UnboundUnbentUnbroken Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Was Robb Stark a good battle commander? I remember on my first read, he seemed like a good leader who inspired his men but after reading forums and such I think that he was rather a poor commander that failed to keep his men intact. Was he a terrible commander? Or was be not bad considering he was 14? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelittledragonthatcould Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 He was a good commander, had he not died at 16 he probably would have gone on to be come a great (or the great) commander of Westeros. Most of his flaws came from inexperience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truly Just Man Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Agreed. Good overall commander, his strategy worked untill.... we all know what, where and when. Had he has some better luck (revealing the treachery) He'd most probably still be playing the Game of Thrones now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordQorgyle Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I think he was good but not as great as some people say, he inspired his man but he also lost some of them for stupid reasons, he was a good battle leader but he also had luck and a direwolf(Oxcross) and he made some very poor decisions along the way so it's difficult to say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyrhex Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Overall Robb was an unremarkable commander. His victories were mainly due to the plot-forced idiocy of his enemies, and he had clear advantages in his few battles. But most of all, he could not bring his few tactical victories to mean anything on the field, and his priorities show that he had no clear understanding of how he wants to get to a position with a positive end. With his forces and resources there was great potential, but he had wasted it all away and died for it. He was not great, and if people want to say that he could have been great had he, for some reason, survived his mistakes becasue....reasons, then they can say that for pretty much anyone, even the cook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferocious Veldt Roarer Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Good commander, shitty politician. Somewhat similar to Daeron the Young Dragon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aryagonnakill#2 Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 "Hannibal knew how to achieve a victory, but not how to use it" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaver's Dread Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Overall Robb was an unremarkable commander. His victories were mainly due to the plot-forced idiocy of his enemies, and he had clear advantages in his few battles. But most of all, he could not bring his few tactical victories to mean anything on the field, and his priorities show that he had no clear understanding of how he wants to get to a position with a positive end. With his forces and resources there was great potential, but he had wasted it all away and died for it. He was not great, and if people want to say that he could have been great had he, for some reason, survived his mistakes becasue....reasons, then they can say that for pretty much anyone, even the cook.Robb died undefeated in battle. The reason why his victories in the Riverlands didn't mean a lot can be put squarely on Roose Bolton who was bleeding off Robb's strength when he went west. Thinking about it, the only battle Roose won was taking Harrenhal and there he had help. So if you think Roose deliberately sabotaging Robb's war is Robb's fault when he wasn't even around, then I guess we can agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 With the possible exception of the man he's named for, he is the only commander in the context of the books who touches on genius/brilliance/exceptionality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caspoi Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 For his age, certainly. Whatever Robb Stark may have lacked on a political level he was an exeptional commander, one of the best in the war and for a boy of sixteen that says something. Of course we may never know what he would grow up into due to the harsness of reality which does not aford any mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Alienor Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 He was a pretty good commander I think, he just wasn't a good politician. That's what got him killed in the end. Had he listened to more experienced politicians the way he listened to the Blackfish when it came to battle tactics, he might still be alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Alienor Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 DP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyrhex Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Robb died undefeated in battle. The reason why his victories in the Riverlands didn't mean a lot can be put squarely on Roose Bolton who was bleeding off Robb's strength when he went west. Thinking about it, the only battle Roose won was taking Harrenhal and there he had help. So if you think Roose deliberately sabotaging Robb's war is Robb's fault when he wasn't even around, then I guess we can agree to disagree. I don't give two shits if was undefeated in person. On the tactical level the guy never faced any difficulty. On the stratigic level he fucked up. No, Roose was not the main reason Robb died and lost his war, Robb was. When Robb gets to the Twins, he enjoys a massive advantage in that the Lannisters have planned the Riverlands invasion around the assumption that Frey would not join his lord. Robb, after promising Walder whatever he wanted, goes on to attack an enemy that is not suspecting an enemy from his general direction. This, despite Tywin's scouts seeing Frey troops join Roose' host. The main assumption that Tywin felt so sure of that he promised Jaime that he has nothing to worry, was proven wrong. And yet Tywin spends the rest of the day smirking like an idiot, thinking that soon he would smash the Stark boy. No raven is sent to one of the castles he had just taken along the road, and no rider is sent from them to Jaime to warn him that the main reason why he felt safe to split his forces and not worry about any impending relief force, no longer stands. Instead Jaime, who gets bored after barely a couple of weeks of siege, rides in full cavalry force after some raiders, with no shred of formatin. Just a blub of cavalry. He gets into a basic U ambush by Robb, who outnumbers him either 4-1 or 3-1. Robb later attacks two of the three camps, again with a clear advantage in that he sends 3,000 heavy horse on each of the two camps of 4,000 sleeping spearmen and archers. This is not tactical genius, this is dumb luck that the enemy has practically handed him the victory on a platter with a stupid assumption, and failing to correct it despite clearly having gotten contradictory over a day in advance of the battle. More than that, Robb's decision to send Roose was just pointless, and had resulted in Roose losing a third of his force. And this is after Tywin again makes the wrong decision and in his panic leaves the easy chase that would have killed far more Northmen, because he wanted to make a giant u-turn to get to Riverrun... which is clearly far too late. The battle was decided before Tywin even made it back across the Trident. Thrice in rapid succession, Tywin fucking up had saved Robb's ass. After that Robb conviniently finds and unguarded goat track, and against an enemy who does not even bother to place guards, with a mish-mash militia, Robb gains another easy victory. After that it's some raiding and storming a couple of lightly held castles. That is the sum total of Robb's tactical "genius". Dumb luck giving him incredible chances, and dumb luck saving him from his own mistakes. On the stratigic level, Robb was far worse. He banked on Lysa, on Balon, on Renly, on Stannis. Lysa ignored him, Balon attacked him, Renly threatened him, and Stannis was not going to let him remain king had he won. Robb goes back from the Westerlands, to a clusterfuck of his own making. He plans to ditch the ~11,000-15,000 Riverland troops to face the ~70,000 Lannisters and Tyrells on thier own, because a total of ~300 Ironborn were holding 3 miserable castles. Ramsay was already sending word that he is gathering men by the hundreds and the thousands. He had everything covered. Robb insists because of his stupid Northern pride. He planned to use ~10,000 troops to assault one castle held by 63 sick and wounded Ironborn, then carry on to retake the North. Then what? The Riverlands would have been reduced to ashed and every stronghold taken by the time he gets back. With the Ironbron to his west reaving as the please and the Redwyne fleet to his east, he was not going to hold the North for long. And he still did not bother to send a single soldier to help the Wall when he gets letters about a horde of Wildlings coming. Where is the "genius" that people insist he displayed? Where is the stratigic thinking? Where is the logistical perspective? Where is the tactical briliance? Attacking idiots who insist time after time to ignore your general direction for no reason? He managed to place a proper U-ambush with thrice the numbers and local scouts without fucking it up? His heavy cavalry had managed to overcome the terror of the sleeping infantry in two battles? He took the formidable castles of Ashemark and the Crag? The only one with info on is the latter - a ruin due to the lack of funds and manage to scrounge up ~50 men for Robb's cause? Planning a three direction attack with close to 160 times the numbers on a sick and dying enemy, in a ruin of a castle in friendly land? Robb was an unremarkable commander, a shit strategist, and a piss poor diplomat. He died because he fucked up, and fucking up leads to people like Roose and Frey abandoning ship and stabbing you in the heart at your wedding. Disagree all you like, but there is no reason at all to call Robb a good commander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorian Martell Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Was Robb Stark a good battle commander? I remember on my first read, he seemed like a good leader who inspired his men but after reading forums and such I think that he was rather a poor commander that failed to keep his men intact.Was he a terrible commander? Or was be not bad considering he was 14?Maybe on a reread you will catch the fact that he won ever y single battle he was in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raving Stark the Mad Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I vote good. He made some pretty good tactical moves. He was good enough that Tywin didn't want to face him in open battle. That's good enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aryagonnakill#2 Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Nyrhex, idk where all your Robb hate is coming from, but making Tywin Lannister look like a fool is a good indication you have done well. The fact of the matter is Robb made good tactical decisions which led to his lopsided victories. His Direwolf was an asset that he used very well, once in finding the goat path and second in scarring the horses before the battle at Oxcross. The fact that the Blackfish was able to screen Robbs advance is perfect reasonable considering it was his home turf and that Jaime did not expect them. Drawing Jaime out of the camps was also a very good decision, just like attacking Jaime to begin with rather than heading south to fight Tywin was a good decision. We do not know that Robb ordered Roose to attack Tywin, it is an assumption you made, and you also are not making sense in terms of chronology, how could a rider possible get from Harrenhall to Riverrun faster than Robbs army could? Even a raven if only given a day would not have made any difference. If we use your point of view that everyone else is just stupid than most commanders in history would not look great, you can say many of Alexanders victories were a result of his opponents mistakes, but when you are constantly making decisions, to not make any mistakes is not easy. Robb inspired his troops, and picked his fights well, that makes him a good commander. No one is arguing that he was a strategic genius as we all recognize he did not have the big picture down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aryagonnakill#2 Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Nyrhex, idk where all your Robb hate is coming from, but making Tywin Lannister look like a fool is a good indication you have done well. The fact of the matter is Robb made good tactical decisions which led to his lopsided victories. His Direwolf was an asset that he used very well, once in finding the goat path and second in scarring the horses before the battle at Oxcross. The fact that the Blackfish was able to screen Robbs advance is perfect reasonable considering it was his home turf and that Jaime did not expect them. Drawing Jaime out of the camps was also a very good decision, just like attacking Jaime to begin with rather than heading south to fight Tywin was a good decision. We do not know that Robb ordered Roose to attack Tywin, it is an assumption you made, and you also are not making sense in terms of chronology, how could a rider possible get from Harrenhall to Riverrun faster than Robbs army could? Even a raven if only given a day would not have made any difference. If we use your point of view that everyone else is just stupid than most commanders in history would not look great, you can say many of Alexanders victories were a result of his opponents mistakes, but when you are constantly making decisions, to not make any mistakes is not easy. Robb inspired his troops, and picked his fights well, that makes him a good commander. No one is arguing that he was a strategic genius as we all recognize he did not have the big picture down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCOS Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 He was a mediocre commander. He took advantages of other peoples mistakes, and had one or two good ideas, but yeah, we all know what happened to him in the end.... He planned to use ~10,000 troops to assault one castle held by 63 sick and wounded Ironborn, then carry on to retake the North. ...... 3 miserable castles You say this like it's some sort of huge mistake?Moat cailin, one of the most formidable castles to storm in Westeros, one which has never, ever been captured by a force attacking from the south. If anything 10,000 is being ambitious. Also he had no idea how many men were in the castle, nor that they were sickly, all he knew was that these were the men who had taken the infamous moat cailin. Also, one of the "3 miserable castles" was winterfell, his home, the seat of his power, the capitol off his kingdom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCOS Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Edit : Double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaver's Dread Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 And here I thought you were supposed to take advantage of your enemies mistakes in war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.