Why didn’t Robb just focus on Tywin?

[Floki of the Ironborn]

After he made his deal with House Frey, Robb commanded more men than Tywin did. He had many experienced veterans of Robert’s Rebellion with him, as well as Brynden “Blackfish” Tully as one of his top commanders. He stood more than a chance to not only defeat Tywin, but to maybe even capture or kill him. Robb would have crippled House Lannister completely. Even with Jaime in command at Riverrun, he’s got none of Tywin’s intellect or diplomatic skills, not then anyway. Tyrion would either be dead or a prisoner, leaving Cersei and Joffrey to screw everything up without supervision.

And don’t tell me that Tywin is invincible. Edmure Tully repelled his forces no problem with an outnumbered force facing Tywin himself and his best warriors and commanders. If Edmure could do it, Robb certainly could. It might have been bad for Edmure, given that he was a captive, but it Robb had been able to kill Tywin and all the men with him, it would have changed everything for the better. And even as captives, send Tywin and Tyrion north to White Harbour to be held a prisoner, see how fast the other Lannisters muck everything up.

[Trigger Warning]

Pitched battles are too risky and most commanders in history spent most of their time doing what's in their power to avoid them especially when not on their terms, to quote some guy on youtube. 

"A realistic battle is several days of skirmishing, then one commander goes on a hill and the other leaves"

Guess Robb didn't want to bet everything on one clash with Tywin, especially with another Lannister army in the field.

[Fire Eater]

Robb took the more dangerous job like his father would have. He managed to create a huge setback for Tywin by destroying Jaime's army, and lifting the siege at Riverrun, effectively blocking him off from his home base. 

Robb's only mistake was picking Roose Bolton in charge of the army meeting Tywin instead of someone like Robett Glover.

[Bernie Mac]

5 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

Robb took the more dangerous job like his father would have.

No he didnt. He took the cream of the Northern army to surprise a 15k (and only 3k cavalry compared to the 7k that Tywin had) army pitched against someone else and who did not expect him to passed the Twins. It was not the more dangerous job. Had he failed he could have still rode to safety.  By contrast he gave Roose an 18k infantry against a 20k army that was better equipped and could have given chase and absolutely slaughtered Roose's running infantry. 

It was the more important mission, as it basically doubled his force but there simply is no way that it was the more dangerous mission. 

5 minutes ago, Fire Eater said:

Robb's only mistake was picking Roose Bolton in charge of the army meeting Tywin instead of someone like Robett Glover.

No, his mistake was allowing Roose to stand idle for half a year. Armies with no clear objectives is the bane of most Generals. 

Roose's caution saved thousands of Northern lives at the Green Fork, Tywin was upset that he only killed a 5th(?) of the Northern army as a less cautious commander would have fallen into his trap. The battle of Duskendale shows that Glover was more in the Greatjon mould than he was in the Bolton mould. 

 

1 hour ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

After he made his deal with House Frey, Robb commanded more men than Tywin did.

He had less cavalry and in general a knight/armoured rider is worth far more in battle than most infantry. Robb did not like his chances against Twyin, he knew he needed more men and that relieving Riverrun was the way to go about that. 

Riverrun and the potential 20k that comes with it was Robb's objective. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

No, his mistake was allowing Roose to stand idle for half a year. Armies with no clear objectives is the bane of most Generals

Ok what should he have  tasked creepy Roose to do that could keep him occupied enough to where the man isn't planning treason? This seems slightly unfair given Roose would have turned if the north started losing enough anyway.

[Floki of the Ironborn]

15 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Ok what should he have  tasked creepy Roose to do that could keep him occupied enough to where the man isn't planning treason? This seems slightly unfair given Roose would have turned if the north started losing enough anyway.

Roose was planning treason from the start, based on how he botched the Green fork battle and used the battle to get his rivals captured or killed. Robb should have kept Roose by his side where loyal bannermen like Greatjon and Blackfish could have kept an eye on him. Bolton’s caution was to rush his men through a whole sleepless night, then loudly announce their presence to the Lannisters, then abandon the high ground to charge forward into a rout. Roose started with 18000 and ended with almost half his men dead. That’s a catastrophe.

[Bernie Mac]

23 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Ok what should he have  tasked creepy Roose to do that could keep him occupied enough to where the man isn't planning treason? This seems slightly unfair given Roose would have turned if the north started losing enough anyway.

Roose was put in charge for one battle. According to the timeline Roose is given command on the second day of the first month of the year 299 and it not until half way through the 11 month that Robb gives him new orders, to meet up at the Twins. That is almost a year without an objective. Robb splits his forces up

• he gets the cavalry, the creme de la creme of the Northern army, they get to surprise Jaime, travel West were they can fill their pockets with Westerland riches while facing weakened and smaller enemies. This is the contingnet who had every reason to love Robb, the morale in this force, Karstarks aside, must have been sky high
• Roose gets the infantry, which includes the poorest, worst trained and equipped and get sent to get beat by Tywin (for tactical reasons), then are stationed in the Riverlands were they have to pillage from the Riverlanders to stay fed, have the threat of more competent enemies while having no clear strategy. Any experienced general could point out why morale would be low in this force, and some would not be too surprised at the number of men who chose to betray Robb

Robb did not have to keep that force there nor did he have to keep Roose as the commander of the force for the duration of the war, especially given that Robb did not trust him to begin with. 

 

Giving subordinates objectives, more importantly achievable objectives, keeps up morale, stops the rot from festering. 

 

18 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Roose was planning treason from the start, based on how he botched the Green fork battle

How did he botch that battle? He had 400 Horse and around 17k infantry against 7k horse and around 13k infantry. Most generals would lose when faced with those odds. He was never expected to win, it was a diversion to give Robb enough time to surprise Jaime and take down his forces. 

Tywin is not happy with the result 

Lord Tywin drained his cup, his face expressionless. "I put the least disciplined men on the left, yes. I anticipated that they would break. Robb Stark is a green boy, more like to be brave than wise. I'd hoped that if he saw our left collapse, he might plunge into the gap, eager for a rout. Once he was fully committed, Ser Kevan's pikes would wheel and take him in the flank, driving him into the river while I brought up the reserve."

Roose was picked for his caution and his cautious nature meant there were fewer casualties than if someone 'braver' was in charge of the fight. Look at the percentage of casualties at Duskendale to see how many losses brave commanders take. 

Robb was absolutely right to take his mother's advice and place Roose in charge for that ONE battle. That battle required a cautious commander and it delivered the right result. 

18 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

and used the battle to get his rivals captured or killed.

Nobles died under Robb as well and he was victorious. People die and get captured in battle, especially battles were one side is heavily outmatched by the other. 

Look at how many Freys were captured. They are not Roose's rivals. 

18 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

 

Robb should have kept Roose by his side where loyal bannermen like Greatjon and Blackfish could have kept an eye on him.

The same Greatjon who was ready to attack him only a few weeks earlier?

18 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

 

Bolton’s caution was to rush his men through a whole sleepless night,

No, that would be Robb and the other generals. Before Roose was even picked to lead the plan was 

"The Greatjon says that won't matter if we catch him with his breeches down, but it seems to me that a man who has fought as many battles as Tywin Lannister won't be so easily surprised."

A slow march would have had two potential problems

• given Marbrand's scouts more chance to see that the cavary was lacking in Roose's force
• given Jaime's scouts more chance to have spotted the creeping Northern army from the Twins and alerted Tywin

Robb's big concern was not getting trapped between the two forces

"look, if we try to swing around Lord Tywin's host, we take the risk of being caught between him and the Kingslayer, and if we attack him … by all reports, he has more men than I do, and a lot more armored horse."

It was imperative that Roose draw all of Tywin's attention on him to give Robb any hope. Robb was lucky and his plan went perfectly, no scouts saw his advance, Jaime was an idiot and attacked rather than sending out more scouts or even alerting his sleeping army. All of these variables led to a relatively quick victory but he would have had to have planned for the chance that things would not go perfectly, that the battle would take longer and give Tywin the time to send his cavalry to help his son. 

 

18 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

then loudly announce their presence to the Lannisters,

eh?

I think you are confused on this one. 

18 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

then abandon the high ground to charge forward into a rout.

 

Nope, as Tywin makes quite clear, Roose's caution stopped it from being a rout. 

18 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

 

Roose started with 18000 and ended with almost half his men dead. That’s a catastrophe.

He lost 1/5th, not half. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

9 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

No, that would be Robb and the other generals. Before Roose was even picked to lead the plan was 

"The Greatjon says that won't matter if we catch him with his breeches down, but it seems to me that a man who has fought as many battles as Tywin Lannister won't be so easily surprised."

A slow march would have had two potential problems

Lol, at foreshadowing on how Tywin's  death is going to play out.

11 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Robb did not have to keep that force there nor did he have to keep Roose as the commander of the force for the duration of the war, especially given that Robb did not trust him to begin with. 

Isn't retaining control of the Riverlands key? Make sure the local lords are supported? 

[Varysblackfyre321]

26 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

The same Greatjon who was ready to attack him only a few weeks earlier?

Meh, yeah, the guy wasn't really the most loyal-he's more a glory hound than anything and I have to wonder if his declaration of Robb as King was an effort to prolong the war as much as he can.

[Bernie Mac]

32 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Isn't retaining control of the Riverlands key? Make sure the local lords are supported? 

Yes. That is what Robb should have done, like Edmure and the Riverlords asked. 

Many of the lords bannermen wanted to march on Harrenhal at once, to meet Lord Tywin and end Lannister power for all time. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I'll wager there were others who felt the same as Lord Karstark," her brother Edmure declared. "How can we talk of peace while the Lannisters spread like a pestilence over my father's domains, stealing his crops and slaughtering his people? I say again, we ought to be marching on Harrenhal."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"True enough," Ser Brynden admitted. "And Tywin Lannister is no man's fool. He sits safe behind the walls of Harrenhal, feeding his host on our harvest and burning what he does not take. Gregor is not the only dog he's loosed. Ser Amory Lorch is in the field as well, and some sellsword out of Qohor who'd sooner maim a man than kill him. I've seen what they leave behind them. Whole villages put to the torch, women raped and mutilated, butchered children left unburied to draw wolves and wild dogs

 

But he refused. He went West, left Roose's force with no objectives, and given their lack of supplies they too had to get their food from the local populace (thus the constant references of Lions and Wolves being as bad as each other).  Maybe had Robb returned after Oxcross we would not have seen as much destruction in the Riverlands, the likes of Darry frequently changing hands or Maidenpool being sacked (by all sides) so many times. 

 

 

[Fire Eater]

4 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

No he didnt. He took the cream of the Northern army to surprise a 15k (and only 3k cavalry compared to the 7k that Tywin had) army pitched against someone else and who did not expect him to passed the Twins. It was not the more dangerous job. Had he failed he could have still rode to safety.  By contrast he gave Roose an 18k infantry against a 20k army that was better equipped and could have given chase and absolutely slaughtered Roose's running infantry. 

Not according to Catelyn: 

Quote

 "Which force would you command?"
"The horse," he answered at once. Again like his father; Ned would always take the more dangerous task himself.

-AGOT Catelyn VIII

In determining, who had the more dangerous job you're ignoring the math. He was leading a force against an army that outnumbered his five to one compared to Roose's force having a similar size to Tywin's. Tywin's army couldn't have "absolutely slaughtered" a force that size without incredibly heavy casualties on his side.  Robb's choice clearly was more dangerous. 

 

4 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

No, his mistake was allowing Roose to stand idle for half a year. Armies with no clear objectives is the bane of most Generals. 

Roose's caution saved thousands of Northern lives at the Green Fork, Tywin was upset that he only killed a 5th(?) of the Northern army as a less cautious commander would have fallen into his trap. The battle of Duskendale shows that Glover was more in the Greatjon mould than he was in the Bolton mould. 

Roose wasn't given nothing to do. He was fighting Lannisters, and generals don't need to constantly need to get orders from the highest command given they are expected to do some thinking and strategizing for themselves. 

Roose Bolton was the one who sent Glover to Duskendale, don't you remember? Glover didn't decide to do it, Bolton ordered it. You are also completely mischaracterizing Glover. He managed to inflict heavy casualties against an enemy army and retreat despite being pinned against the sea, and this is against whom Kevan described as "the finest soldier in the realm."

Please, Roose was planning betrayal from the start. According to Atwell:

Quote

Bolton’s actions here have no explanation, given his experience as a commander and competence later displayed when fighting for his own House. His pause almost a mile away to form up into battle gave the Lannisters crucial time to mobilize their forces; had he simply kept marching, the Starks would have fallen on a sleeping army with no opportunity to get themselves into line and under chain of command, and thus unable to carry out their plan. However, this is only Exhibit A in my case against Roose Bolton

. . . 

Part of the reason that it doesn’t happen that way is that Roose’s actions on the battlefield makes little military sense. To begin with, we have Exhibit B in my case: the question of why in hell Roose is attacking a force that contains at least 7,500 heavy cavalry (Marbrand’s 4,000 are three-quarters of the total knights, plus the 300 around Kevan, plus the 2,500 in the reserve) and 1,000 light cavalry on the left flank when he has around 600 cavalry – and why he’s attacking at all. The Northern attack on the Lannister left flank is described as “boiling over the tops of the hills, ” and Kevan’s assault is described as having “pushed the northerners against the hills.” Given the enormous defensive advantage given to disciplined infantry fighting from the high ground, especially when fighting heavy cavalry, Bolton had the perfect opportunity to eke out an unlikely victory by retaining the high ground and forcing the Lannisters to attack, an opportunity he squanders without cause or benefit. Moreover, Roose’s main action – the attack on the Lannister left – involves only infantry, “advancing with measured tread behind a wall of shields and pikes,” rather than sending in his limited cavalry to open up a gap that his infantry could exploit against the Lannister center. 

We can see the inappropriateness of this tactic almost immediately: the Stark attack never lands, because the Lannister left is fast enough to counter-charge first, forcing the Karstark infantry into a slapdash schiltron. This shield wall is easily broken by the Mountain and the mountain men (great band name, by the way), and then the Stark right is forced into a chaotic retreat made all the worse once the Lannister center and reserve is brought in to finish the job.

In other words, Roose Bolton is doing the exact opposite of what the Saxon army of Harold Godwinson did to try to win the battle of Hastings – take the high ground, which can be easily held by a disciplined shield wall of infantry against heavy cavalry trying to charge up-hill and avoid charging into feigned retreats, where the superior mobility of cavalry can be used against slower infantry. No experienced infantry commander would make this mistake, especially once he laid eyes on his enemy’s dispositions.

Exhibit C is the mysterious absence of much of the Northern army. As Brynden BFish has noted, the Flayed Man of House Bolton isn’t seen on the field, despite the fact that it makes up a full quarter of their numbers. I would point to additional absences that make little sense: the first is the absence of the Northern cavalry in the fight, given how crucial they would have been to making the attack on the left actually succeed. The second is the absence of the Northern archers; the Northern infantry is described without exception as being composed of spearmen operating in shield walls when it should have quite a few archers given that it’s the whole of the Stark foot. The third is the total absence of any description of the North’s left flank engaging in the battle at all (and the relative absence of the North’s center, which we only hear about later in the battle when Kevan pushes forward), which you would think would have come more into play when the Lannisters commit their entire reserves to their left (which would be on the Stark’s right). This last part is quite mysterious: given the geography of the battlefield, the Starks should be trying to get around the Lannister’s *right* not the left, so that it can roll up the flank in the direction of the river, trying to push their enemies downhill, instead of trying to fight up the gradient the entire way. And yet we never see or hear of any action other than the Stark right on the Lannister right.

Given that the Northern host is only 16,000 strong, the absence of the Boltons (4,000 men) and the Northern cavalry (600) and the Northern left (approximately 5,300 men) suggests that perhaps only 6,100 of the Northern host – the unlucky Northern right – were fully engaged in the battle. This failure to commit the bulk of the Northern forces to the fight suggests that, just as is later the case at Duskendale and the Ruby Ford, Bolton is deliberately throwing a third of his army into the meat grinder.

Exhibit D comes with the mysterious beginning of the battle, which opens with the *Lannister* archers firing first: “a vast flight of infantry arched up from his right [i.e, from the center where Kevan commands]…the northerners broke into a run, shouting as they came, but the Lannister arrows fell on them like hail.” This also fails a very basic test of military skill: in medieval warfare, you send out your archers first, to clear away the enemy’s archers, so that your infantry is no longer threatened and your archers can safely concentrate on disrupting your enemy’s infantry formation. Given how ineffective Norman archers were at penetrating an in-place shield wall on the high ground at Hastings, the Lannisters’ initial volleys should have been an ineffective tactic and yet it’s successful in disrupting spearmen trying to charge on foot, and it’s not answered. Only later do we see massed missile fire that could conceivably be from the Starks, and then it’s directed at the one place on the battlefield where the Stark infantry could be hit by friendly fire (as Brynden BFish points out).

Again, this makes no sense: given the impossible task of attacking a largely cavalry force, the Northern commander should have used his archers from the outset to engage the Lannister archers from the high ground, while the Lannisters ineffectually fire up-hill. This factor is normally dominant: at the Battle of Towton, for example, a strong opposing wind was enough to make the Lancastrian archers fire short, allowing the Yorkist archers to advance without being threatened, pluck up the Lancastrian arrows feathering the ground, and use them to decimate their opposing numbers with the wind adding to their range. Likewise, at Hastings, firing up-hill was enough to render the Norman archers completely useless. He should then have had the archers screening his infantry advance to allow them to keep their shield walls intact and to disrupt the enemy’s formation.

One of these errors on their own would suggest incompetence most uncharacteristic to the carefully-planned victor of Harrenhal and Moat Cailin. All four together point to malice. This is compounded by the politics of the situation.

 

[Kandrax]

2 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

Roose was planning treason from the start, based on how he botched the Green fork battle and used the battle to get his rivals captured or killed. Robb should have kept Roose by his side where loyal bannermen like Greatjon and Blackfish could have kept an eye on him. Bolton’s caution was to rush his men through a whole sleepless night, then loudly announce their presence to the Lannisters, then abandon the high ground to charge forward into a rout. Roose started with 18000 and ended with almost half his men dead. That’s a catastrophe.

I disaggre with that. Sure, Roose wasn't entirely loyal to Robb, but i don't think he planned to betray Robb from get go.

[Bernie Mac]

2 hours ago, Fire Eater said:

Not according to Catelyn: 

And she is clearly wrong, perhaps letting her bias over the people she loved go to her head. 

We know that Robb does always pick the most dangerous job, his plan for Moat Cailin is further evidence of this

 Once I link up with Lord Bolton and the Freys, I will have more than twelve thousandmen. I mean to divide them into three battles and start up the causeway a half-day apart. If the Greyjoys have eyes south of the Neck, they will see my whole strength rushing headlong at Moat Cailin.

"Roose Bolton will have the rearguard, while I command the center. Greatjon, you shall lead the van against Moat Cailin. Your attack must be so fierce that the ironborn have no leisure to wonder if anyone is creeping down on them from the north."

 

In this instance the Greatjon would have been given the most dangerous job, when it came to Roose and Robb's prospective roles the commander who was given the battle he was not expected to win was given the more dangerous job. 

 

 

Quote

In determining, who had the more dangerous job you're ignoring the math. He was leading a force against an army that outnumbered his five to one compared to Roose's force having a similar size to Tywin's.

5 to 1? Where do you get those numbers from? Jaime had 15k, (of which only 3k was cavalry.) Robb had 6,000 heavy horse after he left the Twins and was joined up by an unknown amount of Mallisters and other Riverland lords and soldiers who fled the battle of Riverrun as well as the walls of Riverrun and the remnants of Edmure's host.

On top of that he, thanks to the Blackfish, would be well aware that part of the Lannister host (4k) would not even be able to battle him thanks to the Rivers. 

And of course you are ignoring basic common sense. I soldier on foot is not equal to 1 heavy cavalry. Roose was hindered, 600 cavalry against 7,500 was always going to result in a defeat given his objectives. 

Quote

 

Tywin's army couldn't have "absolutely slaughtered" a force that size without incredibly heavy casualties on his side.

Sure they could, GRRM even has Tywin explain to the reader how he would have done so had his opponent been less cautious than Roose. 

Quote

 Robb's choice clearly was more dangerous. 

lol no it was not. That is just ridiculous and shown by the books themselves. 

And of course Robb had his 40(?) guards to sacrifice themselves just in case things got a little out of hand for him. 

Quote

Roose wasn't given nothing to do.

Yeah, he was. 

If you want to quote from the books all the orders and objectives Robb sent Roose, Edmure and Rodrik I would love to hear them. 

Robb was an inexperienced commander, he was not ready to rule at this level so there are very good and logical reasons why he messed up, but he did mess up. 

Quote

He was fighting Lannisters, and generals don't need to constantly need to get orders from the highest command given they are expected to do some thinking and strategizing for themselves. 

We saw the level of Robb's orders to Edmure. They were vague and clearly confusing to Edmure and the other Riverlords at Riverrun, some of whom were veterans of the two previous civil wars. 

Robb was 15 going on 16, him not being perfect is perfectly reasonable. But mistakes were made. 

Quote

Roose Bolton was the one who sent Glover to Duskendale, don't you remember?

Yes, just like Robb was the one who sent Roose to the Green Fork. Robb picked him because he was cautious and knew that he would not get pulled in and be vulnerable to a rout. Glover clearly did not have the same common sense. 

Quote

 

Glover didn't decide to do it, Bolton ordered it.

No one has claimed anything different. But Glover was still sent there and it was a disaster. 

Quote

 

 You are also completely mischaracterizing Glover.

No, I am not. I am judging him on the one battle we know he commanded. What battles in the series are you judging Glover on?

Quote

He managed to inflict heavy casualties against an enemy army and retreat despite being pinned against the sea, and this is against whom Kevan described as "the finest soldier in the realm."

How many is heavy? How many did Tarly have to begin with? How many more of Glover's men were taken down by Gregor in the rout that followed the battle of Duskendale?

Quote

Please, Roose was planning betrayal from the start. According to Atwell:

You do realise that Atwell is not the author, right? The author is this fella called George, and here is what he has to say on the battle of Green Fork

"And the best sword is the one that cuts both ways, he might tell you. Take the Battle of Green Fork. Had his night march taken Lord Tywin unawares and won the battle, he would have smashed the Lannisters and become the hero of the hour. While if it failed... well, you see what happened. The only way he could lose there would be if were captured or slain himself, and he did his best to minimize the chances of that."

There is simply no logical reason for Roose to deliberately try to lose that battle. Winning the battle is great for him, he becomes rich with the various ransoms, gets to bring his army home early with minimum losses. Losing puts his own life in jeopardy.

 

I get it, some of you Robb fans hate the fact that some of Robb's own actions hurt his chances of winning.  

 

edit: What on earth is Atwell talking about? 

 

Quote

Exhibit C is the mysterious absence of much of the Northern army. As Brynden BFish has noted, the Flayed Man of House Bolton isn’t seen on the field,

How has he reached this conclusion? How do Tywin and Tyrion know that Bolton is leading the force if he and his men are not present?

How has he come up with the idea that much of the Northern army is not present? Why have the other Northern and Frey nobles gone along with this?

He is leaping to conclusion not backed up in the books. 

 

 

[The Sunland Lord]

You can ask the same question to everyone. If the Faceless Men justify the reputation, then why no one in the war hired them? They could've infiltrate and took out every important figure from the opposite sides. 

[Lord of Oldstones]

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

And she is clearly wrong, perhaps letting her bias over the people she loved go to her head. 

We know that Robb does always pick the most dangerous job, his plan for Moat Cailin is further evidence of this

 Once I link up with Lord Bolton and the Freys, I will have more than twelve thousandmen. I mean to divide them into three battles and start up the causeway a half-day apart. If the Greyjoys have eyes south of the Neck, they will see my whole strength rushing headlong at Moat Cailin.

"Roose Bolton will have the rearguard, while I command the center. Greatjon, you shall lead the van against Moat Cailin. Your attack must be so fierce that the ironborn have no leisure to wonder if anyone is creeping down on them from the north."

 

In this instance the Greatjon would have been given the most dangerous job, when it came to Roose and Robb's prospective roles the commander who was given the battle he was not expected to win was given the more dangerous job. 

 

 

5 to 1? Where do you get those numbers from? Jaime had 15k, (of which only 3k was cavalry.) Robb had 6,000 heavy horse after he left the Twins and was joined up by an unknown amount of Mallisters and other Riverland lords and soldiers who fled the battle of Riverrun as well as the walls of Riverrun and the remnants of Edmure's host.

On top of that he, thanks to the Blackfish, would be well aware that part of the Lannister host (4k) would not even be able to battle him thanks to the Rivers. 

And of course you are ignoring basic common sense. I soldier on foot is not equal to 1 heavy cavalry. Roose was hindered, 600 cavalry against 7,500 was always going to result in a defeat given his objectives. 

Sure they could, GRRM even has Tywin explain to the reader how he would have done so had his opponent been less cautious than Roose. 

lol no it was not. That is just ridiculous and shown by the books themselves. 

And of course Robb had his 40(?) guards to sacrifice themselves just in case things got a little out of hand for him. 

Yeah, he was. 

If you want to quote from the books all the orders and objectives Robb sent Roose, Edmure and Rodrik I would love to hear them. 

Robb was an inexperienced commander, he was not ready to rule at this level so there are very good and logical reasons why he messed up, but he did mess up. 

We saw the level of Robb's orders to Edmure. They were vague and clearly confusing to Edmure and the other Riverlords at Riverrun, some of whom were veterans of the two previous civil wars. 

Robb was 15 going on 16, him not being perfect is perfectly reasonable. But mistakes were made. 

Yes, just like Robb was the one who sent Roose to the Green Fork. Robb picked him because he was cautious and knew that he would not get pulled in and be vulnerable to a rout. Glover clearly did not have the same common sense. 

No one has claimed anything different. But Glover was still sent there and it was a disaster. 

No, I am not. I am judging him on the one battle we know he commanded. What battles in the series are you judging Glover on?

How many is heavy? How many did Tarly have to begin with? How many more of Glover's men were taken down by Gregor in the rout that followed the battle of Duskendale?

You do realise that Atwell is not the author, right? The author is this fella called George, and here is what he has to say on the battle of Green Fork

"And the best sword is the one that cuts both ways, he might tell you. Take the Battle of Green Fork. Had his night march taken Lord Tywin unawares and won the battle, he would have smashed the Lannisters and become the hero of the hour. While if it failed... well, you see what happened. The only way he could lose there would be if were captured or slain himself, and he did his best to minimize the chances of that."

There is simply no logical reason for Roose to deliberately try to lose that battle. Winning the battle is great for him, he becomes rich with the various ransoms, gets to bring his army home early with minimum losses. Losing puts his own life in jeopardy.

 

I get it, some of you Robb fans hate the fact that some of Robb's own actions hurt his chances of winning.  

 

edit: What on earth is Atwell talking about? 

 

How has he reached this conclusion? How do Tywin and Tyrion know that Bolton is leading the force if he and his men are not present?

How has he come up with the idea that much of the Northern army is not present? Why have the other Northern and Frey nobles gone along with this?

He is leaping to conclusion not backed up in the books. 

 

 

Roose literally sent Glover in a suicide mission.The Lannisters had already defeated Stannis with Tyrell as an Ally who were with Large force in KingsLanding.And Duskendale lies close to KingsLanding with strong walls.He sent Glover to Duskendale to weaken Northern force there is no reason not to believe he was already in negotiations with Tywin.

 

 

And to topic well Had Robb attacked Tywin he would be trapped in middle between Tywin’s force and Jamies’s.There was no other viable way than to surprise attack in Riverrun and until then avoid Tywin from knowing / marching there by deceiving him with large host.

[Chaircat Meow]

Man for man Tywin's army was superior to Robb's, because Tywin was unusually diligent in training his infantry during peacetime.

See GrrM's comment on the superiority of the Lannister infantry vs the Stark. 

So, even though Robb had more men he could well have lost a pitched battle against Tywin near Harrenhal. 

Also, it looked like Renly or Stannis  might finish Tywin off, so no reason to expose the Stark forces to him in one winner takes all engagement. 

[snow is the man]

I think robs mistake was not going after tywin AFTER he defeated jaime lannisters army. Tywin had pushed his forces to exhaustion and had already lost men in the previous battle and was on foreign soil. Robs forces could have rested for a day and then gone after tywin and had better numbers and well rested force with a high morale where as tywins forces seemed like they had the morale of a defeated army. And troop morale makes a difference. Rob could have won the war right there and yes it would have been a risk but not going in for the kill was stupid.

[Dorian Martell's son]

21 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

After he made his deal with House Frey, Robb commanded more men than Tywin did. He had many experienced veterans of Robert’s Rebellion with him, as well as Brynden “Blackfish” Tully as one of his top commanders. He stood more than a chance to not only defeat Tywin, but to maybe even capture or kill him. Robb would have crippled House Lannister completely. Even with Jaime in command at Riverrun, he’s got none of Tywin’s intellect or diplomatic skills, not then anyway. Tyrion would either be dead or a prisoner, leaving Cersei and Joffrey to screw everything up without supervision.

And don’t tell me that Tywin is invincible. Edmure Tully repelled his forces no problem with an outnumbered force facing Tywin himself and his best warriors and commanders. If Edmure could do it, Robb certainly could. It might have been bad for Edmure, given that he was a captive, but it Robb had been able to kill Tywin and all the men with him, it would have changed everything for the better. And even as captives, send Tywin and Tyrion north to White Harbour to be held a prisoner, see how fast the other Lannisters muck everything up.

It is called tactics. Splitting cavalry and infantry allowed him to move on riverrun fast, free those forces to fight with him while still engaging Tywin and forcing him to retreat to Harrenhal. With one royal army broken and another on retreat, Robb was able to raid the westerlands in the hope of Drawing Tywin in to fight on his own terms, something that Tywin refused to do. Robb won every battle, even the battle of the green fork, as it was a diversion that Tywin fell for 

[John Suburbs]

20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

No he didnt. He took the cream of the Northern army to surprise a 15k (and only 3k cavalry compared to the 7k that Tywin had) army pitched against someone else and who did not expect him to passed the Twins. It was not the more dangerous job. Had he failed he could have still rode to safety.  By contrast he gave Roose an 18k infantry against a 20k army that was better equipped and could have given chase and absolutely slaughtered Roose's running infantry. 

It was the more important mission, as it basically doubled his force but there simply is no way that it was the more dangerous mission. 

No, his mistake was allowing Roose to stand idle for half a year. Armies with no clear objectives is the bane of most Generals. 

Roose's caution saved thousands of Northern lives at the Green Fork, Tywin was upset that he only killed a 5th(?) of the Northern army as a less cautious commander would have fallen into his trap. The battle of Duskendale shows that Glover was more in the Greatjon mould than he was in the Bolton mould. 

 

He had less cavalry and in general a knight/armoured rider is worth far more in battle than most infantry. Robb did not like his chances against Twyin, he knew he needed more men and that relieving Riverrun was the way to go about that. 

Riverrun and the potential 20k that comes with it was Robb's objective. 

Plus, let's also consider the very real possibility that word could have gotten to Jaime pretty quickly that Robb's full host was marching down the Kings Road, so that by the time he reached Tywin's 20k, Jaime could have added another 10-12k.

[Fire Eater]

20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

And she is clearly wrong, perhaps letting her bias over the people she loved go to her head. 

We know that Robb does always pick the most dangerous job, his plan for Moat Cailin is further evidence of this

 Once I link up with Lord Bolton and the Freys, I will have more than twelve thousandmen. I mean to divide them into three battles and start up the causeway a half-day apart. If the Greyjoys have eyes south of the Neck, they will see my whole strength rushing headlong at Moat Cailin.

"Roose Bolton will have the rearguard, while I command the center. Greatjon, you shall lead the van against Moat Cailin. Your attack must be so fierce that the ironborn have no leisure to wonder if anyone is creeping down on them from the north."

 

In this instance the Greatjon would have been given the most dangerous job, when it came to Roose and Robb's prospective roles the commander who was given the battle he was not expected to win was given the more dangerous job. 

That's a completely different battle that absolutely doesn't fit  as analogy. Neither Tywin nor Jaime were in a fortress, but in the field. Robb's forces also clearly outnumbered the Ironborn while the Lannister forces outnumbered his. Robb picked the Greatjon for this given his job is to distract an enemy, and to put up a fierce fight, which actually suits the Greatjon. 

 

20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

5 to 1? Where do you get those numbers from? Jaime had 15k, (of which only 3k was cavalry.) Robb had 6,000 heavy horse after he left the Twins and was joined up by an unknown amount of Mallisters and other Riverland lords and soldiers who fled the battle of Riverrun as well as the walls of Riverrun and the remnants of Edmure's host.

On top of that he, thanks to the Blackfish, would be well aware that part of the Lannister host (4k) would not even be able to battle him thanks to the Rivers. 

And of course you are ignoring basic common sense. I soldier on foot is not equal to 1 heavy cavalry. Roose was hindered, 600 cavalry against 7,500 was always going to result in a defeat given his objectives. 

I mistook your number thinking the 3k referred to Robb's cavalry instead of Jaime's. Either way Robb was outnumbered more than 2 to 1, and 15,000 men is still 15,000. He would potentially be facing a shieldwall with twice as many infantry as Robb's forces that could withstand a cavalry charge with 3000 enemy cavalry to flank them. However, Robb played it smart. 

Common sense? Robb lead a cavalry charge against the infantry before the gates of Riverrun, and the Lannister infantry managed to hold off the cavalry until they're taken in the rear by Blackwood. A shieldwall can stop a cavalry charge, especially given the Lannisters as GRRM noted, have the best infantry.  

20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Sure they could, GRRM even has Tywin explain to the reader how he would have done so had his opponent been less cautious than Roose. 

That still would result in high casualties if the goal was to absolutely slaughter the Northern army. 

20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

lol no it was not. That is just ridiculous and shown by the books themselves. 

And of course Robb had his 40(?) guards to sacrifice themselves just in case things got a little out of hand for him. 

No, math and military realities as well as the books show otherwise. You're going against Cat's own words. Robb still was not immune to harm in battle even with guards as he was expected to fight. 

20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Yeah, he was. 

If you want to quote from the books all the orders and objectives Robb sent Roose, Edmure and Rodrik I would love to hear them. 

Robb was an inexperienced commander, he was not ready to rule at this level so there are very good and logical reasons why he messed up, but he did mess up. 

So you're saying Roose was just going to sit around doing nothing? Commanders are expected to do some on the ground thinking. Robb was focused on bringing Tywin west. 

His failures were political not military. 

20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Yes, just like Robb was the one who sent Roose to the Green Fork. Robb picked him because he was cautious and knew that he would not get pulled in and be vulnerable to a rout. Glover clearly did not have the same common sense. 

No one has claimed anything different. But Glover was still sent there and it was a disaster. 

No, I am not. I am judging him on the one battle we know he commanded. What battles in the series are you judging Glover on?

How many is heavy? How many did Tarly have to begin with? How many more of Glover's men were taken down by Gregor in the rout that followed the battle of Duskendale?

You're argument makes no sense. Glover was sent there following Roose's orders, and Roose purposely sent the Northern army to get destroyed knowing as he had thrown in with Tywin by then. 

It was a disaster, because Roose intended it. Glover wasn't expecting Tarly to attack him. The odds weren't in his favor in that battle, but against him since he was set up. He was pinned against the sea which is a bad position. Instead of getting pushed into the sea with his army destroyed a la the Fishfeed in the Dance of Dragons, he manages to get his forces out of there and inflict heavy casualties. This was also against Tarly "the finest soldier in the realm" who inflicted the only defeat on Robert in the Battle of Ashford using only his vangauard. That in and of itself is a feat. 

No numbers are given as to how many men were lost on Tarly's side. It also isn't given how many men Tarly had with him, but I am guessing as large as Glover's or larger. 

20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

You do realise that Atwell is not the author, right? The author is this fella called George, and here is what he has to say on the battle of Green Fork

"And the best sword is the one that cuts both ways, he might tell you. Take the Battle of Green Fork. Had his night march taken Lord Tywin unawares and won the battle, he would have smashed the Lannisters and become the hero of the hour. While if it failed... well, you see what happened. The only way he could lose there would be if were captured or slain himself, and he did his best to minimize the chances of that."

There is simply no logical reason for Roose to deliberately try to lose that battle. Winning the battle is great for him, he becomes rich with the various ransoms, gets to bring his army home early with minimum losses. Losing puts his own life in jeopardy.

 

I get it, some of you Robb fans hate the fact that some of Robb's own actions hurt his chances of winning.  

 

edit: What on earth is Atwell talking about?

Condescension is uncalled for. 

Atwell is an actual historian with knowledge of medieval warfare, politics, history and customs. He does re-reads of the chapters doing military and political analyses. That quote was from his analysis of the chapter showing the Battle of the Green Fork. 

Roose is weakening his rivals, and at the very least thinking of joining the Lannisters. They have more to offer than Robb could. 

I'm not a Robb fan.