Stannis as Most Versatile General

[BondJamesBond]

I just read a ton of great posts on a prior thread about the badassery or alleged lack thereof displayed by Stannis in his victory at the wall.

I fall into the camp that thinks it was a concerted, well planned attack that illustrates Stannis' complete mastery of battle strategy, command of his men, ability to maintain a professional army, ability to coordinate with allies (NW), ability to maintain control during a battle and ability to keep his men well organized and moving forward to execute the battle strategy amidst the confusion of war.

It was also mentioned in the thread how Stannis has succeeded in many different situations:

1) Defending in a siege (storms end)

2) naval warfare (defeating the Iron Fleet)

3) an amphibious assault (wresting Dragonstone from the targs)

4) multi-faceted land warfare (at the wall commanding infantry, cavalry, archers and coordinating with the NW)

5) a near successful amphibious assault on KL that turned into a land battle and assault of a major city that would likely have succeeded if not for a surprise attack by Tywin

Stannis' resume as a commander is impeccable. Not only does he have major victories on land and sea or a combination of land and sea, but he also has his experience typically without home court advantage except in the siege of storms end. Stannis doesn't simply defend his own territory that he knows better than the enemy but he actively goes into territory he doesn't know as well and wages successful operations against the enemy.

Additionally, Stannis does not typically have a numerical advantage in his conflicts. He takes what he has and takes the fight to the enemy, assuming there is a mathematical probability of victory. He makes do with what he has and doesn't give up or run from a fight when he doesn't have the clear edge. He places himself in a position to fight without being ordered to and without surrendering or giving up where others would do so honorably.

Stannis has the ability to win over allies. For example, the storm lords swore fealty to him after he killed their lord (Renly). They didn't have to do this. Stannis wins over the NW at eastwatch (they didn't have to follow him completely but he obviously showed them he had a successful strategy). Jon decides to help Stannis and Stannis is able to recruit the mountain clans to help him fight the IB and Boltons. Melisandre sees him as Azor Ahai. The wildlings don't revolt against Stannis. In short, people see Stannis as a strong military leader and they will follow him either due to pragmatism, admiration or fear.

Stannis is competent, creative in formulating strategy, able to form strategic alliances and will never stop fighting. He has the best resume for fighting and succeeding in all types of environments.

[BondJamesBond]

Bump. (Originally posted at odd time)

[Raven in Winter]

He is certainly experienced, to say the least. Look at that resume!

[James Arryn]

His versatility is absolutely his best asset. I wish we had more information about Fair Isle, tbh. But I can't think of another commander who has demonstrated an ability to be solid on land and at sea.

It's not particularly medieval, either. Outside of Vikings, by the time you get to the RL age ASOIAF is mimicking, you pretty much have naval specialists. Not entirely, but generally. In the Classical world there seems to have been little distinction, and for whatever reason, that's the tone GRRM has gone for. So when I think of parallels I come up with Agrippa or w/e.

I would like to differ on one point. The Storm Lords.

Renly had no heirs. There were no other Baratheons. There was literally no one else to turn to; the Lannisters hadn't even really put forward an alternative. So considering the supreme vacuum in which they were operating, I actually think it's remarkable that Renly inspired such devotion and allegiance after death. Some Stormlords inexplicably did not join, Penrose defied him with no hope of rescue, etc. I mean, even consider the Reach for a moment. We now act like their joining the Lannisters was a natural fit, but remember that, like the Stormlords, their martial raison d'être in this war was opposing the Lannisters. Stannis was just a sideshow that popped up when he decided to attack SL...before that the assumption had been that the Baratheons would at least work towards a common cause somehow. No one but Stannis saw them fighting each other while the Lannisters were at large, and so exceptionally vulnerable.

So the decision to reverse fields was a pretty spectacular one. The fact that absolutely zero exploration was made to use the confusion of Renly's death to reforge the alliance is pretty telling. Yes, there was no marriage on offer, but that came about a while later, after discussions were brokered...in the absolute void of anyone reaching out to Stannis. And if we are unsure about how much they were motivated by Renly,,or how much devotion the SL lords had felt for him, I would just remind you of the Blackwater. Not just how effective 'Renly's Ghost' at creating confusion and division, but at what the Tyrells were thinking when they decided to go that route. There's an assumption of extreme loyalty at play, and the sense that people actually fighting in a battle might be confused about who to fight because of the appearance of a single man. And it worked. Loyalty beyond death. And we see it in individuals, too. Penrose, Brienne, Loras, etc.

Only Ned works as a parallel, and even the Ned wasn't awarded the series' El Cid moment.

So I would say the kind of point you were trying to make about Stannis and the Stormlords actually falls a bit flat. I think they did actually 'have to' sign on with him. There was no one else, literally. And in fact some chose no one over Stannis. And at the BW we see that many still consider Renly their leader beyond rational thought.

Stannis has his strengths. Versatility is highest among them. Well, versatility and discipline. Versatility, discipline and a almost fanatical devotion to the Catholic...wait, I'll start again.

But he definitely has his weaknesses, too. And winning over new friends is pretty high up there. Jon has been trying to help him mitigate that flaw, and in some ways it's worked, depending on where you stand with the GNC. I guess we'll see.

[Gneisenau]

You forget

6.Secretly assassinate enemy leaders, without anyone suspecting.

[The Great and Mighty Poo]

Idgaf anymore. I love stanis but all these threads of how good he is is killing me.

No offence it is still is a well thought out thread.

[FaSome]

I thought we had made it two days without one of these, but.....I guess I spoke too soon.

[IRON BANK]

Being held in a siege and not being able to break through in time is of little success. I guess just survivng on a siege counts. w/o Mel I doubt he beats Renly, not impressed. The attack on KL was a loss not impresses. The Wildlings ata the wall, thats a win for Stannis, also showed great diplomatic skill. All in all Stannis is a decent statesmen half way decent Genereal.

[Tetrarch42]

Being held in a siege and not being able to break through in time is of little success. I guess just survivng on a siege counts. w/o Mel I doubt he beats Renly, not impressed. The attack on KL was a loss not impresses. The Wildlings ata the wall, thats a win for Stannis, also showed great diplomatic skill. All in all Stannis is a decent statesmen half way decent Genereal.

Yeah, but I heard Stannis has Genereal disease.

[Arya kiddin']

Being held in a siege and not being able to break through in time is of little success. I guess just survivng on a siege counts. w/o Mel I doubt he beats Renly, not impressed. The attack on KL was a loss not impresses. The Wildlings ata the wall, thats a win for Stannis, also showed great diplomatic skill. All in all Stannis is a decent statesmen half way decent Genereal.

Yes, I believe this is a fair assessment. He defeated Ironborn on Lannisport, great victory I'm sure; but then I think Victarion as a great (brute of a) soldier, not necessarily a good commander. Even under him, Ironborn have no victories to boast of. He withstood the Tyrell siege, that shows his great resilience, agreed. Battle at the wall also was a great victory (again it pales a little because it was against a host largely comprising of women and children, and the main force was disorgainzed).

Overall good versatile generals are people like Robert Baratheon, Robb Stark and to some extent Randyll Tarly. I expect Stannis' full prowess to be shown in the coming battle of ice, but so far seeing his record I wouldn't name him the best or the most versatile commander.

[James Arryn]

Yes, I believe this is a fair assessment. He defeated Ironborn on Lannisport, great victory I'm sure; but then I think Victarion as a great (brute of a) soldier, not necessarily a good commander. Even under him, Ironborn have no victories to boast of. He withstood the Tyrell siege, that shows his great resilience, agreed. Battle at the wall also was a great victory (again it pales a little because it was against a host largely comprising of women and children, and the main force was disorgainzed).

Overall good versatile generals are people like Robert Baratheon, Robb Stark and to some extent Randyll Tarly. I expect Stannis' full prowess to be shown in the coming battle of ice, but so far seeing his record I wouldn't name him the best or the most versatile commander.

Not the best, no. Not all that close unless WF's a masterpiece. But I think he's easily the most versatile. Who's even close? ( that we've been shown)

[IRON BANK]

Yes, I believe this is a fair assessment. He defeated Ironborn on Lannisport, great victory I'm sure; but then I think Victarion as a great (brute of a) soldier, not necessarily a good commander. Even under him, Ironborn have no victories to boast of. He withstood the Tyrell siege, that shows his great resilience, agreed. Battle at the wall also was a great victory (again it pales a little because it was against a host largely comprising of women and children, and the main force was disorgainzed).

Overall good versatile generals are people like Robert Baratheon, Robb Stark and to some extent Randyll Tarly. I expect Stannis' full prowess to be shown in the coming battle of ice, but so far seeing his record I wouldn't name him the best or the most versatile commander.

i AGREE: The next book will probably show us just how commited he is, I also feel this will show other Main characters how to lead and the extent on will have to take for success in ones ideals. Stannis to me is a mentor for other younger characters.

[Arya kiddin']

Not the best, no. Not all that close unless WF's a masterpiece. But I think he's easily the most versatile. Who's even close? ( that we've been shown)

I read your earlier post James, and I see that by versatility you mean ability to command on both Land and Sea (at least as one aspect). The point is, Lannisport was one victory, but Blackwater was a crushing defeat. He had a larger fleet, and overestimated its prowess, while underestimating his enemy. He went for a straight charge and chose for his Admiral a sycophant, rather than a man who had much more experience at sea and was more trustworthy. People will assert that it was Imry Florent who lost that day but we have to see that Stannis was the one who gave him the command in the first place. Making the right choices is extremely important for a General.

And versatility by your definition should include battle on different land terrains as well. I think Robert Baratheon acquitted himself pretty well during the rebellion. He lost only once after all, at Ashford.

i AGREE: The next book will probably show us just how commited he is, I also feel this will show other Main characters how to lead and the extent on will have to take for success in ones ideals. Stannis to me is a mentor for other younger characters.

:lol:

Yes, I agree. He is certainly an inspirational figure - discipline is something we can all certainly learn from him.

[The Drunkard]

5) a near successful amphibious assault on KL that turned into a land battle and assault of a major city that would likely have succeeded if not for a surprise attack by Tywin

I have to say that I'd consider this a black spot on his resume more than I do an achievement. Selecting Imry Florent to lead the fleet was a blunder, especially given Imry (IIRC) only signed on with Stannis after Renly's death, so it's not like he's rewarding extreme loyalty or placing faith in someone he knows will always remain loyal (this applies to Alester as the Hand, too, he hardly deserved the position).

I really want to see how the Battle of the Ice pans out. Should be some good readin'.

[Dagon]

He took all his points out of friendly, likeable personality and put them into tactical prowess.

[IRON BANK]

I have to say that I'd consider this a black spot on his resume more than I do an achievement. Selecting Imry Florent to lead the fleet was a blunder, especially given Imry (IIRC) only signed on with Stannis after Renly's death, so it's not like he's rewarding extreme loyalty or placing faith in someone he knows will always remain loyal (this applies to Alester as the Hand, too, he hardly deserved the position).

I really want to see how the Battle of the Ice pans out. Should be some good readin'.

Yes I think the battle of ice will detrmine to me more of what Stannis can do when facing a modern Foe on the field. Even though the Freys are not known to be great strategicly, Bolton does seem to have a great survival instinct. It shall prove interesting.

[James Arryn]

I read your earlier post James, and I see that by versatility you mean ability to command on both Land and Sea (at least as one aspect). The point is, Lannisport was one victory, but Blackwater was a crushing defeat. He had a larger fleet, and overestimated its prowess, while underestimating his enemy. He went for a straight charge and chose for his Admiral a sycophant, rather than a man who had much more experience at sea and was more trustworthy. People will assert that it was Imry Florent who lost that day but we have to see that Stannis was the one who gave him the command in the first place. Making the right choices is extremely important for a General.

Well, a couple points.

1) Records as determinants of skill is really a modern American thing, comes from Sports, I think. The better general often loses. Individual generals can show better generalship in a loss than in a victory.

2) Having said that, I actually agree with your assessment of Stannis at the BW.

Even in general, he's pretty much a point and shoot general. So far, anyways. We'll see with Ice.

But that kind of paint by the numbers generalship can be effective in certain circumstances, especially when coupled with excellent discipline and mission focus. And Stannis always shows that. In every battle we see, his men fight hard and maintain order. It's not the stuff of legends, there's no genius to point to, but there is solid, professional generalship evident in the conduct of his troops.

I'll review his record with quick summaries:

1) Siege of Storm's End. Shows excellent discipline and resilience. Loses some points for inspiring loyalty as there are attempts at defection. Beyond discipline and resilience, not much to say. But a gutsy effort.

2) Seizure of Dragonstone. Only thing we know is he arrived too late, but we have no idea if that's on him or Robert. We know Robert blamed him, but we can't be certain he was right. Mark this as unknown, criticism noted.

3) Greyjoy Rebellion/Fair Isle. Details are sketchy. Joint command between Stannis and Redwyne. But Stannis seems to be given most credit for 'trapping' the Iron Fleet and smashing them. Really hard to evaluate. He may have had considerable numerical advantage. It may have been the other way around. He may have orchestrated a trap, or he may have lucked into one as at the Wall. Casualties are unknown for both sides.

Only thing I can take from this is he is at the very least a solid, capable commander at sea. He may have shown much more; we lack details.

4) Greyjoy Rebellion/Great Wyk

All we are told is that he subdued the island. Great Wyk is the largest and most populous of the Iron Islands, but we have exactly no details about what transpired. We know that of the IB left, the vast majority were on Pyke, and that's where the heavy fighting took place. So what we're left with is scant detail. It might have been a walkover. There might have been little organized resistance. Or they might have faced tough resistance. We just don't know. At the very least we can say that Stannis was entrusted with the task and the task got done.

5) Wot5K/ Siege of Storm's End

In my mind this is by far his biggest blunder. He broke several rules of war and left his army...and therefore his side in the war...trapped in a hopeless situation. With virtually no hope of survival. Then he is offered a diplomatic solution that will save his army and still allow him to pursue justice for Robert and potentially be AA, but declines. Then he sends a shadowbaby assassin, it works, and his cause and army are saved.

Now there are 2 ways of assessing his generalship here. Neither of them show Stannis in a good light.

1) His intention was never to use the shadow-baby assassin.

In which case you breached some cardinal rules of war, failed your cause and your men, and got deus ex machina level lucky. Terrible generalship showing a few flaws: emotional thinking, stubbornness and terrible military judgment. Unforced error of the highest magnitude.

2) His intention was always to use the shadow-baby assassin.

In which case he gambled the fates of his entire cause and army on an untried, never before heard of magic weapon. Arguably better than or worse than 1, but either way extraordinarily unsound military judgment and failure to assess win/lose variables with any strategic understanding. Unless there were test runs of the shadowbaby assassins Stannis had witnessed.

All in all this was Stannis at his worst. The cost/gain of this operation just doesn't pass muster. Several axioms are flaunted. In addition to some of those already mentioned, there is: never stop one enemy from destroying another. The best I can come up with to explain Stannis' thinking is ad hom stuff like pride and justice.

6) WOT5K/Siege of Storm's End II

Hard to eval from a commander POV. He knew by now that the SBA was effective. If we assume his vow to take SE was a lie, then he effectively gained the fort with no appreciable cost. If he truly did intend to storm the castle..and at least at one point that seems to be the case...he was again thinking with his pride and stubbornness. SE was done as a threat. He could have left minimal forces and worn it down. The garrison would pretty quickly see that no one is coming for them, and when the focus of their anger is elsewhere, they'd almost certainly capitulate if given remotely reasonable terms. Or, just use the shadow baby. Again, the lack of clarity about Stannis' intentions leaves an inability to judge.

7) WOT5K/ Blackwater

This one shows Stannis' strengths and weaknesses both.

Again he employs a see-ball hit-ball approach. In so doing he allows the city defenders to effectively and comprehensively predict his strategy and concentrate their countermeasures exactly where they are needed, to devastating effect. He loses the naval wing despite overwhelming numbers in his favour. In his defence, wildfire was, while not supernatural, at least a curveball sent his way.

But moving on, we now see Stannis at his best, maintaining control and command of his troops and persevering in their attack. He has a little greater than a 5:3 advantage, and a much higher quality of forces at his disposal. Marvin's descriptions of KL defences are a hit confusing. Structurally, there should have been enough in place to defend the city for quite some time. But Tyrion sees a need for sorties, and no one seems to feel that is unwise, so I am left a bit baffled as to how vulnerable the city was. And even if the city wall falls, should not there be secondary bastions such as the Red Keep itself? Anyways, w/e the state of the defences, both sides seem to fight with great dedication and courage, and Stannis is able to turn it into a battle of attrition with very few force multipliers coming into effect against him. He is exerting his willpower upon the battlefield, and winning.

Now comes GRRMs favourite ploy: the unexpected 3rd party attack hitting the about to win army in the flank or rear.

A few points to make here: there was a definite failure on Stannis' part overall with regards to military intelligence. He should have known at least something about the WF, and more than that he shouldn't have failed to completely act as though a blind spot he knew existed (Kingswood) would just not be important. He seems to have made considerable effort to destroy the blind spot. But when that failed he just seems to have forgotten about it. Again we see that flaw of his being intellectually blinded by emotional objectives.

In his defence, it seems a fluke that the Lannister/Tyrell army just happened to find his blind spot...unless Tyrion had communicated or instructed the hill tribes to communicate...and that the flanking army arrived at the right time in the right place as per George's go-to. In addition, the enemy forces are lead by the 'Ghost of Renly', causing much confusion and mass defections. Overall his forces break or submit in waves, and Stannis and a small contingent of men affect their escape.

I think we use say Stannis got pretty unlucky. But he demonstrated flaws which allowed for that to happen.

*If he achieves greater bf intel he isn't sideswiped by the WF/chain.

*if he doesn't decide to just move the KW issue into the out tray without having fixed the problem, he is not caught by complete surprise.

* if failing to control the KW he at least leaves a skirmish line and runners, he is again not floored and might have time to forge a second front or preserve the bulk of his army in a strategic retreat, although I'm not sure where they could retreat to, with the fleet destroyed.

* if his gameplan wasn't so predictable, it wouldn't have been so well predicted, thus not as easily thwarted early on.

* if he was a commander who knew how to win his men instead of just knowing how to organze andvdiscipline them, the Renly Ghost effect should have been far less effective.

*the number and constitution of them aside, Stannis DID know there was an enemy force in the field, and still chose to commit a military cardinal sin by attacking a fixed enemy with another behind him.

All told, a bad loss. Mistakes which in isolation might not have meant defeat piled up and were topped off with bad luck, and the results were devastating. Had he brought Mel, maybe he could have pulled this one out of the fire via magic as he did at Storm's End, but the error is not extreme as at least here he had a legitimate hope for success.

I'll pick up with the Wall tomorrow.

[The Sleeper]

@ James Arryn

The Tyrells and Lannisters did not come from the kingswood, they sailed down the Blackwater and came charging from the west. The Kingswood was to his southeast. Tyrion did not want the fight to get to the walls, because he felt that the goldcloacks would break.

[Talleyrand]

3) an amphibious assault (wresting Dragonstone from the targs)

Nothing indicates that Stannis had to assault Dragonstone in fact the opposite Dany says the garrison were about to surrender and sell her and Vis to the Baratheons

[Blutraven]

Nothing indicates that Stannis had to assault Dragonstone in fact the opposite Dany says the garrison were about to surrender and sell her and Vis to the Baratheons

Dany also says that Targs are immune to disease.