Jump to content

Is Robb Stark a prodigy?


Varysblackfyre321

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

He never fought the Ironborn.

He was the military commander of the North (and the Riverlands), just like Jaime and Stafford being beaten counts against Tywin or Asha winning Deepwoood Motte counts for Balon the defeats of Robb's subordinates in the North counts against him as a military leader. Furthermore one of the key responsibilities to a Commander is allocating resources to deal with such threats, something that is overlooked in these conversations. 

Robb was an excellent Brigadier. Excellent at commanding the men directly underneath him, there morale for the most part was excellent and it is easy to see why they loved him so much. 

But he was an average General. He did not utilise the resources not directly under him well, leaving them to sit on their ass while he off adventuring in the West, he left his homeland, in particular his capital incredibly vulnerable, he was poor at communicating his plans, at delegating responsibility and the overall morale of his army (then men not with him) was poor as he left the larger part of his force with no clear objectives. 

I believe he could have matured into an excellent general but the performance we witnessed in the books was not of a prodigy, it was of a young man riding his luck until it caught up with him. 

 

6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

He did plan on building a northern fleet, didn't seem to have had much progress before the rebellion was squashed.

He didnt. That was Rodrik who sanctioned that. 

7 hours ago, Colonel Green said:

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

Make sure his capital and the settlements closest to the coast are well defended. 

Or not rush into war before he had made agreements with either the Ironborn, his aunt or some other ally. Sometimes a good commander will do nothing rather than go to war unprepared. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

He was the military commander of the North (and the Riverlands), just like Jaime and Stafford being beaten counts against Tywin or Asha winning Deepwoood Motte counts for Balon the defeats of Robb's subordinates in the North counts against him as a military leader. Furthermore one of the key responsibilities to a Commander is allocating resources to deal with such threats, something that is overlooked in these conversations. 

Robb was an excellent Brigadier. Excellent at commanding the men directly underneath him, there morale for the most part was excellent and it is easy to see why they loved him so much. 

But he was an average General. He did not utilise the resources not directly under him well, leaving them to sit on their ass while he off adventuring in the West, he left his homeland, in particular his capital incredibly vulnerable, he was poor at communicating his plans, at delegating responsibility and the overall morale of his army (then men not with him) was poor as he left the larger part of his force with no clear objectives. 

I believe he could have matured into an excellent general but the performance we witnessed in the books was not of a prodigy, it was of a young man riding his luck until it caught up with him. 

 

He didnt. That was Rodrik who sanctioned that. 

Make sure his capital and the settlements closest to the coast are well defended. 

Or not rush into war before he had made agreements with either the Ironborn, his aunt or some other ally. Sometimes a good commander will do nothing rather than go to war unprepared. 

Even more than that! He didn t make sure his army had a clear way to return home.

He simply couldn t lose moat cailin for any reason! It is a key location. Then if that isn t enough he loses the twins! He is basically cut off from the north. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

But he was an average General. He did not utilise the resources not directly under him well, leaving them to sit on their ass while he off adventuring in the West, he left his homeland, in particular his capital incredibly vulnerable, he was poor at communicating his plans, at delegating responsibility and the overall morale of his army (then men not with him) was poor as he left the larger part of his force with no clear objectives. 

Not true.  His forces in the Riverlands had an objective:  hold their ground against Tywin’s army in Harrenhal.

Quote

Make sure his capital and the settlements closest to the coast are well defended. 

He left a strong garrison.  It’s not his fault that Rodrik Cassell played  things badly (and also had a fair measure of bad luck).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, divica said:

Even more than that! He didn t make sure his army had a clear way to return home.

He simply couldn t lose moat cailin for any reason! It is a key location. Then if that isn t enough he loses the twins! He is basically cut off from the north. 

Again, he left Moat Caitlin well-garrisoned.  The fortress simply isn’t meant to defend against attacks from the north.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Colonel Green said:

Not true.  His forces in the Riverlands had an objective:  hold their ground against Tywin’s army in Harrenhal.

He left a strong garrison.  It’s not his fault that Rodrik Cassell played  things badly (and also had a fair measure of bad luck).

When he takes his army south the very least he has to make sure is that Moat cailin doesn t fall. Otherwise he is cut off from the north and has to conquer a fortress that was never conquered from the south.

This is a huge mistake!

And his other mistake is not sending a letter to WF saying that he sent theon to the II in hopes of forging an aliance with them. However if things don t go as planned they should prepare for attacks. Even if theon remained loyal robb had no proof that balon would help him or seek revenge!

This is anothe huge mistake!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

Again, he left Moat Caitlin well-garrisoned.  The fortress simply isn’t meant to defend against attacks from the north.

I don t remembre the exact quote, but Balon immediatly plans to attack moat cailin because it was NOW vulnerable to attack from the north. 

If it is a known fact then robb had to take actions to make it defendable from attack from the north. Otherwise he can t go south because he is taking a HUUUUGGEEEE risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, divica said:

When he takes his army south the very least he has to make sure is that Moat cailin doesn t fall. Otherwise he is cut off from the north and has to conquer a fortress that was never conquered from the south.

This is a huge mistake!

And his other mistake is not sending a letter to WF saying that he sent theon to the II in hopes of forging an aliance with them. However if things don t go as planned they should prepare for attacks. Even if theon remained loyal robb had no proof that balon would help him or seek revenge!

This is anothe huge mistake!

Even if Theon hadn't turned his coat, yeah  the Iron borne refusing Robb's offer was a real and somewhat likely possibility given the bad blood between their people, so Robb should have took precautions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Robb must have been talented and intelligent because I doubt that many other 15-year-old teenagers could have done what he did even if they had had the same education and the same advisors. Despite his age, he seems to have been an inspiring military commander and he was apperently good at strategic thinking. (In fairness to Robb, we shouldn't forget that Napoleon, a great military leader, was defeated as well.) However, he also had a lot to learn yet, especially on the front of politics, as well as in military tactics and warfare, and he obviously didn't have the experience of older leaders. Could he have risen to the level of Alexander the Great or Napoleon if he had been given more time? I have no idea.

The reason why the comparison doesn't work for me, however, is that both Napoleon and Alexander were conquerors. Robb was not. He was fighting for the independence of his country - he didn't want to be the King of Westeros, he didn't want to conquer. At first he only wanted to free his father and help his grandfather, then the war turned into a war of independence to get rid of the Iron Throne. His actions were essentially motivated by defence, not by a desire to conquer foreign areas. Yes, he added the Riverlands to his kingdom, but it was through political alliance rather than through conquest. To me, there is a fundamental difference between a conqueror and a defender. Robb wanted to defeat the Lannisters but I see no indication that he ever dreamed of ruling the whole of Westeros, so the comparison with basically iconic conquerors doesn't seem very appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robb trusted Theon to convince his father, Balon Greyjoy to atleast listen to his offer. Robb did not know Balon Greyjoy and apparently never considered that the Iron born would turn around and invade the North and that Theon would be able to take Winterfell. This was one of two times he should have listened to his mother, the other was warning about taking Lord Karstark's head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

I think Robb must have been talented and intelligent because I doubt that many other 15-year-old teenagers could have done what he did even if they had had the same education and the same advisors. Despite his age, he seems to have been an inspiring military commander and he was apperently good at strategic thinking. (In fairness to Robb, we shouldn't forget that Napoleon, a great military leader, was defeated as well.) However, he also had a lot to learn yet, especially on the front of politics, as well as in military tactics and warfare, and he obviously didn't have the experience of older leaders. Could he have risen to the level of Alexander the Great or Napoleon if he had been given more time? I have no idea.

The reason why the comparison doesn't work for me, however, is that both Napoleon and Alexander were conquerors. Robb was not. He was fighting for the independence of his country - he didn't want to be the King of Westeros, he didn't want to conquer. At first he only wanted to free his father and help his grandfather, then the war turned into a war of independence to get rid of the Iron Throne. His actions were essentially motivated by defence, not by a desire to conquer foreign areas. Yes, he added the Riverlands to his kingdom, but it was through political alliance rather than through conquest. To me, there is a fundamental difference between a conqueror and a defender. Robb wanted to defeat the Lannisters but I see no indication that he ever dreamed of ruling the whole of Westeros, so the comparison with basically iconic conquerors doesn't seem very appropriate.

He was going up against mediocre competition a d a small pool of talent. Not that impressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Colonel Green said:

Not true.  His forces in the Riverlands had an objective:  hold their ground against Tywin’s army in Harrenhal.

It is a vague command with no timeframe attached to it. Just hang around, do nothing of consequence for the next 6 months. It is the easiest way to make an army lose morale. 

2 hours ago, Colonel Green said:

He left a strong garrison.

Clearly not that strong. 

2 hours ago, Colonel Green said:

 

 It’s not his fault that Rodrik Cassell played  things badly

Rodrik had to train boys to replace the soldiers Robb had taken while simultaneously keeping the peace in the North. Robb left Rodrik, and it should be pointed out that Robb did not even leave Rodrik Cat had to send him back, he initially left a Maester in charge, severely handicapped just like he did to Roose when he separated the cream of the Northern army (the heavy horse and cavalry) from its infantry. 

2 hours ago, Colonel Green said:

(and also had a fair measure of bad luck).

Doesnt everyone in war. Personally I think a good indicator of command is how well you can cope with the inevitable bad luck that will come your way in a war and how well you can take advantage of the good luck that comes your way. Case in point, Robb took advantage of the good luck that came his way in regards to Jaime's scouts and the secret entrance into the West. 

 

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

I think Robb must have been talented and intelligent because I doubt that many other 15-year-old teenagers could have done what he did even if they had had the same education and the same advisors.

Jon had the same training and same advisers and he has done just as well as Robb. Ned was only a couple of years older when he played a key part in winning a huge civil war. In terms of military prowess Robb falls short of his father's exploits 20 years earlier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Daenerys Targaryen's slave said:

He was going up against mediocre competition a d a small pool of talent. Not that impressive.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to what I said. I didn't compare Robb to his specific peers. I simply meant it would be difficult for most teenage boys to do so well in a similar situation. By which I mean that many probably couldn't cope emotionally, couldn't handle the situation, couldn't think strategically, some might leave the leadership to their men and to their mothers, some might "play at war" and bravely get themselves killed in the first real fight. Robb had to handle a very difficult situation, shoulder enormous responsibility, for which he was too young, and he did quite well, even though he also made serious mistakes, of course. That doesn't mean he was a military genius, but he certainly wasn't average. I see no "competition" or pool of talent to speak of. As for "impressive", LOL, that would be the word to describe someone's performance in sports or in school contests. In the world of ASOIAF, you either give up or fight till the bitter end, but war is not about being "impressive". Robb's situation (as every other character's) was unique and he rose to the challenge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Jon had the same training and same advisers and he has done just as well as Robb. Ned was only a couple of years older when he played a key part in winning a huge civil war. In terms of military prowess Robb falls short of his father's exploits 20 years earlier. 

Oh, I agree that Jon is also talented and intelligent. Again, not everyone could do what he did. As for Ned, I think Ned was 20 at the time of Robert's rebellion. Still quite young, but those five years in our world are the difference between a young high school student and a college student who can also be given a serious job to do. In many countries, a 20-year-old is of age and has full responsibility for everything he does, while a 15-year-old is a kid. Maybe there is something in the Stark family which makes them grow up early and do somewhat extraordinary things at a young age. But it's not only the Starks, of course. There are other exceptional young people in ASOIAF, as well. I'm ready to acknowledge anyone's talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, A Ghost of Someone said:

Robb trusted Theon to convince his father, Balon Greyjoy to atleast listen to his offer. Robb did not know Balon Greyjoy and apparently never considered that the Iron born would turn around and invade the North and that Theon would be able to take Winterfell. This was one of two times he should have listened to his mother, the other was warning about taking Lord Karstark's head.

I don t agree. We have no idea if robb or any other stark would kill theon if balon attacked the north. He was kind of familly so his status as hostage is kind of useless. Besides Balon would probably be willing to sacrífice theon to attack the north...

Sending theon the the II and try to form an aliance with the IB is bold and smart. What is incredibly stupid is robb never preparing for the case of the IB declining his aliance and attacking the north. This is a major intelectual and strategic error that can t be compared with the westerlings situation.

24 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Jon had the same training and same advisers and he has done just as well as Robb. Ned was only a couple of years older when he played a key part in winning a huge civil war. In terms of military prowess Robb falls short of his father's exploits 20 years earlier. 

If jon had trully unified the watch and the wildlings it would be an amazing feat. He did everything right except dealing with the rift between wildlings and NW. I don t remember everything in his chapters, but he explains why they must save the wildlings to his brothers but fails to create any friendship between the wildlings and NW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, divica said:

If jon had trully unified the watch and the wildlings it would be an amazing feat. He did everything right except dealing with the rift between wildlings and NW. I don t remember everything in his chapters, but he explains why they must save the wildlings to his brothers but fails to create any friendship between the wildlings and NW.

That takes time even in the case of simple strangers, even more so in the case of former enemies. It may still happen... But it's not easy, and friendship cannot be "created" by a third party, it can only develop through the goodwill and the effort of the parties involved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

Oh, I agree that Jon is also talented and intelligent. Again, not everyone could do what he did. As for Ned, I think Ned was 20 at the time of Robert's rebellion. Still quite young, but those five years in our world are the difference between a young high school student and a college student who can also be given a serious job to do. In many countries, a 20-year-old is of age and has full responsibility for everything he does, while a 15-year-old is a kid. Maybe there is something in the Stark family which makes them grow up early and do somewhat extraordinary things at a young age. But it's not only the Starks, of course. There are other exceptional young people in ASOIAF, as well. I'm ready to acknowledge anyone's talent.

Yeah,that's  kinda why I findhard to really be to uber harsh on Robb for his blusters, he's a boy whose barely started to grow facial hair, whose military experience prior to the war was nill and yet is expected to lead an entire war effort-all while having to coming to grips with his father's death having to accept he's never going to see his sisters again. He's tired, scared out of his mind even out of some of his own followers but has to put on a brave face throughout the day. He shouldn't be in his position in the first place and making as good a job you can honestly hope for  f15 year old boy clearly shaken boy to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

I'm not sure how this is relevant to what I said. I didn't compare Robb to his specific peers. I simply meant it would be difficult for most teenage boys to do so well in a similar situation. By which I mean that many probably couldn't cope emotionally, couldn't handle the situation, couldn't think strategically, some might leave the leadership to their men and to their mothers, some might "play at war" and bravely get themselves killed in the first real fight. Robb had to handle a very difficult situation, shoulder enormous responsibility, for which he was too young, and he did quite well, even though he also made serious mistakes, of course. That doesn't mean he was a military genius, but he certainly wasn't average. I see no "competition" or pool of talent to speak of. As for "impressive", LOL, that would be the word to describe someone's performance in sports or in school contests. In the world of ASOIAF, you either give up or fight till the bitter end, but war is not about being "impressive". Robb's situation (as every other character's) was unique and he rose to the challenge. 

Thing is, Robb couldn't handle the pressure. And ultimately failed in the end, trusting the at ng individuals, breaking his promises, not commuting to alliances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, divica said:

I don t agree. We have no idea if robb or any other stark would kill theon if balon attacked the north. He was kind of familly so his status as hostage is kind of useless. Besides Balon would probably be willing to sacrífice theon to attack the north...

Sending theon the the II and try to form an aliance with the IB is bold and smart. What is incredibly stupid is robb never preparing for the case of the IB declining his aliance and attacking the north. This is a major intelectual and strategic error that can t be compared with the westerlings situation.

 

No, it was foolish. What played out proved it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...