of the advantages that Jeor pointed out two books ago, so it's a good win and congratulations but it's not a great win comparable with other famous victories". People have said that this win is a plus for Stannis, but that he already has other far more impressive wins so this is just par the course. I think that some hardcore Stannis fans just have a propensity to take it as a personal attack that completely disregards the victory, when really it's an objective critique of the opinion that it's a "huge victory" as opposed to just 'a victory'. Stannis has had, and will have, more impressive wins. For every "oh Mance had 20,000 men" poster, there's a "Yeah, and Jeor was confident he'd beat the same 20,000 men with nearly one seventh of the force Stannis had so it's not like it's that good." poster. There's no single reason why people think a "huge victory" is an exaggeration, there are multiple reasons why people think it's a "good victory, but expected and not overly amazing compared to other victories". Objectively, the way GRRM wrote the story, the Wildling warriors were always going to lose to a smaller, more disciplined, better armed force of actual soldiers.

like in the bridge of skulls? Or the battle of long lake? I mean seriously people! you are just skiping hard evidence of westerosi soldiers with faaaaar better numbers than Stannis suffering a lot to defeat the wildings.

Bowen Marsh and Endrew Tarth "cornered" 300 wildings under the Weepers command: They lost 100 brothers in order to defeat them.

The Starks and the Umbers needed to rise a big army to stop the last wilding invasion. Many of them died, including the Lord of WF. A lot of northen corpses were left to bury by the NW. Just 100 years pre AGOT.

Stannis took out 20k with just a thousand. A flawless victory with almost no casualties.

Evidence is just there but people doesnt want to see it.

[The Red Pope]

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned but an important factor was that Mance had no scouts out since he'd lost too many to the Others. That's what made the ambush possible at all just like Tyrion's savage friends made Tywin's attack possible.

[King Aerys the Just]

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.

But it would have been unnecessary, since he could have just sent more climbers where Jon & Co didn't see, and then have them wipe out the small number of NW recruits on the Wall. He wouldn't have taken Castle Black if Stannis hadn't come either, they had already received reinforcements and it is doubtful that Mance would have blown the horn and essentially doomed the world, along with his own people.

[Usrnmhsnomning]

like in the bridge of skulls? Or the battle of long lake? I mean seriously people! you are just skiping hard evidence of westerosi soldiers with faaaaar better numbers than Stannis suffering a lot to defeat the wildings.

Bowen Marsh and Endrew Tarth "cornered" 300 wildings under the Weepers command: They lost 100 brothers in order to defeat them.

The Starks and the Umbers needed to rise a big army to stop the last wilding invasion. Many of them died, including the Lord of WF. A lot of northen corpses were left to bury by the NW. Just 100 years pre AGOT.

Stannis took out 20k with just a thousand. A flawless victory with almost no casualties.

Evidence is just there but people doesnt want to see it.

Case in point, thanks dude.

[BericDondarrion]

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned but an important factor was that Mance had no scouts out since he'd lost too many to the Others. That's what made the ambush possible at all just like Tyrion's savage friends made Tywin's attack possible.

Of course he had scouts. He had a frickin Eagle flying overhead looking throughout the skies. Do you not remember Varamyr riding Orells eagle? And Melisandre subsequently burning it?

[haemonculus]

Again, it is not that simple. Looking only at the numbers is pointless. The wildlings were surrounded and fought like cornered animals against Marsh and Tarth.

They had nowhere to run, so they made a last stand. Of course casualties will be far higher in that scenario, than for a flanking force (with heavy cavalry, you can not just brush that aside) that breaks their enemies basically on contact.

Also they did not face 20,000. They faced whatever the number of men made up the thin side, of what was most likely not even a solid block to begin with.

That's why they only killed 2,000? 3,000? That's what happens when the hammer and anvil tactic works (again, kudos for setting it up skillfully). Which is what knights were "designed" for.

[Nyrhex]

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned but an important factor was that Mance had no scouts out since he'd lost too many to the Others. That's what made the ambush possible at all just like Tyrion's savage friends made Tywin's attack possible.

I adressed this in post #45.

“Mance!” the shout came. It was a scout, bursting from the trees on a lathered horse. “Mance, there’s more, they’re all around us, iron men, iron, a host of iron men.”

Mance does have scouts, and as BericDondarion mentions there is the eagle giving him an eye in the sky on the sorrounding area. The first thing they see are the Eastwatch men, and react to that. That is the entire point of them being there, to be picked up and noticed.

[E-Ro]

Damn this thread is still going strong. Anyway, I was just thinking about robbs victory at oxcross and The battle at the wall and how similar they are. Both are ambushes against an untrained enemy. Both robb and Stannis are outnumbered(tho Stannis is FAR more outnumbered then robb was, and the lannisters had no mammoths or giants) yet the funny thing is I see that everyone praises robbs ability for oxcross and no one bitches about that fight at all. Odd really considering how similar the two battles are.

I have come to the conclusion that if Stannis' last name was Stark he would be universally agreed upon as the best general in the series.

[The Fallen]

The Starks and the Umbers needed to rise a big army to stop the last wilding invasion. Many of them died, including the Lord of WF. A lot of northen corpses were left to bury by the NW. Just 100 years pre AGOT.

Stannis took out 20k with just a thousand. A flawless victory with almost no casualties.

Evidence is just there but people doesnt want to see it.

You've mentioned this engagement several times. But the Starks didn't raise a huge host. It was Stark men and Umber men. We don't know how many wildlings there were. But I would imagine the northern host wasn't huge.

As far as Stannis is concerned, I won't take away credit. But I think calling it his greatest feat is exaggerating a bit. Maybe his best win on land. Most of his big wins happened on the water.

I actually think we saw his best at the Blackwater. He landed his forces and had to battle wildfire while trying to siege King's Landing. Only a last minute (lucky) arrival by Tywin and the Tyrells stopped him from being successful.

At the Wall he employed a good strategy, but we also have to admit that the wildlings aren't the most disciplined of men. I think the small number of casualties on the wildling side tells me that most of them didn't engage and just ran off. Maybe it was due to Stannis surprising them and even trained soldiers would have reacted the same way. In that case Stannis should get credit for it. But if trained men would have fought then it tells us that for all their bravery, the wildlings are still subpar soldiers. I think that lessens the shine on the victory.

As for me, I think it was a good victory. Stannis' tactics stand out, but the foe wasn't as formidable as he faced at the Blackwater (and probably Great Wyk).

[E-Ro]

You've mentioned this engagement several times. But the Starks didn't raise a huge host. It was Stark men and Umber men. We don't know how many wildlings there were. But I would imagine the northern host wasn't huge.

As far as Stannis is concerned, I won't take away credit. But I think calling it his greatest feat is exaggerating a bit. Maybe his best win on land. Most of his big wins happened on the water.

I actually think we saw his best at the Blackwater. He landed his forces and had to battle wildfire while trying to siege King's Landing. Only a last minute (lucky) arrival by Tywin and the Tyrells stopped him from being successful.

At the Wall he employed a good strategy, but we also have to admit that the wildlings aren't the most disciplined of men. I think the small number of casualties on the wildling side tells me that most of them didn't engage and just ran off. Maybe it was due to Stannis surprising them and even trained soldiers would have reacted the same way. In that case Stannis should get credit for it. But if trained men would have fought then it tells us that for all their bravery, the wildlings are still subpar soldiers. I think that lessens the shine on the victory.

As for me, I think it was a good victory. Stannis' tactics stand out, but the foe wasn't as formidable as he faced at the Blackwater (and probably Great Wyk).

To the bolded, yes, even trained men will break under pressure. Of course trained men will last LONGER then untrained men before they run, far longer. But even the most elite army wont fight to the death(cases of this being extremely rare) Eventually one army is going to cut and run, and thats when the battle ends. Every battle ends this way, no two armies fight until every last man is killed.

ETA: Even roman legionaries have been known to break and run.

[The Fallen]

Damn this thread is still going strong. Anyway, I was just thinking about robbs victory at oxcross and The battle at the wall and how similar they are. Both are ambushes against an untrained enemy. Both robb and Stannis are outnumbered(tho Stannis is FAR more outnumbered then robb was, and the lannisters had no mammoths or giants) yet the funny thing is I see that everyone praises robbs ability for oxcross and no one bitches about that fight at all. Odd really considering how similar the two battles are.

I have come to the conclusion that if Stannis' last name was Stark he would be universally agreed upon as the best general in the series.

I think there are two things at work. Robb was young and defeated Jaime Lannister and won every battle. So he comes across as a rock star.

Stannis' victories are, like him, devoid of flash. He lost the Blackwater and his wins have happened in the far-off North against wildlings and 300 ironborn. I think that if Stannis defeats the Boltons and Frey's and reinstalls the Starks in Winterfell, which I think is in the cards, then his star rises.

[E-Ro]

I think there are two things at work. Robb was young and defeated Jaime Lannister and won every battle. So he comes across as a rock star.

Stannis' victories are, like him, devoid of flash. He lost the Blackwater and his wins have happened in the far-off North against wildlings and 300 ironborn. I think that if Stannis defeats the Boltons and Grey's and reinstalls the Starks in Winterfell, which I think is in the cards, then his star rises.

But my point was don't you think its a bit of a double standard or perhaps even hypocrisy(not saying this is you) when two similar battles are treated very differently by the readers because of who led them?

[The Fallen]

But my point was don't you think its a bit of a double standard or perhaps even hypocrisy(not saying this is you) when two similar battles are treated very differently by the readers because of who led them?

It's hypocrisy in some cases. But I think the average person can be influenced by personalities. It's the same reason so many readers overrate Tywin.

You have to continue fighting the good fight to change the perception people have of Stannis. Also, I think GRRM has a hand also. He writes characters a certain way in order to get a particular response.

I'm a Stark man. But I recognize that Stannis is a guy I would want on my side.

[Usrnmhsnomning]

But my point was don't you think its a bit of a double standard or perhaps even hypocrisy(not saying this is you) when two similar battles are treated very differently by the readers because of who led them?

Oxcross mirrors Jaime routing Edmure and is very little like the Wildlings at the Wall, particularly in that Oxcross was planned and is noted for the outcome of the battle (free reign in the Westerlands) more than the battle itself. I don't actually recall many people putting Oxcross at the top of Robbs short list either. In fact I feel the same about it as I do about Stannis at the wall; good victory but hardly amazing given we already know (a la Jaime) how effective ambushing green levies is. Robb and Stannis, have had better wins.

[DaarioKnowsBest]

I hate Stannis, but at the same time realize he's a dope military guy.

I would hate Stannis as my king, but would love him in a high ranking military role.

I just don't see a reason to overrate this particular battle as something mindblowing that only a super genius commander could pull off.

Wildlings have never taken over the kingdoms in the centuries of the Walls life.

This instance the wildlings are running away from creepy magical forces up North, it's not even primarily a campaign to defeat the kneelers.

[E-Ro]

It's hypocrisy in some cases. But I think the average person can be influenced by personalities. It's the same reason so many readers overrate Tywin.

You have to continue fighting the good fight to change the perception people have of Stannis. Also, I think GRRM has a hand also. He writes characters a certain way in order to get a particular response.

I'm a Stark man. But I recognize that Stannis is a guy I would want on my side.

Fair enough, and yeah, I agree for the most part.

Oxcross mirrors Jaime routing Edmure and is very little like the Wildlings at the Wall, particularly in that Oxcross was planned and is noted for the outcome of the battle (free reign in the Westerlands) more than the battle itself. I don't actually recall many people putting Oxcross at the top of Robbs short list either. In fact I feel the same about it as I do about Stannis at the wall; good victory but hardly amazing given we already know (a la Jaime) how effective ambushing green levies is. Robb and Stannis, have had better wins.

what do you mean oxcross was planned? Are you implying that the battle at the wall was not planned?

As for the outcome of the battle, the outcome of the battle at the wall is that the wildlings didnt destroy the nw and possible the wall itself letting the others through. Had Stannis not of destroyed the wildlings they would have caused a ton of trouble for the northern most lords(raping women, stealing food, etc) before roose bolton(or any northern lord) could stop them. as well the others would have passed by the wall and slaughtered everyone. Sooo, yeah, that would have been bad.

[Usrnmhsnomning]

Fair enough, and yeah, I agree for the most part.

what do you mean oxcross was planned? Are you implying that the battle at the wall was not planned?

As for the outcome of the battle, the outcome of the battle at the wall is that the wildlings didnt destroy the nw and possible the wall itself letting the others through. Had Stannis not of destroyed the wildlings they would have caused a ton of trouble for the northern most lords(raping women, stealing food, etc) before roose bolton(or any northern lord) could stop them. as well the others would have passed by the wall and slaughtered everyone. Sooo, yeah, that would have been bad.

I'm implying that Stannis accidentally walked into a knife fight with a gun and shot someone while their back was turned. It doesn't matter what the outcome of the battle for Castle Black was, I was disputing your claim that Oxcross is used as "praise for Robb" by pointing out that no, people don't use it as praise for Robb and that Oxcross is known instory for breaking the Westerland armies and allowing the Northerners to plunder. The Battle for Castle Black win is known for what? Nobody cares instory except for the NW. I'm explicitly implying that you trying to criticize the apparent attitudes some people may have towards Oxcross in no way makes Stannis' win any better. The two are completely different and unrelated battles by different and unrelated forces months apart; that some readers may praise Robb for Oxcross doesn't mean you get to sit there and dismiss the "bitching" people are doing about Stannis at the Wall (if you can call legitimate critiquing "bitching").