One of the greatest unsung military feats in ASoIaF...

[the conquering bastard 25]

Yes Herny's blood claim was very poor but he claimed right of conquest which was acknowledged by parliament so there you go, after Henry VII marriage to Elizabeth however his children arguably had the best claim through her being a daughter of Edward IV. Incidentally it wasn't because of the Yorkists that the Beauforts were unable to inheirt, the law was passed by the Lancastrians themselves, to prevent rival claimants on their own side.

A case could be made for Thomas Woodstock;s descendants but the closest Yorkist blood relations (particularly if you count Edward IV's children as being illegitimate) I'd argue would have first been Edward 17th earl of Warwick, followed by Maragret Pole's children whose claim would have been very strong. Henry VII seems to have been quite clearly aware of this given their executions.

You can't really call it a right of conquest. It was still a civil war. They are still distantly related. York and Lancaster spring from the same royal house. Just different branches. If it was a right of conquest why play up the blood claim aspect. Why then tie himself to Elizabeth of York if it was a right of conquest. Wedding Elizabeth was a genius stroke by his mother. It brings the two different halves of the family tree and makes it harder for usurpers to claim the throne. As red or white a rose is still a rose. If by any other name it would still smell just as sweet.

I'm not talking about finding a York in the female line, I'm talking if England only went by the male line, then after Henry VI and Richard III the throne should have gone to Woodstock. Each of these other houses would be dead in the male line. So if the English crown really wants a male of the male line of the closest king that shares all three blood lines(Edward III), then the crown should have passed to Woodstock and his relations. I mean that's why Henry Tudor ended up cutting one of the buckingham's head(well that and trying to kill him) because he had more English royal blood.

[JonisHenryTudor]

Yeah but Edward's choice of bride didn't cost him his head. They were wed for quite some time before his brother started to make a fuss that eventually cost him his head.

I've never quite pinned down whom Robb was inspired by. Yet I guess I could see Edward, yet were are his two quarrelsome brothers? Jon wouldn't dare raise a hand against the young wolf and the other are two young. Altough I guess Umber would be his Kingmaker forcing the crown on him and all.

Speaking of the Duke of Buckingham, I asked a question a couple of post back and you work in the area that would know this, but could there be a case be made that the line of English rulers really should have passed to Thomas Woodstock's sons when York(Richard III) and Lancaster (Henry VI) died that the crown really and truly should have passed to their line and not the Tudors.

Henry had no right to the throne if one must be honest. If I'm right Henry's claim(or imagined claim) was through his mother being the great granddaughter through Edward III, yet the Beaufort claim was a bastard claim and was declared unable to inherit (because of the Yorks) and then sactioned by the Pope (right) not to mention the Lancasters were usurpers and the Yorks as they were the sons of the third son and later the fifth son when they combined their lines to strengthen their claim. Yet when the Yorks died in the male line that only left the Duke of Buckingham right? Also, there was the little matter that Jasper and his brother might have been bastards themselves as their parents might not have been wed at all.

Another question are historians starting to question whether or not Katherine of Argon was truly a maid when Henry and she wed. That she lied to protect her daughter and her rights. As in Spain her mother was a queen in her own right. I mean Katherine even was on campaign with her parents. Isabella if I remember correctly gave birth to one of her children while on campaign. So in Katherine's mind Mary should have been able to inherit in her own right. Which would explain her wanting her to wed Philip of Spain. Or the type of education that Mary received, a princely education where most women highborn and princesses like didn't always get the best of an education. To say they weren't educated by they didn't get the same as their brother's would.

It cost him his primary ally, Warwick.

Henry VII's claim was via military victory. He executed a number of people and was immediately crowned by his supporters. The thing is with these types of incidents, the crown doesn't always go to the rightful heir but the commander of the winning army, which was Henry Tudor. As far as Elizabeth of York, that was a power move to seal the two sides together and prevent any further uprisings.

Bold - Actually Christine Carpenter places a lot of "blame" on Edward III for this. By situating his sons in key political positions, he essentially set the realm of for the WotR. Jaspar was jon-like bastard, or possible if Lyanna and Rhaegar did not formally marry. At least the "guess" is that Jaspar was born outside of wedlock, but not a bastard if that makes any sense. I believe it was Ralph Griffiths who argued that.

I responded late, but basically what Bittersteel said.

As far as Catherine goes, no I haven't heard of anyone questioning her virginity yet. I am sure someone has looked into it though. She claims to not have consummated her marriage, and that seems to be loosely accepted. They were together for at least 6 months after the marriage, so it would be kind of odd that Arthur did not consummate the marriage. There was a recorded bedding ceremony, so...

[The Bittersteel]

You can't really call it a right of conquest. It was still a civil war. They are still distantly related. York and Lancaster spring from the same royal house. Just different branches. If it was a right of conquest why play up the blood claim aspect. Why then tie himself to Elizabeth of York if it was a right of conquest. Wedding Elizabeth was a genius stroke by his mother. It brings the two different halves of the family tree and makes it harder for usurpers to claim the throne. As red or white a rose is still a rose. If by any other name it would still smell just as sweet.

I'm not talking about finding a York in the female line, I'm talking if England only went by the male line, then after Henry VI and Richard III the throne should have gone to Woodstock. Each of these other houses would be dead in the male line. So if the English crown really wants a male of the male line of the closest king that shares all three blood lines(Edward III), then the crown should have passed to Woodstock and his relations. I mean that's why Henry Tudor ended up cutting one of the buckingham's head(well that and trying to kill him) because he had more English royal blood.

No it was a right of conquest, he did not play up the blood claim aspect at all. The 1485 parliament bill that acknowledged him as King makes no mention of any genealogical right to the throne because he had none. He tied himself to Elizabeth of York to combine a right of conquest and blood claim. Similar to how Henry I (son of William the Conqueror) married a descendant of the House of Wessex.

That's not how succession works. It goes by the closest relation to the previous monarch and incidentally Thomas Woodstock had no male descendants by this time so the crown passing to his heirs would not be going through the male line as I said previously the last male line plantagenet was Edward Earl of Warwick.

[the conquering bastard 25]

No it was a right of conquest, he did not play up the blood claim aspect at all. The 1485 parliament bill that acknowledged him as King makes no mention of any genealogical right to the throne because he had none. He tied himself to Elizabeth of York to combine a right of conquest and blood claim. Similar to how Henry I (son of William the Conqueror) married a descendant of the House of Wessex.

That's not how succession works. It goes by the closest relation to the previous monarch and incidentally Thomas Woodstock had no male descendants by this time so the crown passing to his heirs would not be going through the male line as I said previously the last male line plantagenet was Edward Earl of Warwick.

Thank you both, because I was always under the impression that part of the reason that he was supported at all was because of his ties to the Lancaster party.

Yet when put that way it makes more sense why he and his family over the years "did spring cleaning of the family tree" from time to time.

[The Bittersteel]

Thank you both, because I was always under the impression that part of the reason that he was supported at all was because of his ties to the Lancaster party.

Yet when put that way it makes more sense why he and his family over the years "did spring cleaning of the family tree" from time to time.

My pleasure, it's a fascinating topic and I'm glad you share an interest.

[Capt Captain]

This thread has spiraled off topic

[Bog Devil of Greywater]

To the OP-Patton was not that great. Anyone with a basic understanding of tank warfare could of done what Patton did in France-apart from some crack SS divisions he was fighting the remains of a very weak German Army. If Patton faced the likes of Guderian in the field at full strength he would of struggled. As the OP stated everyone sees Patton as a great but in reality the advantages were stepped in his favour.

Stannis defeating the Wildings was just that

Patton is being seriously underrated in this post. I wouldn't make an argument that he was one of the best, but all this talk about advantages being steeped in his favor is just misguided.

America was the new kid on the block in armor warfare. We still had horse cavalry in the years leading up to WWII. Our equipment was terribly inferior to the German Panzer and the Russian T-34 because the U.S. had never invested in the technology heavily after WWI, and the U.S. was forced to field tanks light enough to be transported to Europe. It took the U.S. until around 1927 to even begin to work on Armor doctrine, and it was Patton who led that doctrinal work. Some countries in Europe were heavily invested in armor development since WWI. You could easily argue that the U.S. did not lead the world in Armor technology until the M1 Abrams was fielded in 1980.

So Patton had inferior equipment and tactics that he'd largely developed himself, and during the war had to heavily revamp his armor tactics to even stand against the German armor. What the man had as an advantage was the power of American logistics, which is a huge benefit. Unspeakably huge, really. Our production power was never under threat during the war, certainly. But acting as if Patton was the recipient of massive amounts of advantages is misguided. At one famous point during Operation Cobra, Eisenhower had to pull Pattons' fuel allocation because he was outrunning the entire Army. That speaks directly to Patton's leadership and tactical prowess compared to the logistics of the time.

Patton tried to establish combined arms warfare as a U.S. doctrine in the late 1920's. but was shot down. The Russians would develop an early model a little over a decade later, but this wouldn't become formal U.S. doctrine until the early 1960's when the Marine Air-Ground Task Force came into being. He was incredibly ahead of his time, and his forward thinking is largely unknown because much of it was too controversial at the time to the old guard.

One of the things you cannot really do is compare modern Generals to Generals from antiquity. Nobody could tell those guys no. Modern Generals are trapped within the confines of the accepted tactics of the armies they serve.

[Lord_Rahl]

As someone mentioned, Arthur Wellesly-Duke of Wellington. Amazing at logistics as well as an able tactical commander.

And let's not forget Sun Tzu:)

[JonisHenryTudor]

Thank you both, because I was always under the impression that part of the reason that he was supported at all was because of his ties to the Lancaster party.

Yet when put that way it makes more sense why he and his family over the years "did spring cleaning of the family tree" from time to time.

It certainly helped in gaining support against Richard III. I don't think it can be entirely dismissed.

One of my undergrad professors had a "joke" (really not funny, but hits the point). "The transferring of power from one monarch to another is determined by lines of succession, unless of course there is a war and then it is determined by possession".

[Lord Warwick]

Patton is being seriously underrated in this post. I wouldn't make an argument that he was one of the best, but all this talk about advantages being steeped in his favor is just misguided.

America was the new kid on the block in armor warfare. We still had horse cavalry in the years leading up to WWII. Our equipment was terribly inferior to the German Panzer and the Russian T-34 because the U.S. had never invested in the technology heavily after WWI, and the U.S. was forced to field tanks light enough to be transported to Europe. It took the U.S. until around 1927 to even begin to work on Armor doctrine, and it was Patton who led that doctrinal work. Some countries in Europe were heavily invested in armor development since WWI. You could easily argue that the U.S. did not lead the world in Armor technology until the M1 Abrams was fielded in 1980.

So Patton had inferior equipment and tactics that he'd largely developed himself, and during the war had to heavily revamp his armor tactics to even stand against the German armor. What the man had as an advantage was the power of American logistics, which is a huge benefit. Unspeakably huge, really. Our production power was never under threat during the war, certainly. But acting as if Patton was the recipient of massive amounts of advantages is misguided. At one famous point during Operation Cobra, Eisenhower had to pull Pattons' fuel allocation because he was outrunning the entire Army. That speaks directly to Patton's leadership and tactical prowess compared to the logistics of the time.

Patton tried to establish combined arms warfare as a U.S. doctrine in the late 1920's. but was shot down. The Russians would develop an early model a little over a decade later, but this wouldn't become formal U.S. doctrine until the early 1960's when the Marine Air-Ground Task Force came into being. He was incredibly ahead of his time, and his forward thinking is largely unknown because much of it was too controversial at the time to the old guard.

One of the things you cannot really do is compare modern Generals to Generals from antiquity. Nobody could tell those guys no. Modern Generals are trapped within the confines of the accepted tactics of the armies they serve.

You're forgetting two very critical points about the western front of WW2. Germany was out of fuel and the allied airforce had over 10,000 aircraft in france against a few hundred german fighters.

At the battle of the bulge the german army spearheaded by elite waffen-ss divisions broke through american lines in the think of snow and came close to separating the americans from the british. But however the americans manage to stall german armor long enough for them to run out of fuels.

Majority of the german tank ''losses '' were actually abandoned tanks. They could'nt fight due to lack of fuel. America never had that problem anywhere. And an even larger advantage was in the fact that americans that air supremacy. Any german armor caught in the open would be eradicated from the air. That's why the germans launched the offensive in winter, to prevent american aircraft from attacking them.

Lack of fuel prevented the german air force with new jet fighters from balancing the air equation. And also it must not be forgotten that the mass of the german armies were in the east, in a much larger and brutal conflict. The bulk of the british and american forces were however in france.

So this alleged glorious victory for america was hardly glorious or genius. Its very easy to win with overwelhming material and manpower superiority. If you want examples of great military genius in WW2, look at manstien, he crushed half a million soviet troops at the 3rd battle of kharkov with just 3 SS divisions or rommel in the way he pushed the british out of north africa despite being greatly outmatched in resources OR even the british campaign in north africa where they defeated an italian army 5 times their size.

American media has sensationalized easy american victories. Once i was watching battleplan and the presenter said that the american invasion of iraq in 2003 was a much more difficult task than the german invasion of france in 1940.

[Lord Reaver]

The above is completely correct. Allied victory was pretty much a foregone conclusion after 1942, the germans were just too bloody stubborn/zealous to realize it.

Once the germans failed to gain the russian oil fields, it was game over. Modern warfare moves on oil, and their reserves were pretty much nil.

[Talking Hodor]

Stannis' brilliant defeat of the wildlings could be compared to Meryn Trant slapping down Sansa Stark in the throne room.

Stannis' move north was arguably a strategic win, but it was just him picking a low-hanging fruit and taking the path of least resistance - he's going to the wall to defeat an easy enemy, then plans to go south to defeat another easy enemy (he assumed that the North and the Ironborn were less organized than they later proved to be), and finally to fall upon KL with a bolsterd army.

He didn't care about the real threat to the realm, or else he would have treated with the wildlings (like Jon) instead of slaughtering them, and he would have stayed at the wall to prepare for the assault of the frosties (like the NW and the submissive wildlings).