Did Stannis even have a chance? (Spoilers)

[Stag_legion]

Stannis was finished the moment he lost the Battle of Blackwater. He was reliant on Sellswords from then on, and he never had a realistic chance of capturing Winterfell.

in the books he doesn't have sellswords yet, all of his southern troops are people who remained loyal after blackwater and he won the battle at the wall with only them. Also in the books its more likely that stannis will succeed than fail.

The show is a different matter though.

[Stag_legion]

It sure sounds nice in fantasy, but it is only that.

You know what happened to Alexander? He died. Very Young. Albeit not from battle, but if he had continued to wage war, he certainly would have.

Putting your king at the front of battle makes absolutely no sense. Particularly one without heirs. If your leader is a good tactician, you will want him directing the battle, not risking his life. What do you think the life expectancy is for warlords who lead from the front? Two battles? Three? A dozen if they're extremely lucky and have good bodyguards?

Professional soldiers, even peasant levies, are usually more concerned with their compatriots than some leadership figure. Battle is far too hectic to stop and try to find that one person, particularly in large engagements. Also, the idea that having someone leading the charge inspires troops to new heights is somewhat true, but leading from the rear also often has this effect, as long as the commander is visible. Ever heard of Stonewall Jackson? He led one of the most successful divisions in the Civil war. He never fired a rifle during his time in command.

Napoleon, Edward I, Erwin Rommel, William the Conqueror, Genghis Khan, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Cyrus, Zhukov not one ever participated directly in battle.

Many fantasy books like to portray the perfect figure at the frontline, leading their men to victory in shining armor. It's a beautiful image, but a contrived one.

This! leading commanders get involved in direct fighting only in the most dire of situations, like a desperate flaking maneuver when all other forces are already committed, and even in these very rare situations the commander's body guards try to minimize the commander's contact and literally surround him.

Robert's situation is different, because often it was someone else who was the army commander (ned or jon), so he could personally fight while the army was still lead by another.

Also Alexandre only really got involved in fighting at gaugamela, and even then its not really clear how much he was fighting vs his personal body guard unit. Also remember Alexandre was figure who was plenty glorified beyond his real historic person, as it was common for the greeks to exaggerate their heroes and famous battles. Although Alexandre definitely was a brilliant commander nonetheless.

[calo760]

Yes, Stannis did have a chance. A slim one, but a chance nonetheless. Here are a few ways (in my opinion)
1. He may have won if the sellswords didn't desert him and steal all of his horses, and if he had better guards on duty during the night shift and prevented all of his food, supplies and seige weapons from getting destroyed.

2. If (like in the books!) some of the more honorable northern Houses declared Stannis as their king and aided himn in the battle, secretly, but desperately wanting the Boltons out of Winterfell, out of power, and sentenced for their actions.

3. If the wildlings aided Stannis in his fight ..in the books Stannis gets support from some of the hill-tribes, which are basically wildlings south of the wall, and they help him take Deepwood Motte from the Ironborn, led by Yara (Asha) Greyjoy, and gives the castle back to its rightful family (which gets them to side with Stannis)

4. If Stannis had secretly made an alliance with Littlefinger and the Vale (or they save Stannis and declare for him then) and Stannis' small army that gets dominated by Ramsays men was just a tactical rouse to get all of his men away from Winterfell so knights of the Vale can attack Winterfell from the inside (disguising themselves by holding up Bolton banners as they ride up to the gate so the guards can let them in. )

5. If R'hllor is real and recognizes Stannis' faith and sacrifice and saves Stannis in some miraculous way. After all, the guy did everything that was asked of him, no matter how painful it was for him.

6. if DB Weiss and David Benioff weren't the producers of the show.

[Lord Giggles]

In the pre-modern period, it was seen as the proper thing to do for a commander, a king especially, to lead from the front. Almost all successful kings in pre-modern Europe were warrior kings and there are few exceptions. The idea that a commander shouldn't lead from the front is a relatively modern one.there are plenty of examples of commanders who fought in almost all the battles they commanded who lived(relatively) long lives.

Henry V, the Duke of Bedford, Edward I, Edward III, Edward IV, Thutmoses III, Philip of Macedon, the Black Prince, William the Conqueror and Julius Caesar(he led the reserve into battle personnaly at Bibracte).

You were completely wrong about William the Conqueror. He fought at Hastings. The whole reason the Norman centre routed was they thought he was dead until he lifted up his helmet, proving he was alive. Also, Alexander fought at the Granicus and the Hydaspes as well. His horse was killed at the Hydaspes, supposedly by Rajah Porus himself.

Commanders commiting themselves to battle in the vanguard was in no way rare. Alexandre at the Granicus, Antiochus and Ptolemy IV at Raphea, Edward IV at Towton. Yet all lived to tell the tale. Also, most commanders didn't fight many more than two or three battles in their lives. The majority of warfare was sieges. Pitched battles weren't very popular as there was too much that could go wrong and too much you could lose. Sieges were a much safer bet.

Also, there was a limit to how much good a commander could do at the rear of any army. In ancient and medieval battles, the only way to get orders to troops was by trumpet or by shouting very loud. In the chaos of battle, it's unlikely many of your troops would even hear the orders, much less follow them. Once a commander had pickdd his ground and assigned commanders to the flank etc. there was a limit to what he could do to affect the outcome of a battle, unless he commanded a reserve like Richard III or Tywin Lannister. One lf the things that's remarkable about Hannibal is that at Cannae, he managed to not only get the order for a retreat across to his central troops, but also he managed to get them to return to the fight after they'd retreated and lured the romans in and these were his least disciplined troops, his gauls mainly. Another remarkable feat of this type was Ptolemy IV at Raphea getting his cavalry to return to the battle after shatterring the Seleucid left flank, whereas his oppossite number simply chased ths egyptian left so far off the battlefield he could have no further effect on the battle.

[missingm]

Right, because good battle commanders lead from the front.

Stannis would totally just "expect" the Boltons to be hiding in Winterfell. Because that's what the best commander in Westeros does.

At this point in the show Stannis had no choice but to march into defeat, hoping the red god would bring him victory. He had just burned his daughter alive, he couldn't just turn around back to the Wall after doing that. I think his carelessness was due to the obvious hopelessness of teh situation.

[Lady Blackmont]

You are correct about William, I seem to have misremembered.

However, you have failed to rebut the logic. Just because some commanders led from the front, it doesn't change the stupidity of their foolhardy decisions. In addition, the existence of redoubtable bodyguards ensured that the frequency with which a niche on the King's armor was incurred remained insignificant.

A stray arrow through your heirless King's visor negates any slight advantage gained from being on the forefront.

I appreciate discussing this with another scholar. I find that all too often people seem to read/watch fantasy and decide that they are experts. I've had people watch the first Narnia film and tell me how battles are fought. Or LOTR and try to inform me how sieges are conducted.

You are also completely correct regarding the balance of siege and pitched warfare. Unfortunately, sieges don't work well on television. Particularly the more common waiting type. In fact, armies would often march through enemy territory leaving token garrisons, even taking lords at there word if they promised to surrender in a certain amount of time if an army didn't arrive to lift the siege. History is too often trampled in favor of action.

[Lord Giggles]

I agree with you about being able to discuss these thing with another person as well read in the subject as myself. I also agree about sieges, that's something that always annoys me.

It wasn't just some commanders who fought from the front in the medieval period. It was nearly every commander. There was little logic to it beyond 1) The whole concept of chivalry and needing to prove yourself to be as chivalrous as that bloke over there. 2)The common man and your nobles would likely begin to question why he should follow you unless you fought beside him. A non-martial king was a weak king to the medieval mind. It's why kings ran the risk in the first place. 3)In medieval battles, very few nobles were killed. Most were captured and ransomed meaning the risk to a king was actually pretty minimal when you factor in bodyguards. Kings had far more to gain from leading from the front than they had to lose.

Also, the fact that all they could do at the back was watch the battle unfold should've been enough reason. Getting orders through and executed effectively was near impossible pre proffessional armies meaning that at the back they were basically useless.

[TheCasualObserver]

Show Stannis was doomed the moment he treacherously killed his own brother. Brienne reminded us that she would avenge him throughout the seasons and finally did just that. The Shireen thing was an add on and the Battle of Winterfell was not even shown really as the money went on Hardhome instead.

What would have happened if Stannis hadn't done that? Renly would have killed Stannis. So wherein lies the treachery?

[Stannis is the man....nis]

What would have happened if Stannis hadn't done that? Renly would have killed Stannis. So wherein lies the treachery?

The treachery is D&D liked Renly so what Stannis did needed to be punished unlike say Roose killing his own king at a wedding that doesn't need any clear punishment in the show what so ever

[Last Horseman]

In the pre-modern period, it was seen as the proper thing to do for a commander, a king especially, to lead from the front. Almost all successful kings in pre-modern Europe were warrior kings and there are few exceptions. The idea that a commander shouldn't lead from the front is a relatively modern one.there are plenty of examples of commanders who fought in almost all the battles they commanded who lived(relatively) long lives.

Henry V, the Duke of Bedford, Edward I, Edward III, Edward IV, Thutmoses III, Philip of Macedon, the Black Prince, William the Conqueror and Julius Caesar(he led the reserve into battle personnaly at Bibracte).

You were completely wrong about William the Conqueror. He fought at Hastings. The whole reason the Norman centre routed was they thought he was dead until he lifted up his helmet, proving he was alive. Also, Alexander fought at the Granicus and the Hydaspes as well. His horse was killed at the Hydaspes, supposedly by Rajah Porus himself.

Commanders commiting themselves to battle in the vanguard was in no way rare. Alexandre at the Granicus, Antiochus and Ptolemy IV at Raphea, Edward IV at Towton. Yet all lived to tell the tale. Also, most commanders didn't fight many more than two or three battles in their lives. The majority of warfare was sieges. Pitched battles weren't very popular as there was too much that could go wrong and too much you could lose. Sieges were a much safer bet.

Also, there was a limit to how much good a commander could do at the rear of any army. In ancient and medieval battles, the only way to get orders to troops was by trumpet or by shouting very loud. In the chaos of battle, it's unlikely many of your troops would even hear the orders, much less follow them. Once a commander had pickdd his ground and assigned commanders to the flank etc. there was a limit to what he could do to affect the outcome of a battle, unless he commanded a reserve like Richard III or Tywin Lannister. One lf the things that's remarkable about Hannibal is that at Cannae, he managed to not only get the order for a retreat across to his central troops, but also he managed to get them to return to the fight after they'd retreated and lured the romans in and these were his least disciplined troops, his gauls mainly. Another remarkable feat of this type was Ptolemy IV at Raphea getting his cavalry to return to the battle after shatterring the Seleucid left flank, whereas his oppossite number simply chased ths egyptian left so far off the battlefield he could have no further effect on the battle.

You seem to be forgetting the other side of the Battle of Hastings, and that Harold took an arrow in the eye by leading from his vanguard. And he was surrounded by Housecarls.

None of the Edwards lead from the front; the Black Prince did who died before he could become king.

Richard the Lionheart led from the front and took a bolt to the neck and died.

There are several commanders who led from the front, and a significant number of them died (see Swedish kings)

A commander would mostly come down to the front when the need was dire, or to put on a good show and boost morale, those who went in on the first charge didn't usually live long.

[Lord Giggles]

The Black Prince died in England of dysentry. He didn't die on the battlefield or on campaign.

[Blackwater Saint]

The treachery is D&D liked Renly so what Stannis did needed to be punished unlike say Roose killing his own king at a wedding that doesn't need any clear punishment in the show what so ever

You still didn't show where in the book Renly would have definitely killed Stannis, as you claimed earlier. Where exactly did Renly make clear he would have killed Stannis instead of letting him bend the knee?

[calo760]

You still didn't show where in the book Renly would have definitely killed Stannis, as you claimed earlier. Where exactly did Renly make clear he would have killed Stannis instead of letting him bend the knee?

Stannis has always had a reputation for being unyielding. Renly knows better than anyone that Stannis would never bend the knee to his arrogant prick of a little brother, or make any sort of compromise with a usurper when the throne rightfully belonged to him. Stannis values the law more than anything and will do whatever it takes to uphold it . It would have been a fight to the death, and Renly knew it. I don't think it says directly that Renly would kill Stannis, but from the information that we already have up to that part of the series and the nature of the situation, it is implied that Stannis would never bend to his little brother, not even an option, and it would have been war.

[Lady Blackmont]

Saying Renly wouldn't kill Stannis is like saying that two people in mortal combat won't murder each other.

It's part of war, and Renly knew that.

[Blackwater Saint]

I don't think it says directly that Renly would kill Stannis, but from the information that we already have up to that part of the series and the nature of the situation, it is implied that Stannis would never bend to his little brother, not even an option, and it would have been war.

This is exactly my point. I am aware of Stannis' reputation and behavior--how could anyone miss it--but the key difference is Renly wouldn't have gone out of his way to kill Stannis as Stannis did to Renly. Renly is not cold-blooded, didn't share Stannis' taste for bloodshed, and didn't despise Stannis the way Stannis despised Renly...Renly had no idea how bad that Peach joke went..;)

[Blackwater Saint]

I don't think it says directly that Renly would kill Stannis, but from the information that we already have up to that part of the series and the nature of the situation, it is implied that Stannis would never bend to his little brother, not even an option, and it would have been war.

This is exactly my point. I am aware of Stannis' reputation and behavior--how could anyone miss it--but the key difference is Renly wouldn't have gone out of his way to kill Stannis as Stannis did to Renly. Renly is not cold-blooded, didn't share Stannis' taste for bloodshed, and didn't despise Stannis the way Stannis despised Renly...Renly had no idea how bad that Peach joke went..;)

[Blackwater Saint]

Saying Renly wouldn't kill Stannis is like saying that two people in mortal combat won't murder each other.

It's part of war, and Renly knew that.

No, it's not. That's a silly equivalent. Killing the leader of your rival army is not part of war; even Stannis was going to let Mance bend the knee in the show. Some rulers are vindictive like Stannis, some, like Renly, aren't. So, no, Renly did not have the desire to kill Stannis as Stannis did to him, and would have accepted Stannis' submission.

[Valhalla Morghulis]

Napoleon, Edward I, Erwin Rommel, William the Conqueror, Genghis Khan, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Cyrus, Zhukov not one ever participated directly in battle.

Many fantasy books like to portray the perfect figure at the frontline, leading their men to victory in shining armor. It's a beautiful image, but a contrived one.

Well as the story is largely based on Medieval England and the Wars of the Roses, it is fair comment to say kings did lead their armies into battle, in fact it was what often gave the Plantagenet kings authority to rule as the divine rule of primogeniture or first son was not so universally applied, weak or unjust kings were often murdered or usurped such as Richard II, Edward II or Henry VI . Thus we have Richard III and Edward IV and Henry Tudor all on the battlefield during the War of the Roses and with successes, not to mention the very Star of England himself, Henry the Great, Henry V.

[Valhalla Morghulis]

What would have happened if Stannis hadn't done that? Renly would have killed Stannis. So wherein lies the treachery?

The difference is Renly would have killed him in battle or vice versa. But Stannis chose to do cowardly and bloody murder on Renly. Therein lies the treachery, the difference between killing and murder, just as Oberyn was not treacherousy murdered, he was killed in combat.

[sapphire_lion]

As usual, Brienne was a one-note brute.

Please. There was nothing brutish about Show Brienne during her scene with Stannis. She afforded him more dignity than he had shown his brother, his daughter, or any of the other people he had burned to death.

Brienne was there to avenge the love of her life. Yet, instead of finding Renly’s murderer a monster, she found him a broken man. It was an unsettling discovery that yielded a hollow victory. She did not revel in Stannis’s defeat or take pleasure in his execution. A “one-note brute” surely would have.