Are Riverlands really indefensible?

[Arland]

Sometimes it is said as an axiom that the only way for Robb to survive was to abandon Riverlands and retreat beyond Moat Callin since Riverlands were "indefensible".

I am no military expert, but I think that trough history there were examples of successful defense of forested areas crisscrossed by rivers.

May be classic "holding the line" defense would not have worked considering that Riverlands were open to attack from 3 directions, but there are also other ways to wage warfare.

Couldn't he use castles to "turtle up" and pin the enemy, to use rivers to divide and bleed the enemy, to use forests and the knowledge of the land to hide from the enemy and strike at it at will…

Big army is a big target and a lot of mouths to feed. Holding tens of tousends men in Riverlands is a costly business and feeding and clothing them all during autumn and winter, with constant "partisan attacks" on food convoys is very problematic.

I think Robb could turn Lannister and their allies time in river lands into a nightmare, bleeding them, all the while regaining his hold of the north and building a new army, ready to come down on demoralized and war weary Lannisters. Also it was always possible that at some point Lannisters and their allies will turn one against the other or some other fortunate event will happen …

Numbers matter a lot in war, but it is not all about numbers. Moral matters, money matters, strategy and tactics matter…

Was such approach possible or indeed Riverlands were indefensible as commonly stated?

[Fanless Mace]

In this case, numbers matter. There are no chokepoints, too many access routes and approaches in and out of the region, and a lot of ground to defend. Similar to a lot of Russian geography, and Russia only defeated Napoleon because ( a ) they sent thousands upon thousands to their deaths, yielding a roiling sea of blood on the steppes, and ( b ) Winter was coming, and came.

[Chaircat Meow]

In the short term, no.

It's just that a north-riverlands kingdom is likely, sooner or later, to fall apart as the much stronger southern power absorbs the riverlands. Something like Moat Cailin 'guarantees' independence almost indefinitely, somewhat like the English channel might have done for Great Britain. The riverlands don't have anything comparable.

[Arland]

...and a lot of ground to defend

That is the point. You don't defend ground, you let it be captured. You don't fight for land, you fight for body count.

Russians abandoned Moscow and allowed it to be burned and captured, retreating to the north and melting into the forests.

Winter was coming, and came.

Problem was not winter "per se" but poor logistics with Napoleon not being able to maintain supply lines to support his huge army after it advanced too far. No reason this could not be done in Riverlands.

It's just that a north-riverlands kingdom is likely, sooner or later, to fall apart as the much stronger southern power absorbs the riverlands. Something like Moat Cailin 'guarantees' independence almost indefinitely, somewhat like the English channel might have done for Great Britain. The riverlands don't have anything comparable.

This is the issue of moral. How can you absorb something you cannot control? Untill local population is subdued and is ready to accept a new ruler it is a perpetual state of war...

[not in the face]

You would have to fight like the BwB and just harass your enemy and keep them guessing. Assassinate a commander or two and you will throw the enemy into chaos.

[Chaircat Meow]

That is the point. You don't defend ground, you let it be captured. You don't fight for land, you fight for body count.

Westerosi lords can't afford to do that long term. The king needs to protect the land of his lords and smallfolk. Letting ravagement go unchecked leads to political crisis and defections.

A state like Byzantium managed it in the seventh to eleventh centuries but it was very centralized and facing opponents with marked religious and cultural differences.

[Arland]

Westerosi lords can't afford to do that long term. The king needs to protect the land of his lords and smallfolk. Letting ravagement go unchecked leads to political crisis and defections.

A state like Byzantium managed it in the seventh to eleventh centuries but it was very centralized and facing opponents with marked religious and cultural differences.

You are correct that "partisan" style warfare is a product of "nation state" and not goes well with feudal system. On other hand "king in the north" idea does seem to be indication that there are some nationalistis ideas. It is also should be noted that the "total war" style of warfare unleashed on riverlands by Tywin sould have evoked a porper response to such kind of warfare - guerilla. And it actually did in form of "BWB".

[TheCrannogDweller]

I think the problem with Robb and the Riverlands is not that they're indefensible, but that the strategic situation made them so. In fact, they are well defended from the North, but not from the South. And the nightmare scenario, which Robb actually had to deal with, was to have one army to the east (Tywin) and one to the west (Stafford).

[Mourneblade]

The Riverlands are not indefensible, but the land itself does not have as many natural defenses as most of the other kingdoms. To defend such ground, in this setting, requires a large, well trained and equipped light cavalry, and heavy lance, augmented by pike infantry with solid archer support.

The idea being that you initially harass and blind an invading host with your fast light cavalry, giving time for your infantry and archers to intercept and hold the invaders, on ground of your choosing, which sets up your heavy lance for the kill.

Nothing in defensible with the right tools and tactics.

[Mourneblade]

I think the problem with Robb and the Riverlands is not that they're indefensible, but that the strategic situation made them so. In fact, they are well defended from the North, but not from the South. And the nightmare scenario, which Robb actually had to deal with, was to have one army to the east (Tywin) and one to the west (Stafford).

I think Robb acquits himself extremely well using his infantry to hold Tywin's forces, while making the maximum use of his horse. Robb had a better understanding of maneuver warfare than Tywin did, and would have beaten him under normal circumstances.

[TheCrannogDweller]

I think Robb acquits himself extremely well using his infantry to hold Tywin's forces, while making the maximum use of his horse. Robb had a better understanding of maneuver warfare than Tywin did, and would have beaten him under normal circumstances.

Oh, you're preaching to the choir here. :D I completely agree that Robb had Tywin by the nose - and that Tywin was completely overrated as a military commander.

Still, counting on Lord Frey to keep his gates closed and do nothing was usually a good bet. You can't really blame Tywin for taking it.

[Frey Pie]

No not indefensible at all. They were caught off guard to a certain extent at the start of the war, and partly due to both Jaimes brilliance and Eds not so brilliance, were steam rolled. However, if you look at the Fords, Ed had a well crafted plan which he carried out well. The end result should Tywin have stayed attacking is debatable but there's no doubt Tywin got more than he was prepared for.

I believe the idea generally comes from the fact that it is open to attack from all sides. However, the land itself is fairly rich. Forests and rivers give chances for defence and hit and run tactics.Furthermore it is home to three very strong castles in Harrenhal, Riverrun and the Twins. A united Riverlands defence would be no pushover, given a good commander in charge.

Now if the idea is that if Robb continued to fight, that Tywin would command armies from the west, east and south to converge there, then yes that is a problem. However he has tried this before and Robb destroyed the Western army. In the case of Tywin fighting Robb in the Riverlands after the Blackwater, I would expect a two border assault, from East (Kings Landing) and South (Highgarden). Tough for Robb but still defensible

[Mourneblade]

Oh, you're preaching to the choir here. :D I completely agree that Robb had Tywin by the nose - and that Tywin was completely overrated as a military commander.

Still, counting on Lord Frey to keep his gates closed and do nothing was usually a good bet. You can't really blame Tywin for taking it.

I would not say Tywin is overrated as a military commander. He is respected, or feared, as a military commander, and rightly so, because, unlike Robb, Tywin will use every means at his disposal to win. He is not burdened with the trappings of Honor, or Fairness. He understands the true nature of war in all its ugliness, in a way that Robb is incapable of.

Pick a fight with Robb and he will kick your ass.

Pick a fight with Tywin and he will kill you, your family, everyone you know, burn your house down, then make a song of it.

[Roose The Weddingcrasher]

Pick a fight with Tywin and he will kill you, your family, everyone you know, burn your house down, then make a song of it.

Pick a fight with Tywin, and he will run away, wait for someone else to fight you, and then take the credit.

[Frey Pie]

I would not say Tywin is overrated as a military commander. He is respected, or feared, as a military commander, and rightly so, because, unlike Robb, Tywin will use every means at his disposal to win. He is not burdened with the trappings of Honor, or Fairness. He understands the true nature of war in all its ugliness, in a way that Robb is incapable of.

Pick a fight with Robb and he will kick your ass.

Pick a fight with Tywin and he will kill you, your family, everyone you know, burn your house down, then make a song of it.

I wouldn't say incapable. Robbs fifteen and in his first war. Tywins like fifty and been in loads of wars. Experience

[Steelcan]

They aren't a great spot for a war, a guerrilla campaign sure, but a full on army? Not really.

[Steelcan]

Pick a fight with Robb and he will kick your ass.

Pick a fight with Tywin and he will kill you, your family, everyone you know, burn your house down, then make a song of it.

Sure a krogan Stark will come at you break your face and kill your family

But the batarians? Lannisters? They'll turn your whole planet family into a glass parking lot

[Tywin Smokin a Blunt]

I dont think you can call the Riverlands indefensible, just difficult to defend given Robb's limited numbers.

[Lord Stark]

I always enjoy hearing about how the Riverlands are indefensible because they have no choke point. If that is the each, almost all counties, and medieval states in history fall into this. The Riverlands are no more indefensible then Germany is. By the standards people place on the Riverlands, the Reach is so much more worse off then the Riverlands, but history doesn't show that to be the case.

The Riverlands are full of rivers, and rivers are a bane to any invading army. Being able to cross a river is a huge risk for any army, even when the enemy isn't on the other side. You put an enemy on the otherside, and all of a sudden, crossing a river is a death wish, as Edmure showed. Finding fords is another matter, without local help, your going to have a tough time, and what looks like a ford doesn;t mean it is going to be a ford once you start crossing. Mud, rocks, logs, any kinds of things will be hidden in the water. Fact is your going to lose men just crossing the river with heavy armour, once you slip and fall, your done. Moving your supplies across is a nightmare.

Remember Robb needed the Freys to cross the only ford, sure he could have avoid crossing and instead went around the Green Fork, and used another bridge, but bridges are burned all the time in war, thus creating more things for invaders to worry about.

I could go on and on about rivers in warfare. Westeros is unique in that there are 4 kingdoms with choke points. Normally choke points are a local issue, and not something with defines the state.

The Riverlands are vast and rich. They lack poor leadership, no matter how many lords we may like from there, many are just bad leaders. When you allow your men to march home to defend their homelands, and you take that offer, your ripping your army apart and allowing the enemy to pick you off one at a time, and not put up much a defence anywhere. Even when Edmure allowed most his lords to keep going home to defend their own homs and villages, a call he made more then once, the Riverlands were still able to put large forces into the field. If they had better leadership at Golden Tooth, and hadn't allowed men to return home to their villages to defend from the Mountain, they might not have needed Robb. After the Siege of Riverrun though, Robb, his war council, and even edmure, showed that the Riverlands could be defended, it just took leadership, and this was at a time when the Riverlands had already been split because of bad leadership.

Defending a kingdom isn't about what choke points you have, it's about using the land you do have, knowing that land, good leadership, but most of all, and most important of all, winning battles. Battles are won on every terrain. Hill, Mountains, plains, rivers, in towns, on the ocean. Doesn't matter where, you win the battles, you win. Sure choke points can help, but to think that without them means your dooms is very short sighted, and doesn't give much credit to our own history.

[Ahura Mazda]

Given the armies playing the GoT, Riverlands were fully indefensible at such time.

It is certainly quite correct - as much as vague - to say that it depends on how many men you have, alliances you have, and which opponents you face to state "Riverlands are indefensible".

Compared to other kingdoms and considering the seemingly not so high level of wealth/population in respect to the others, it is fair to say that Riverlands are the least defensible kingdom.

EDIT: rivers allow conquerors to come up from them, especially when they have the sizes of ASOIAF. It is by no chance that the Pirate Kingdom had been established in the River Lands.