Is Robb Stark a prodigy?

[Colonel Green]

55 minutes ago, Lucius Lovejoy said:

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.

Having exceptional talent at a young age is what a prodigy is.  Robb is one of only a handful of historical figures in his age bracket with his kind of military track record (others include Daeron I and Garth VII Gardener).

[divica]

Of all the historical figures you people said, isnt robb more similar to spartacus?

Like he defeated his enemies due to being underestimated and doing unpredictable things instead of great battle strategies. In adition robb is fighting the richest man in the nation and is revolting lol.

ps his forces also started to fragment after some victories

[One-eyed Misbehavin]

4 hours ago, Colonel Green said:

Having exceptional talent at a young age is what a prodigy is.  Robb is one of only a handful of historical figures in his age bracket with his kind of military track record (others include Daeron I and Garth VII Gardener).

Robb's Millitary record is in now way similar to Daeron's record. 

I'm not trolling as I know you're pointing out they both led men at an extremely early age but Daeron used his troops as pawns.... Robb was absolutely stunned at the thought of (his men) losing/sent to die at duskendale whereas Daeron just kept sending men to their death.

Also The Young Wolf never even lost a battle. 

[One-eyed Misbehavin]

5 hours ago, Lucius Lovejoy said:

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.

Haha thanks man. I do have enormous admiration for the Blackfish.

I believe he was the most useful and tactical of Robb's Lieutenants, the best choice for his head scout position, and DEFINITELY the man who could hold Riverrun the longest.

but like you said on this forum people go so overboard with him. I've seen him in "pick your own Kingsguard" and "best warriors alive" forums which is absolutely premature and at this point absurd. 

[James Steller]

6 hours ago, divica said:

Of all the historical figures you people said, isnt robb more similar to spartacus?

Like he defeated his enemies due to being underestimated and doing unpredictable things instead of great battle strategies. In adition robb is fighting the richest man in the nation and is revolting lol.

ps his forces also started to fragment after some victories

Excellent points. Good comparison.

[The Drunkard]

On 27/12/2017 at 5:33 PM, 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?

He's not close to either of them. Robb essentially made two worthy moves, one of which was the forced march down to Riverrun while his enemies focused on Roose, and the other was capturing Jaime and most of his commanders before the battle outside Riverrun. After that his magic pet finds a secret path allowing him to navigate his army around a fortress he couldn't conquer, then he defeated an army so green it didn't even post scouts. 

Robb has a high reputation because people didn't expect him to get any significant wins against the Lannisters. If he had lived and fought as long as the other two did he may have achieved something on their level, but as far as his current displays go he isn't close.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

18 minutes ago, The Drunkard said:

After that his magic pet finds a secret path allowing him to navigate his army around a fortress he couldn't conquer, then he defeated an army so green it didn't even post scouts. 

To be fair, the whole point of his victory at Oxcross was that it was a brilliant strategic victory, not a tactical one. Everyone considered his choices to be  either to remain at Riverrun while his host melted away, or march on Harrenhal. He went for Secret Option 3, which was to march West, thus facing a weaker and worse-led army, defeating it, then taking the battle to the enemy's home turf. The plan to draw Tywin west was also very good, unfortunately failing due to Stupid Edmure/Poor Misunderstood Edmure (depending on which side you hold on that debate) fighting at Stone Mill. 

Usually, doing something your enemy does not expect and taking apart the weaker of the two forces facing you would be considered brilliant. While I think comparisons with Napoleon/Alexander the Great are not great (and don't really know where the OP saw them), Robb's record in the field is indisputable. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

Just now, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

To be fair, the whole point of his victory at Oxcross was that it was a brilliant strategic victory, not a tactical one. Everyone considered his choices to be  either to remain at Riverrun while his host melted away, or march on Harrenhal. He went for Secret Option 3, which was to march West, thus facing a weaker and worse-led army, defeating it, then taking the battle to the enemy's home turf. The plan to draw Tywin west was also very good, unfortunately failing due to Stupid Edmure/Poor Misunderstood Edmure (depending on which side you hold on that debate) fighting at Stone Mill. 

Usually, doing something your enemy does not expect and taking apart the weaker of the two forces facing you would be considered brilliant. While I think comparisons with Napoleon/Alexander the Great are not great (and don't really know where the OP saw them), Robb's record in the field is indisputable. 

To be clear I just them(Napoleon, Alexazader) as an example not so much a literal comparison. That Robb is on the level of such battle commanders.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

4 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

To be clear I just them(Napoleon, Alexazader) as an example not so much a literal comparison. That Robb is on the level of such battle commanders.

Fair enough. 

He was undefeated in the field, so you have to give him credit. He certainly seemed to have a penchant for bold, swift, decisive moves and quick victories, and utilizes misdirection. 

He's first faced by Tywin and Jaime - he makes them think he's going for Tywin, then zips west to smash Jaime; then he's faced by Tywin, while another force is raised in the West, and again he zips off to crush the new army. He twice uses bold, unexpected speed marches to quickly surprise and defeat an entire army.

If he's not a prodigy, he's an exceptionally talented young man, and at that point we're arguing about what the definition of prodigy means.

[The Drunkard]

12 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

To be fair, the whole point of his victory at Oxcross was that it was a brilliant strategic victory, not a tactical one. Everyone considered his choices to be  either to remain at Riverrun while his host melted away, or march on Harrenhal. He went for Secret Option 3, which was to march West, thus facing a weaker and worse-led army, defeating it, then taking the battle to the enemy's home turf. The plan to draw Tywin west was also very good, unfortunately failing due to Stupid Edmure/Poor Misunderstood Edmure (depending on which side you hold on that debate) fighting at Stone Mill. 

Usually, doing something your enemy does not expect and taking apart the weaker of the two forces facing you would be considered brilliant. While I think comparisons with Napoleon/Alexander the Great are not great (and don't really know where the OP saw them), Robb's record in the field is indisputable. 

Robb was gifted that victory, it wasn't for any action on his part that the victory was great. Any commander would see the value in using a secret path to bypass an unconquerable fortress and surprise an unsuspecting enemy, but not everyone has a magic pet who does all the work in finding one. 

[Ponzi Scheme]

On 12/27/2017 at 4:33 AM, 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?

He was successful in battle but I have to question if he was a good general because he never caught on to what Roose Bolton was up to. 

[Bernie Mac]

On 28/12/2017 at 2:47 AM, One-eyed Misbehavin said:

Robb's Millitary record is in now way similar to Daeron's record. 

Of course not. Daeron's is far more impressive and lasted longer. 

On 28/12/2017 at 2:47 AM, One-eyed Misbehavin said:

I'm not trolling as I know you're pointing out they both led men at an extremely early age but Daeron used his troops as pawns....

As does Robb, as does any competent military commander. The battle of the Green Fork was a calcualted loss were he gambled on gaining more men at Riverrun than the expexted losses he would take against Tywin. 

"If I send the Watch a hundred men in Jon's place, I'll wager they find some way to release him from his vows."

Robb's capable of seeing his men as little more than pawns to get what he wants. 

On 28/12/2017 at 2:47 AM, One-eyed Misbehavin said:

 

Robb was absolutely stunned at the thought of (his men) losing/sent to die at duskendale whereas Daeron just kept sending men to their death.

You do realise why he was stunned right? There was zero advantage in attacking Duskendale and it cost him men needed to attack Moat Cailin

"Duskendale, on the narrow sea? Why would they go to Duskendale?" He'd shook his head, bewildered. "A third of my foot, lost for Duskendale?"

 

And his reaction would be shared by any general in war time. Losing so many troops on a pointless battle would make anyone angry. 

On 28/12/2017 at 2:47 AM, One-eyed Misbehavin said:

Also The Young Wolf never even lost a battle. 

As the commander of the North's military he did. Just like Jaime and Stafford's defeats count against Twyin, Roose and Rodrik's count against Robb.  Roose's especially as he decided to sent Roose against the bigger army, with zero cavalry (quite the handicap) and somehow escapes any of the responsibility in the fandom for that loss. 

 

Robb was very good, especially for his age. but he was also shortsighted and made some glaring errors for a commander. Leaving his capital exposed, the lack of communication, the lack of goals for the majority of his soldiers and not knowing how to delegate were all areas that stopped him from being great. Had he lived he could definitely have become great. 

[Daenerys Targaryen's slave]

Is the local basketball player a prodigy when he trounces on 5'10 middle schoolers? Probably not 

 

Robb went back p against a small pool of talent who were not picked for their skill anyways.

 

If every person in Westeros received his education. There would be a million or so people on his level or better.

[Trigger Warning]

The issue I always take with this is the huge amount of risk in splitting his army, not to mention that after splitting his army he basically left the bulk of his men pissing in the wind to go gallivanting around the Westerlands on some chevouchee that in reality achieved little. What if Jaime's scouts had discovered Robb's advance and informed him? Sure Jaime might lift the siege of Riverrun to withdraw and reform his order of battle but then Robb's cut off from his main strength and outnumbered near 2 to 1, he's basically leaving his entire campaign in the hands of his vanguard's ability to kill scouts and the assumption that Jaime's going to take the bait. All it would take is one scout on a hill with a horse a mile or so away to see them and the subterfuge is done, the Blackwater and this make it seem like scouts are easy to just ninja kill. 

Also did Robb intend to force the Golden Tooth with his cavalry? I'd like to know the plan pre magic wolf goat path, especially since the Lannister army mustering in the West would know of their approach in that case. 

Most of Robb's battles feel like gifts rather than circumstances he engineered himself. Robb didn't live long enough to prove his strategic capabilities on a long campaign or to show his abilities in a typical field battle nor did he live long enough to show if this command creativity could rescue him from a perilous situation, just look at Alexander at the siege of Pelium turning a blunder into a crushing victory, maybe Robb could one day reach those heights but there's really nothing indicating it, we don't get much of an in depth look at his tactical capabilities in the field. Not every general that wins a battle or two goes on to be a conqueror, a few victories, crushing or not does not an Alexander make. 

You can argue that the whispering wood isn't a gift because they planned to kill the scouts and lure out Jaime but I'd still argue that it's incredibly lucky that it went as planned and as such the Battle of the Camps is an extension of that, just because your incredibly risky plan happened to pay off doesn't necessarily mean it's good generalship and Oxcross is definitely a plot gift simply because his magic wolf found a path that no one knew about for some reason allowing him to sneak across the West again undetected for some reason and then fall upon a camp that was again luckily completely unprotected, most commanders could achieve such a victory under those circumstances. 

It's pretty lucky that his foot wasn't entirely broken on the Green Fork too since they were routed and Tywin had vastly superior numbers of heavy horse. Just feels like stuff that needed to happen, Roose needed the semblance of an army to justify his position of power in the rest of the series so he withdrew in good order somehow despite his lines breaking, then the rest of the army doesn't come up much again, it's like a plot inconvenience. 

He never lost a battle but he also never fought one where everything wasn't completely and luckily in his favour. Meanwhile his subordinates just sat on their hands or made mistakes whilst commanding the bulk of his army, though I'm of the opinion that Edmure preventing Tywin returning home probably saved Robb to be honest. 

EDIT: Maybe I'm just biased though, I always felt that the Whispering Wood was too on the nose a way of suggesting Robb was going to be some brilliant commander, maybe I'd be on board if a little more went into the plan than just kill all the scouts and hope Jaime leaves his army to chase raiders but maybe that wouldn't make for entertaining reading. 

[One-eyed Misbehavin]

On December 29, 2017 at 0:25 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Of course not. Daeron's is far more impressive and lasted longer. 

As does Robb, as does any competent military commander. The battle of the Green Fork was a calcualted loss were he gambled on gaining more men at Riverrun than the expexted losses he would take against Tywin. 

"If I send the Watch a hundred men in Jon's place, I'll wager they find some way to release him from his vows."

Robb's capable of seeing his men as little more than pawns to get what he wants. 

You do realise why he was stunned right? There was zero advantage in attacking Duskendale and it cost him men needed to attack Moat Cailin

"Duskendale, on the narrow sea? Why would they go to Duskendale?" He'd shook his head, bewildered. "A third of my foot, lost for Duskendale?"

 

And his reaction would be shared by any general in war time. Losing so many troops on a pointless battle would make anyone angry. 

As the commander of the North's military he did. Just like Jaime and Stafford's defeats count against Twyin, Roose and Rodrik's count against Robb.  Roose's especially as he decided to sent Roose against the bigger army, with zero cavalry (quite the handicap) and somehow escapes any of the responsibility in the fandom for that loss. 

 

Robb was very good, especially for his age. but he was also shortsighted and made some glaring errors for a commander. Leaving his capital exposed, the lack of communication, the lack of goals for the majority of his soldiers and not knowing how to delegate were all areas that stopped him from being great. Had he lived he could definitely have become great. 

It was longer but certainly not more impressive,  especially considering Daeron killing 60k people like they were nothing.

 I understand the motives behind the green fork and duskendale extremely well and I don't need to brush up whatsoever.  If you're going to count Roose's betraying of Robb against him go for it  but don't compare it to Jamie's loss. When Jamie got cocky/unaware.

 The OP asked if Robb was a prodigy.... He was. Daeron 1 was not 

IMHO 

Btw: there could be a huge reason Robb was willing to trade 100 men for Jon. You know the theory I'm sure 

[Aegon1FanBoy]

He isn't even on westeros conqueor's level like Daeron 1, harwin Horare, Theon stark much less Napoleon and Alexander 

[Bernie Mac]

2 hours ago, One-eyed Misbehavin said:

It was longer but certainly not more impressive,  especially considering Daeron killing 60k people like they were nothing.

Robb only won Riverrun in the Riverlands and two castles in the West, one described as more ruin than fortress. And in the process he lost the North. 

Daeron's conquest is more impressive. 

2 hours ago, One-eyed Misbehavin said:

 I understand the motives behind the green fork and duskendale extremely well and I don't need to brush up whatsoever.  If you're going to count Roose's betraying of Robb against him go for it

Roose did not betray him on the Green Fork. Robb sent a smaller army to face Tywin while withholding the vast majority of his cavalry from Roose. It was an unwinnable battle, Robb stocked the odds against Roose. 

2 hours ago, One-eyed Misbehavin said:

 

 but don't compare it to Jamie's loss. When Jamie got cocky/unaware.

eh? Where was the comparison?

2 hours ago, One-eyed Misbehavin said:

 The OP asked if Robb was a prodigy....

No, not really. He made huge errors as a commander and got found out pretty quickly. There is only so long you can ride on luck and magical direwolf. 

 

2 hours ago, One-eyed Misbehavin said:

Btw: there could be a huge reason Robb was willing to trade 100 men for Jon. You know the theory I'm sure 

What theory? 

Robb talked about handing over 100 of his own men for Jon like it was nothing. This is the act of pretty much every other medieval commander so the idea that Robb cares more about the well being of his men simply does not ring true. As the Green Fork shows, he was ok with them being collateral damage. 

[divica]

Everybody talks about robbs victories.

But he was completly defeated by the IB. Sending Theon to the II doesn t garante that the ironborn will help him! In addition he failed to protect the north from naval attacks. 

What would have happened if tywin had sent 5K in ships to attack the north? Just because he knew how to attack doesn t mean he was undefeated. It was his responsability to defend the north and he failed miserably because he forgot that boats existed! And could be used to go north!

[Colonel Green]

7 hours ago, divica said:

In addition he failed to protect the north from naval attacks. 

The North has no navy.  What else was he supposed to do?

[A Ghost of Someone]

Robb was able to gauge Tywin Lannister as arrogant and Jaime Lannister (thanks to Gruncle Blackfish) as impatient /over agressive and exploited it successfully at RiverRun and The Whispering Wood. He was able to possible Warg (without telling anyone) greywind and finding a way around the Golden Tooth to destroy most of and put to route the new Lannister host at Oxcross. Robb never got much further as he did not heed his mother's voice and basically sent the Greyjoys their hostage back while leaving his Homeland exposed to easy invasion. it gets worse from there. GRRM said that Robb had to die as he was going to win everything and that his steamrolling success had to be stopped so that the rest of the story could unfold. Alexander the Great he was not but he sure humiliated Tywin to the point that he stooped so low as to help plan the Red Wedding.