Jump to content

Is Robb Stark a prodigy?


Varysblackfyre321

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I think many of the fandom have accepted this idea of Robb Stark being an Alexazader the great or Napoleon level conqueror, but is he really?

No he is not. He made some smart moves but farm from being Alexander who conquered lands that seem to be logistically impossible to conquer or Napoleon who took entire Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I think many of the fandom have accepted this idea of Robb Stark being an Alexazader the great or Napoleon level conqueror,

What?
Aside from "Great Northern Master Race" and Stark fanboys/girls who has "accepted" that ridiculous statement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you set the bar a little high on him with the 2 comparisons. Remember he was the mouse in he and tywin's amazing cat and mouse. Not a conquerer whatsoever (the crag I believe is the only place he actually took by force I believe)

Robb is a brilliant tactician but so is Jon so I'd say Ned/Luwin/Cassell's teachings definitely stuck with them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

Whether he's at the level of Alexander or Napoleon, that he's a prodigy is undeniable.  He's an extremely successful military commander (one of the best we see in the series, in fact) at a very young age.

But he also has a whole list of actual seasoned  and commandeders no? Surely, they deserve some credit? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

But he also has a whole list of actual seasoned  and commandeders no? Surely, they deserve some credit? 

Well Roose Bolton definitely could've been a big help but he bled Robb's army more than helped. Not sure Greatjon is tactically smart enough to deserve credit.

The blackfish (although a bit overrated on this forum) is certainly due some credit. 

Robb was the one not sleeping bc he was busy looking at maps and checking on all his people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robb was a very good military commander who had some very good advisors to help him. People underestimated him because they couldn't believe a fifteen-to-sixteen-year-old boy could outwit Tywin Lannister. A lot of Robb's success was aided by the fact that no one expected much of him, meaning his clear good education and training made him a nasty surprise for them.

He failed due to having poor political and negotiation skills as well as his failure to explain his plans properly to his commanders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Faera said:

Robb was a very good military commander who had some very good advisors to help him. People underestimated him because they couldn't believe a fifteen-to-sixteen-year-old boy could outwit Tywin Lannister. A lot of Robb's success was aided by the fact that no one expected much of him, meaning his clear good education and training made him a nasty surprise for them.

He failed due to having poor political and negotiation skills as well as his failure to explain his plans properly to his commanders.

If you're referring to Edmure with the bolded then I debate this but otherwise agree with you.

In terms of tactics and battle strategy then yes I believe a case could be made to call Robb a prodigy but I don't think anyone has ever compared him to Napoleon or Alexander the Great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Colonel Green said:

Whether he's at the level of Alexander or Napoleon, that he's a prodigy is undeniable.  He's an extremely successful military commander (one of the best we see in the series, in fact) at a very young age.

Alexander the Great was undefeated in battle and conquered most of the known world by the age of 30. Robb won a couple of mistakes and made a critical error that got his family wiped. How are the two even comparable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me Robb was certainly not a prodigy.And he is certainly not near titants like Megas Alexandros or Napoleon.

The reason I think so is that Robb's victories are not really impressive. He made two nice moves that resulted in three victories but these victories were really not on par with the battles of either Alexandros or Napoleon. And most importantly, did Robb ever face a dangerous opponent? Alexandros faced many different enemies across his world and defeated them all while Napoleon also went up agaisnt some pretty stiff resistance. Robb fought a single enemy and was never really put to the test but was always somewhat even in numbers and strength with his opponents.

Now Robb may have developed into a prodigy as the years went on but I'd rather say that he was a Henry V rather than an Alexander. Pretty good and by no means bad, but not among the titans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fear said:

Alexander the Great was undefeated in battle and conquered most of the known world by the age of 30. Robb won a couple of mistakes and made a critical error that got his family wiped. How are the two even comparable?

It’s safe to assume that Alexander had far more advantages than Robb did. Alexander was 20 when his father was murdered, Macedonia was the indisputable superpower of the balkans, and they were going to invade Asia anyway. Sure Alexander had to deal with rebellions first, but he was in a far better position to deal with them than Robb was. That said, I’d say Robb had potential, but he was no Alexander. He needed a good few more years of lessons and needed to pass some stiffer tests to become on the level of Alexander. I’d say he was a younger version of Isaac Brock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robb can be a prodigy, why not? Dany was handing out brilliant battle advice to her commanders, and I assume she had no background in the subject at all. I think it's a touch of hero magic.  Dany might be compared with Alexander simply on the speed of her conquests. If I remember rightly though, Alexander died young and his empire fragmented.

Napoleon too lost absolutely everything - he's got that in common with Robb at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aristotle=Luwin

Ned=Philip

Both with no children to take over their Kingdoms.

On a serious note, @Varysblackfyre321, why do you compare Robb to Alexander? I think this comparison was made by one member only, but you made it seem that 

Quote

many of the fandom have accepted this idea of Robb Stark being an Alexazader the great 

It is by all means an unfair comparison. They really don't have much in common. Be it the motives of marching into war, their age, what kind of legacy they inherited from their fathers, and so on.

Perhaps Alexander was also murdered in some treacherous way, though. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

But he also has a whole list of actual seasoned  and commandeders no? Surely, they deserve some credit? 

Did I, or anyone else, suggest otherwise?

Every great general has talented subordinates.  Robb was lucky to have the Blackfish, but no more lucky than was Napoleon to have Ney or Grant to have Sheridan.

2 hours ago, Fear said:

Alexander the Great was undefeated in battle and conquered most of the known world by the age of 30. Robb won a couple of mistakes and made a critical error that got his family wiped. How are the two even comparable?

You seem to have ignored that the post you quote says that the comparison of Alexander or Napoleon is beside the point as far as being a prodigy goes.

Though, as has already been noted, Alexander had advantages that Robb did not have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Faera said:

Robb was a very good military commander who had some very good advisors to help him. People underestimated him because they couldn't believe a fifteen-to-sixteen-year-old boy could outwit Tywin Lannister. A lot of Robb's success was aided by the fact that no one expected much of him, meaning his clear good education and training made him a nasty surprise for them.

He failed due to having poor political and negotiation skills as well as his failure to explain his plans properly to his commanders.

I agree with all of this, especially the bolded part.  I do believe Robb was great at recognizing and taking advantage of opportunities while poor at recognizing and mitigating risks.  He was really solid for his experience level, but I wouldn't call him a prodigy.

And hell yeah @One-eyed Misbehavin it's about time someone calls out that the Blackfish is WAYYYYY overrated on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...