Is Mace Tyrell actually competent?

[Makk]

On 4/11/2017 at 3:07 AM, marsyao said:

Hey, I never say Stanni lost, just saying his food suplly was almost exhuasted, and the SE would have falled had not the food the Onion Knight smuggled a boat of food into SE, but how long these food could last ? 2 weeks ? may be a month top ?

I think everybody have missed my point, I never say Stannis lost the siege of SE or he did not play an important role in Robert's rebellion, it was his holding SE that prevent the army of the Reach to join royal army at the battle of Triden, and that was one of the major reason Robert won the war and his crown  I know all that, my point was merely Stannis did not actually defeat army of the Reach, he just held them at bay and win enough time for Robert to win his war

You can win a war without winning a battle. Without knowing exact numbers, it's implied that Stannis locked down, effectively neutralising, a vastly greater force for around a year. It was equivalent to scoring a decisive crushing victory.

[PCK]

We'll find out how competent Tyrell is if/when Winds ever comes out.

[Seeeyeare]

12 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

You'd be amazed because you're look at this in a vacuum in black and white in 2-D with no thought to anything outside of Mace vs Stannis.

I clearly have been looking at this with all perspectives, judging by my last post. I stated that holding a far smaller garrison in siege is no achievement and has no bearing on the war for the agitator. This is true. Stannis had a garrison, which would be less than 1000 men. Mace had the entire Reach at his disposal. Looking at this broadly, Mace failed miserably. 

As for the statement where I am looking at this 2-D, I'd like you to support this claim. As far as I can tell, you take issue with what the definition of a word is, and you have issue with me for using the definition of a word as basis for my argument. So please be more precise. Flame-throwing comments do not make your arguments any bit less nonsensical. 

Quote

And if you do a CTRL+F for "achievement" in that post, you'll note I typed nothing of the sort. I just said his actions at SE give merit to the idea he's not a complete moron.

What you said earlier:

Quote

More importantly, expecting Mace to take SE by force or starvation just isn't realistic. It's never fallen. Mace did his job, self-appointed or commanded by Aerys, in besieging SE and preventing Stannis from doing anything other than going hungry.

You are doing three things here. One, you are stating that since X never happened before, that X should not plausibly be capable of happening. Secondly, you are furthermore stating that since X cannot be realistic (according to you and you alone, I'd like you to argue this bit as well, thank you very much) that doing Y is the best Mace could have been expected of doing. Thirdly, you are stating that doing Y is sufficient and that since Mace accomplished Y, he succeeded. 

An achievement is defined as a thing done successfully with effort, skill, or courage, according to a quick google search. Now you are claiming that since you never used the term 'achievement' that you also never meant to insinuate the meaning of 'achievement'. Except you did. You claim that Mace did his job. This is synonymous with achieving the goals set before him. You aren't allowed to backpedal the meaning of words when it suits you. 

Quote

He besieged a fortress that has never fallen in its 8000 year history, prevented reinforcements from reaching Robert, and marched home with his force completely intact and unpunished despite opposing the eventual victors the entirety of the war.

What reinforcements? Stannis had a garrison with him. That's it. You are trying to claim that holding a force utterly disproportionate to your own is something worth stating in the first place. It isn't. This is by no means something which would be lauded. It has zero effect on helping the Targaryen side, since he is preoccupied doing something worthless, when he could have used his troops to much better effect.

The fact that he marched home unpunished is a separate matter from the siege itself. You are shifting the focus of the argument. We are arguing if he lost his siege attempt. The fact that his army is untouched means nothing other than the fact that he failed in using his resources to an acceptable degree, effectively doing nothing substantial in the process. In other words he effected a siege with a far larger force, and accomplished nothing in the process worth talking about. In fact, he failed in the basic purpose of a siege, which is the surrender of the defenders. 

Quote

If JonCon does his job, Mace gets lauded for his work, no differently than Ned gets credit for letting Mace make the obvious choice.

I don't know what you're saying here. Mace should get lauded for not accomplishing what he set out to do? He should get lauded for having absolutely no effect on the war? Whereas Ned actively participated as a commander? 

Quote

And yes I am describing a siege. Literally everything I described in that post is a siege. Torrhen's square isn't a siege? 

A siege has a end result in mind. You siege places with the objective to force a defender's surrender. Earlier you claimed that it was unrealistic to expect Storm's End to fall. Then you claimed that Mace did his job... by not accomplishing the end result of what a siege is, by it's very definition.

A siege is a military operation whereby you attempt starve out or attack the defenders so that you can take over the castle (or town, etc). This is what a siege is. If you do not meet the definition of a siege, it is not a siege. Likewise, if you do not take over the defensive position, you have failed the siege. If you want to argue otherwise, then the burden is on you to provide authority on this matter, as I have already cited the dictionary, i.e. the very definition of the word. 

Quote

“Leobald will not know that. When he sees you raising siege towers, his old woman’s blood will run cold, and he will bleat for help.”

Why are we using siege towers if it's not a siege? Surrounding a fortified position over a long period of time to cut off supplies and movement with men and siege weaponry. There's a word for it. I'm trying to find it. It's siege. The Sieges of Stirling Castle and Calais, though, I have to admit you're right. Those were definitely not sieges, merely prolonged negotiations to peacefully surrender with no structural damage or loss of life.

A diversion, obviously. Defined as following by the Merrian-Webster dictionary: "An attack or feint that draws the attention and force of an enemy from the point of the principal operation."

 The existence of siege towers are a by-product of a feint, only present with the intention of drawing attention to the supposed siege. By Rodrick Cassels account it would appear to be a siege. As book readers, however, we clearly hear from POV account that it is a feint. Which is, just so that you know, also a military operation by its own right and own definition. 

Quote

1) Troop ratios are irrelevant. SE has never fallen. Expecting Mace to take it is completely out of the question. He's come as close or closer than anyone else in history as far as we know. Stannis' ability to reform Robert's allies who left him before Stoney Sept, however, is not irrelevant. I can type this out slowly for effect but you won't see the length of time. So I will repeat, we have absolutely NO IDEA what Mace's objective was or orders were. Say Mace sends soldiers off to Rhaegar via the Robert chase and goes home with his strength. Stannis can now reform Robert's remnants and besiege Ashford again. He can oppose or bottleneck the Dornish as they march to KL. Hell he can even threaten KL if he wants.

Yes, it is relevant. 

We are talking about a proportion of less than 1 man for every 50. That is two percent. Sieges in history are along the lines of 1 to 6 or even 1 to 2. Less than 1 to 50 is unprecedented. 

Also, the claim that X has never happened, so therefore X is impossible, is a logical fallacy! Also known as an argument from ignorance. Your argument is, in its entirety, fallacious. And before you quote me on this and claim that you never said this, look to the bolded and underlined in your quote.

Out of the question is defined as not possible or allowed as per the Cambridge Dictionary. No backtracking your argument from ignorance. 

On the other hand, you also do not seem to know what a garrison is. You think that a few hundred troops will have any effect on reforming an army? Sorry if this is difficult for you to understand, but if Mace let Stannis 'reform' Robert's army, Mace would have crushed him using only a fraction of a fraction of his army. A garrison is not a large force. It is not.

You are ignoring the very meanings of the words. Continuously, constantly, while also changing the very definitions of words to boot. 

Quote

2) This is a single battle in the middle of a year long war. This siege doesn't have to be the war. You can't look at a battle in a vacuum and declare Stannis the victor. If Ned never shows up -- after all this is a single battle now isn't it --  Stannis almost certainly gets starved out. 

Defenders in a siege have one primary objective: do not lose. Ned showing up as relief, is expected. Stannis's job is to stay put. It is the job of your ally to assist you. This is why they are called allies. 

Did Stannis lose? No he didn't. It doesn't matter if he could have lost. He didn't lose. Which was his primary objective. Given the proportion of the forces at hand, Stannis could not logically have been expected to fight back. Therefore his objective was not to fight back. It was to stay put. 

Did Stannis stay put? Yes he did. Did he therefore complete his objective? Yes he did. If Stannis completed his objective, against whom did Stannis achieve his objective? Against Mace. If Stannis achieved his objective, that means that Mace did not.

Therefore, Mace failed, while Stannis succeeded. 

Edit - To add to this point:

You also do not seem to know what strategy and tactics are. It is not always the best course of action to attack everything in sight. Stannis attacking Mace is a hideous, illogical and stupid proposition. Strategically, Stannis needs to consider other options. Given his circumstances, there is only one option available to him and that is holding out. He met this objective.

Quote

So for the third time, we will disagree because your scope is ridiculously limited and entirely arbitrary. Mace and Stannis were in a stalemate. Neither lost to each other, that's for certain. Again, I won't argue that Mace lost if you want to advance that, but you can't divide a concept into black and white and then lump in other factors for the final result. It's sloppy, wrong, and frankly just bad form.

This is one way of saying: "I don't want to define words as words are defined, so I'll ignore the definitions of words and give them my own meaning." 

Sloppy, wrong, bad form my ass. This isn't a subjective matter. It's objective. And I have argued everything using their very definitions as a point of departure. By contrast, you are ignoring the very definitions of things, shifting goals, backtracking your statements and then you have the gall to call me out. 

If you want to argue, start using some authoritative pieces. A dictionary will suffice. 

[Universal Sword Donor]

2 hours ago, Seeeyeare said:

*snip*

We will just agree to disagree. No need to pile on to someone who's fighting their good fight by themselves contrary to canon text and historical usage. This is getting as absurd as the gent who argued that Ashford had to happen after Stoney Sept due to the weird way chronology was written in TWOIAF

[Seeeyeare]

9 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

We will just agree to disagree. No need to pile on to someone who's fighting their good fight by themselves contrary to canon text and historical usage. This is getting as absurd as the gent who argued that Ashford had to happen after Stoney Sept due to the weird way chronology was written in TWOIAF

Adorable. 

Is this what 'saving face' means? 

[Praetor Xyn]

I don't think it truly matters if he is or isn't, as Randyll Tarly is responsible for any military accomplishments he has and Olenna is responsible for basically anything else. If he's a buffoon it doesn't matter as everyone else in his family is very competent. If he is, evidence suggests he's putting up a front of buffoonery and letting those around him control things, so there's really no difference as long as those people surround him.

We have no evidence suggesting he isn't a buffoon though, and several things suggesting he is.

I also want to point out that whatever side he joined in the WOT5K would have won it, and if he didn't join the Lannisters they likely would have lost it.

[marsyao]

22 hours ago, Makk said:

You can win a war without winning a battle. Without knowing exact numbers, it's implied that Stannis locked down, effectively neutralising, a vastly greater force for around a year. It was equivalent to scoring a decisive crushing victory.

Not exactly, as I said, Mace could just left part of his army to besiege the SE, and marching his main force to join the royal army at Trident, but he choose not to do that, was this his stupidity or some kind of political calculation since any Lords having sense would know the rule of the Mad King could not last? We do not know

[marsyao]

On 4/11/2017 at 7:49 PM, Universal Sword Donor said:

You'd be amazed because you're look at this in a vacuum in black and white in 2-D with no thought to anything outside of Mace vs Stannis. And if you do a CTRL+F for "achievement" in that post, you'll note I typed nothing of the sort. I just said his actions at SE give merit to the idea he's not a complete moron. He besieged a fortress that has never fallen in its 8000 year history, prevented reinforcements from reaching Robert, and marched home with his force completely intact and unpunished despite opposing the eventual victors the entirety of the war. If JonCon does his job, Mace gets lauded for his work, no differently than Ned gets credit for letting Mace make the obvious choice.

And yes I am describing a siege. Literally everything I described in that post is a siege. Torrhen's square isn't a siege? 

“Leobald will not know that. When he sees you raising siege towers, his old woman’s blood will run cold, and he will bleat for help.”

Why are we using siege towers if it's not a siege? Surrounding a fortified position over a long period of time to cut off supplies and movement with men and siege weaponry. There's a word for it. I'm trying to find it. It's siege. The Sieges of Stirling Castle and Calais, though, I have to admit you're right. Those were definitely not sieges, merely prolonged negotiations to peacefully surrender with no structural damage or loss of life.

1) Troop ratios are irrelevant. SE has never fallen. Expecting Mace to take it is completely out of the question. He's come as close or closer than anyone else in history as far as we know. Stannis' ability to reform Robert's allies who left him before Stoney Sept, however, is not irrelevant. I can type this out slowly for effect but you won't see the length of time. So I will repeat, we have absolutely NO IDEA what Mace's objective was or orders were. Say Mace sends soldiers off to Rhaegar via the Robert chase and goes home with his strength. Stannis can now reform Robert's remnants and besiege Ashford again. He can oppose or bottleneck the Dornish as they march to KL. Hell he can even threaten KL if he wants.

2) This is a single battle in the middle of a year long war. This siege doesn't have to be the war. You can't look at a battle in a vacuum and declare Stannis the victor. If Ned never shows up -- after all this is a single battle now isn't it --  Stannis almost certainly gets starved out. 

So for the third time, we will disagree because your scope is ridiculously limited and entirely arbitrary. Mace and Stannis were in a stalemate. Neither lost to each other, that's for certain. Again, I won't argue that Mace lost if you want to advance that, but you can't divide a concept into black and white and then lump in other factors for the final result. It's sloppy, wrong, and frankly just bad form.

Exactlly, well said

[Universal Sword Donor]

12 hours ago, Seeeyeare said:

Adorable. 

Is this what 'saving face' means? 

No, it's avoiding a moderator-given punishment for trying to explain certain concepts and book cannon to the only person in the entire thread/forum who holds it otherwise. I can lead a horse to water but I can't make it not drown itself.

[Loose Bolt]

How many men of Rhaegar's  army at Trident came from Reach? After all I assume that most men in army that lost at Battle of Bells were either from Royal lands or easter Riverlands. After all rebellion against Arryns at Vale was already over.  

[Universal Sword Donor]

2 hours ago, Loose Bolt said:

How many men of Rhaegar's  army at Trident came from Reach? After all I assume that most men in army that lost at Battle of Bells were either from Royal lands or easter Riverlands. After all rebellion against Arryns at Vale was already over.  

Tyrell had a sizeable host, but some of his strength was with Rhaegar, certainly.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/The_Siege_of_Storms_End

That is as much as we know.