Greatest commanders

[Corvinus85]

The Falcon Knight got lucky, I'll say Robar would beat him on even terms.

Lucky? He faked Robar twice, once with the decoy, once with maneuvering through rough terrain and coming up on his rear. Also, Robar arrived on the field days before the enemy. He had plenty of time to prepare; perhaps an ambush of his own.

[Daemon The Black Dragon]

Theon Stark

[Boarsbane]

Yes, I'd like to second that motion.

The falcon knight had 3 times his numbers and hid from him during the battle by dressing up someone else to look like him. That sounds a little cowardly if you ask me. Plus Robar was high king he got all of the other first men kings to bend the knee to him and they began to take down the andal invaders, who I might add, had superior weapons and armor.

The book states the numbers were roughly even so 3 times their number is ridiculous to claim and while the Andals had superior gear the First Men had the high ground and time to prepare. Artys didn't hide, he used a decoy so he could take Robar in the rear and it served him well. Artys proved the more cunning commander and so he survived the battle while Robar died.

[Boarsbane]

The Falcon Knight got lucky, I'll say Robar would beat him on even terms.

Even terms? So you think Robar would have a better chance if his First Men didn't have the massive advantage of high ground and already being dug in?

[KingBlackfyre]

The falcon knight like all andals had iron weapons as opposed to the bronze of the first men giving them an undeniably heavy advantage. Robar united the first men conquered many andal kingdoms and almost beat the united andal army i think he was the superior commander

[Boarsbane]

The falcon knight like all andals had iron weapons as opposed to the bronze of the first men giving them an undeniably heavy advantage. Robar united the first men conquered many andal kingdoms and almost beat the united andal army i think he was the superior commander

Or maybe the First Men picked up weapons from their fallen foes, like Robar himself, or in the time they shared the Vale with the Andals they learned how to make weapons better than bronze. Unless the First Men are complete morons most of them probably weren't using bronze weapons during that battle. Robar conquered many individual Andal kings/lords with a united force of First Men, when he faced a united Andal force of roughly the same size he lost. Robar was great, Artys was just better.

[Sages]

The book states the numbers were roughly even so 3 times their number is ridiculous to claim and while the Andals had superior gear the First Men had the high ground and time to prepare. Artys didn't hide, he used a decoy so he could take Robar in the rear and it served him well. Artys proved the more cunning commander and so he survived the battle while Robar died.

I was wrong about the raw numbers at the beginning of the engagement. The numbers were about even when the battle first began. I was getting it confused with the fact that the Andals had superior numbers when it comes to mounted knights . The Andals outnumbered the first men 10 to 1 in mounted knights. The Andals were better armed and armored. Even though the first men held a defensive position the andals eventually broke through. It was only then that Robar launched a desperate counter strike, hoping that if he was able to kill the falcon knight, the andals would lose heart and be lost without their leader.

In my opinion, the falcon knight's tactics did not win them the day.

The first men were already broken before he arrived.

The text says the andals charged seven times before they broke through.

During this time the falcon knight was leading his best horsemen through some goat tracks to flank the first men by surprise from behind.

The andal that led the 7th charge from the frontal assault was not the the falcon knight, it was Torgold and Robar Royce ends up killing him.

Then Robar goes and kills the guy that looks like the falcon knight.

After that, the real falcon knight finally appears with 500 additional knights that have yet to join the battle.

So it sounds like to me the numbers were nowhere close to being even.The falcon knight shows up with 500 of his best knights after the battle has been raging and the first men have suffered heavy losses.

That sounds like a very advantageous situation to me. And in my opinion makes it seem like the victory has little to do with the superior strategy of the falcon knight and everything to do with the advantages that the andals had over the first men. Any way we look at it, the facts are the same, the Andals had superior troops, superior weapons, superior armor and a 10 to 1 advantage when it comes to knights. And that's before the falcon knight appears with his additional 500 knights which are said to be his best horsemen.

Robar did all that he could but looking at the facts he was at a severe disadvantage.

Robar>Artys

[Ash Kumar]

Yes, I'd like to second that motion.

The falcon knight had 3 times his numbers and hid from him during the battle by dressing up someone else to look like him. That sounds a little cowardly if you ask me. Plus Robar was high king he got all of the other first men kings to bend the knee to him and they began to take down the andal invaders, who I might add, had superior weapons and armor.

if you lose it's cowardly if you win... Brilliant

[Boarsbane]

I was wrong about the raw numbers at the beginning of the engagement. The numbers were about even when the battle first began. I was getting it confused with the fact that the Andals had superior numbers when it comes to mounted knights . The Andals outnumbered the first men 10 to 1 in mounted knights. The Andals were better armed and armored. Even though the first men held a defensive position the andals eventually broke through. It was only then that Robar launched a desperate counter strike, hoping that if he was able to kill the falcon knight, the andals would lose heart and be lost without their leader.

In my opinion, the falcon knight's tactics did not win them the day.

The first men were already broken before he arrived.

The text says the andals charged seven times before they broke through.

During this time the falcon knight was leading his best horsemen through some goat tracks to flank the first men by surprise from behind.

The andal that led the 7th charge from the frontal assault was not the the falcon knight, it was Torgold and Robar Royce ends up killing him.

Then Robar goes and kills the guy that looks like the falcon knight.

After that, the real falcon knight finally appears with 500 additional knights that have yet to join the battle.

So it sounds like to me the numbers were nowhere close to being even.The falcon knight shows up with 500 of his best knights after the battle has been raging and the first men have suffered heavy losses.

That sounds like a very advantageous situation to me. And in my opinion makes it seem like the victory has little to do with the superior strategy of the falcon knight and everything to do with the advantages that the andals had over the first men. Any way we look at it, the facts are the same, the Andals had superior troops, superior weapons, superior armor and a 10 to 1 advantage when it comes to knights. And that's before the falcon knight appears with his additional 500 knights which are said to be his best horsemen.

Robar did all that he could but looking at the facts he was at a severe disadvantage.

Robar>Artys

So you don't think the First Men took any countermeasures against the Andal's heavy horse in the days beforehand they had to prepare with the high ground? If so they are idiots and Robar doesn't belong anywhere the other great commanders. The Andals did break through, after 6 unsuccessful charges and given they had about the same number of men as the First Men it says a lot that despite taking massive casualties charging uphill they could still almost overwhelm the First Men. It makes the Andal victory look less impressive but it also makes Robar look like an idiot.

Artys tactic is exactly why they won, if he had stayed with the main army and faced Robar he might of died. Instead he used the army as a distraction while he took a few hundred men to take them in the rear, finishing off Robar and winning the battle. There is really no reason for Artys not to use the goat trail since he knows about it and it is very likely he was the only one who knew it well enough to lead the men through it.

[Corvinus85]

I was wrong about the raw numbers at the beginning of the engagement. The numbers were about even when the battle first began. I was getting it confused with the fact that the Andals had superior numbers when it comes to mounted knights . The Andals outnumbered the first men 10 to 1 in mounted knights. The Andals were better armed and armored. Even though the first men held a defensive position the andals eventually broke through. It was only then that Robar launched a desperate counter strike, hoping that if he was able to kill the falcon knight, the andals would lose heart and be lost without their leader.

In my opinion, the falcon knight's tactics did not win them the day.

The first men were already broken before he arrived.

The text says the andals charged seven times before they broke through.

During this time the falcon knight was leading his best horsemen through some goat tracks to flank the first men by surprise from behind.

The andal that led the 7th charge from the frontal assault was not the the falcon knight, it was Torgold and Robar Royce ends up killing him.

Then Robar goes and kills the guy that looks like the falcon knight.

After that, the real falcon knight finally appears with 500 additional knights that have yet to join the battle.

So it sounds like to me the numbers were nowhere close to being even.The falcon knight shows up with 500 of his best knights after the battle has been raging and the first men have suffered heavy losses.

That sounds like a very advantageous situation to me. And in my opinion makes it seem like the victory has little to do with the superior strategy of the falcon knight and everything to do with the advantages that the andals had over the first men. Any way we look at it, the facts are the same, the Andals had superior troops, superior weapons, superior armor and a 10 to 1 advantage when it comes to knights. And that's before the falcon knight appears with his additional 500 knights which are said to be his best horsemen.

Robar did all that he could but looking at the facts he was at a severe disadvantage.

Robar>Artys

Wow, so using your assets well, and surprising your enemy is not good tactics, it's just an unfair advantage.

Artys took his best knights over a terrain where armored horsemen could have easily floundered, and it could have end with a lot dead horsemen. But a great commander knows when to gamble and Artys did that. Also, Robar completely fell for the decoy. I know of one real battle where the commander did that, and while his decoy was being killed by the enemy's best soldiers, he was free to lead his troops and win the battle.

[Ash Kumar]

Robar>Artys

Obviously that's why it's known as the vale of Royce .... Errr wait...

[Sages]

So you don't think the First Men took any countermeasures against the Andal's heavy horse in the days beforehand they had to prepare with the high ground? If so they are idiots and Robar doesn't belong anywhere the other great commanders. The Andals did break through, after 6 unsuccessful charges and given they had about the same number of men as the First Men it says a lot that despite taking massive casualties charging uphill they could still almost overwhelm the First Men. It makes the Andal victory look less impressive but it also makes Robar look like an idiot.

Artys tactic is exactly why they won, if he had stayed with the main army and faced Robar he might of died. Instead he used the army as a distraction while he took a few hundred men to take them in the rear, finishing off Robar and winning the battle. There is really no reason for Artys not to use the goat trail since he knows about it and it is very likely he was the only one who knew it well enough to lead the men through it.

My argument is not that Artys is a bad commander but that its completely unfair to give Artys credit for the victory, claiming that he has superior tactics,when he has nearly all of the advantages. I specifically point to the fact that before the falcon knight even reaches the battle, the andals have already broken through the lines of the first men.

It is only then that Robar attempts a desperate counter strike to find and kill the falcon knight. His thinking was that if he could kill the falcon knight the andals would lose heart.

Wow, so using your assets well, and surprising your enemy is not good tactics, it's just an unfair advantage.

Artys took his best knights over a terrain where armored horsemen could have easily floundered, and it could have end with a lot dead horsemen. But a great commander knows when to gamble and Artys did that. Also, Robar completely fell for the decoy. I know of one real battle where the commander did that, and while his decoy was being killed by the enemy's best soldiers, he was free to lead his troops and win the battle.

Nope not saying that at all. I'm saying that when comparing the two commanders they both used their assets as best they could. However the andals had nearly every advantage. Artys took his best knights through a goat track yes. But while he was busy navigating the goat tracks the first men were already losing. A completely different Andal leader, Torgold, is the one that led the charge and broke the lines of the first men, Artys had nothing to do with it. Plus I disagree that Artys was gambling. At the beginning of the engagement, the Andals outnumbered the first men 10 to 1 in mounted knights. These are by far the most superior troops. I must emphasize again that the frontal attack was already a success. Artys comes in much later with fresh troops. 500 additional mounted knights that have yet to taste battle. Saying that Artys won because he had superior tactics seems a little unfair to me, especially when it was Torgold that actually broke through the ranks of the first men to begin with.

The only thing that the decoy did was save his life. Robar fell for the decoy because Robar had no other choice. The first men were losing before the falcon knight showed up. Robar had to do something and he decided that killing the falcon knight could heavily demoralize the andals. Had the falcon knight actually been fighting when the battle first took place, in all likehood he would have died. When he descended on the first men from the goat tracks he was descending on a heavily fatigued force that was already overrun because of Torgold.

Saying that Artys won because he had superior tactics seems a little unfair to me. Instead I believe the Andals won because they had nearly all of the advantages.

Obviously that's why it's known as the vale of Royce .... Errr wait...

It's called the vale of Arryn because the andals won. The andals won because they had superior arms and armor. There is a reason why every single kingdom south of the neck was conquered by the andals.

This is a constant trend throughout the history of westeros. Those with the better weapons, advantages, tools etc, usually beat those without them.

1. The First men come and conquer the children because they are bigger, stronger more numerous and have bronze weapons.
2. The Andals come and conquer the first men because they have superior iron weapons and armor.
3. The Targaryens come and conquer everybody because they have dragons the ultimate weapon. They have better range, maneuverability and overall firepower then anything the Andal kings or the north had at their disposal.

But the Targaryens are no longer in power. Why? Because they lost the ultimate weapon and had to fight without it. They eventually lost to the other side which had a fierce commander and more troops.

[KingBlackfyre]

Both were good but IMO this is a Napoleon Wellington Hannibal scipio situation where the victor of the head to head battle is not the overall greater commander

[Corvinus85]

My argument is not that Artys is a bad commander but that its completely unfair to give Artys credit for the victory, claiming that he has superior tactics,when he has nearly all of the advantages. I specifically point to the fact that before the falcon knight even reaches the battle, the andals have already broken through the lines of the first men.

It is only then that Robar attempts a desperate counter strike to find and kill the falcon knight. His thinking was that if he could kill the falcon knight the andals would lose heart.

Nope not saying that at all. I'm saying that when comparing the two commanders they both used their assets as best they could. However the andals had nearly every advantage. Artys took his best knights through a goat track yes. But while he was busy navigating the goat tracks the first men were already losing. A completely different Andal leader, Torgold, is the one that led the charge and broke the lines of the first men, Artys had nothing to do with it. Plus I disagree that Artys was gambling. At the beginning of the engagement, the Andals outnumbered the first men 10 to 1 in mounted knights. These are by far the most superior troops. I must emphasize again that the frontal attack was already a success. Artys comes in much later with fresh troops. 500 additional mounted knights that have yet to taste battle. Saying that Artys won because he had superior tactics seems a little unfair to me, especially when it was Torgold that actually broke through the ranks of the first men to begin with.

The only thing that the decoy did was save his life. Robar fell for the decoy because Robar had no other choice. The first men were losing before the falcon knight showed up. Robar had to do something and he decided that killing the falcon knight could heavily demoralize the andals. Had the falcon knight actually been fighting when the battle first took place, in all likehood he would have died. When he descended on the first men from the goat tracks he was descending on a heavily fatigued force that was already overrun because of Torgold.

Saying that Artys won because he had superior tactics seems a little unfair to me. Instead I believe the Andals won because they had nearly all of the advantages.

It's called the vale of Arryn because the andals won. The andals won because they had superior arms and armor. There is a reason why every single kingdom south of the neck was conquered by the andals.

This is a constant trend throughout the history of westeros. Those with the better weapons, advantages, tools etc, usually beat those without them.

1. The First men come and conquer the children because they are bigger, stronger more numerous and have bronze weapons.

The Andals come and conquer the first men because they have superior iron weapons and armor.

The Targaryens come and conquer everybody because they have dragons the ultimate weapon. They have better range, maneuverability and overall firepower then anything the Andal kings or the north had at their disposal.

But the Targaryens are no longer in power. Why? Because they lost the ultimate weapon and had to fight without it. They eventually lost to the other side which had a fierce commander and more troops.

When Torgol led the seventh charge that broke through the First Men, the Andals had the advantage, but when Robar rallied his reserves, slew Torgol, and pressed on to slay the fake falcon knight, the tide was turning in favor the First Men. So you can't say that Arryn's arrival was at a point where the First Men were losing. And like I said before, the decoy not only saved Arryn's life, it allowed him to command his men without the worry of being sought on the field and slain.

Also, you keep saying it was Torgol that did all the hard work (which he did) but at the command of Ser Artys Arryn. Torgol was just another weapon in Arryn's arsenal that he used to great effect, much how like Tywin knew how to use Gregor Clegane. But for whatever points Clegane scores on the battlefield, Lannister victories (or defeats) ultimately still go to Tywin.

[Ash Kumar]

Both were good but IMO this is a Napoleon Wellington Hannibal sci pip situation where the victor of the head to head battle is not the overall greater commander

possibly but it seems that in those cases as with robar it would seem that both Napoleon and Hannibal get credit ( reasonably so) for past victories and achievements eg cannae and Vienna and therefore get labelled the superior commander over their foes . However in the case of the falcon knight this is countered with his own many victories post defeating the first men and the bronze king ...

So I feel the head to head is a good tie breaker.

[Ash Kumar]

Saying that Artys won because he had superior tactics seems a little unfair to me.

Actually I'm saying Artys won because he was the superior commander not only tactician.

I feel that your argument was that had everything been equal eg even numbers comparable arms and armor and flat ground Royce would have won.

My response would be that all those things are actually influenced and controlled to some degree by the commander.

It is important to remember that the falcon knight was not a king or even a lord but still commanded an army several times the size of that of the bronze king ... This is an aspect of command he would first have to Marshall these troops and then ensure that they had the logistical support they need to function as army not to mention the ability to inspire so many who owe no fealty to him.

Also robar had the advantage of choosing the site of the battle and held the high ground overcoming this is no lean accomplishment.

The nature of battle is often asymmetric and a commander can only Marshall the forces he has at his disposal to the best of his abilities

[Baela of Pentos]

Baelor Breakspear and Maekar's "the hammer and the anvil". Baelor seems to be credited as THE commander here, which was partly why Maekar sulked after (that and also at Bloodraven)

[House Hendrix of Rock]

Yes, I'd like to second that motion.

The falcon knight had 3 times his numbers and hid from him during the battle by dressing up someone else to look like him. That sounds a little cowardly if you ask me. Plus Robar was high king he got all of the other first men kings to bend the knee to him and they began to take down the andal invaders, who I might add, had superior weapons and armor.

I agree on all parts but The cowardice, that is a smart battlefield tactician. It is a battlefield, not a duel.

[Acnologia Targaryen]

Visenya Targaryen

[Ramsay Gimp]

Leaving out commanders from the novels, Harwyn "Hardhand" Hoare and Theon Stark seem like good bets. But the worldbook really isn't detailed enough to make a definitive list or ranking. For all we know one of the Boltons who burned Winterfell was a military prodigy and strategic genius