Why didn’t Robb just focus on Tywin?

[Universal Sword Donor]

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

Roose likely has some heavy infanty, but clearly not all of them are going to be. 

And yet there was sense in what they said. This host her son had assembled was not a standing army such as the Free Cities were accustomed to maintain, nor a force of guardsmen paid in coin. Most of them were smallfolk: crofters, fieldhands, fishermen, sheepherders, the sons of innkeeps and traders and tanners, leavened with a smattering of sellswords and freeriders hungry for plunder. 

Love it when people bring this out:

Literally every infantryman in this northern/Frey we see has chainmail, a helmet, and heavy infantry weapon. Read this for a lot more information you're not including. This statement isn't wrong, it's just heavily misleading.

Some snippets:

 

The karstarks came in on a cold windy morning, bringing three hundred horsemen and near two thousand foot from their castle at karhold. The steel points of their pikes winked in the pale sunlight as the column approached.

 

Ser wylis and his brother ser wendel followed, leading their levies, near fifteen hundred men: some twenty odd knights and as many squires, two hundred mounted lances, swordsmen, and freeriders, and the rest foot armed with spears, pikes and tridents.

Behind her came ser jared frey, ser hosteen frey, ser danwell frey, and lord walders basterd son ronald rivers, leading a long column of pikemen, rank on rank of shuffling men in blue steel ringmail and silver grey cloaks...

The larger part of the northern host, pikes and archers and great masses of men at arms on foot, remained on the east bank under the command of roose bolton.

For comparison, here is what we know of Tywin's infantry:

 Between them pikemen formed squares, behind were rank on rank of men at arms with spear and sword and axe.

If you look at Stannis' troops, Renly's troops, and other various camps or groups of soldiers we see (eg gates, barbicans), pretty much all the infantry minus very specific examples is properly armed and armored according to Westerosi and medieval standards. Most of the infantry is going to be non-nobility. They would be small landowners as Cat mentioned or men furnished by a village with assembled arms and armor. The kind of service rendered was based on income or worth of property (varied by time and place).

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

If you truly think Robb had the more dangerous job than you are going to have to think of better reasons than this. 

I've never, ever said anything of the sort.

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

When they have had the proper training, equipment and experience. This was a rushed together army and then at the Twins it was split, there was little to no time for forward planning. 

That's completely untrue. See above. Also look at them marching in formation to drums, then moving into a charge when the drums change beat. Clearly these guys have gone through drill enough to move around. Even if it were true, why would you have untrained, ersatz soldiers charge at heavily armed and armored opponents who are well drilled and highly disciplined?

 Then even if that's not enough:

A crescent of enemy spearmen had formed ahead, a double hedgehog bristling with steel, waiting behind tall oaken shields marked with the sunburst of Karstak.

“suddenly the enemy was there before them, boiling over the tops of the hills, advancing with measured tread behind a wall of shields and pikes.”

Now what do the Lannister forces do when faced with heavy horse:

“Our spearmen formed up a shieldwall and held against their first charge, but when the Tullys saw them engaged, they opened the gates of Riverrun and Tytos Blackwood led a sortie across the drawbridge and took them in the rear.”

That's a pretty nifty move for men who have been doing no training. In reality these guys would have been drilled semi regularly anyway, if only to prove they still had the arms and armor they are required to have. 2/3 of the army also sat around WF for over two weeks. They weren't just sleeping and eating. They would be drilling and it's similar to what they would have been doing at MC too.

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

Citation? We have no idea if Roose uses his archers. 

We know he has archers:

The larger part of the northern host, pikes and archers

We see the Lannisters deploy and use their archers:

His uncle would lead the center. Ser kevan had raised his standards above the kingsroad. Quivers hanging from their belts, the foot archers arrayed themselves into three long lines to east and west of the road, and stood calmly stringing their bows.

As the horns died away, a hissing filled the air, a vast flight of arrows arched up from his right, where the archers stood flanking the road. The northerners broke into a run, shouting as they came, but the lannister arrows fell on them like a hail, hundreds of arrows, thousands, and shouts turned to screams as men stumbled and went down. By then a second flight was in the air, and the archers were fitting a third arrow to their bowstrings.

If Roose had archers, and he did, common military doctrine would have him deploy his archers to ensure that his soldiers didn't get hit from distance if possible (ignoring he has heavy infantry charge). 

The next mention of archers we get: 

A flight of arrows descended on them, were they came from he could not say, but they fell on stark and lannister alike, rattling off armor or finding flesh. Tyrion lifted his shield and hid beneath it. 

We don't know where that came from, nor does Tyrion. It could be northern archers. It could be Tywin's archers. Given that Tywin, ya know, deploys his archers in an effective way, I'd hope it was him.

So once again this comes back to Roose's desire to undermine his neighbors and increase his power/influence OR he's incompent:

1) Uses heavy infantry to attack heavy cavalry instead of defend against it

2) Either didn't deploy his archers, deployed them in a way that's completely ineffectual, or used them when his troops were in the line of fire

I won't even rehash the other points. People have analyzed Roose and the GF and other actions to death. Ned never trusted him, according to Jon. The author himself says he looks out for #1 and he's keeping his options open. Why some people think he couldn't have been doing at GF is beyond me. Just because he accomplished what Robb wanted doesn't mean he had to do it the most efficient or best way possible. A 70 average will let you graduate but it doesn't mean that it's the same accomplishment as graduating as valedictorian. 

I'll leave some other interesting reading here, including a breakdown of the battle by a few other fans who've read a bit of medieval history:

https://warsandpoliticsoficeandfire.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/early-evidence-of-roose-boltons-treason/

https://warsandpoliticsoficeandfire.wordpress.com/2013/10/26/wins-and-losses-a-command-analysis-of-tywin-lannister-part-2-the-proud-lord/

[Universal Sword Donor]

2 hours ago, Kandrax said:

One advice for all of you. Don't use Charles Osman when you are talking about medieval warfare.

I'll be honest I don't even know who that is. Even a googling didn't bring anything up. Most of what I've read is is PhD work from the last 30 years or so with some nifty little books elsewhere.

[Bernie Mac]

2 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Love it when people bring this out:

Cool. It is an important quote from the books. 

Here is another important quote, this one straigt from the author

GRRM: Infantry outnumbered cavalry by a considerable margin, but for the most part we are talking about feudal levies and peasant militia, with little discipline and less training. Although some lords do better than others. Tywin Lannister's infantry was notoriously well disciplined

 

2 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Literally every infantryman in this northern/Frey we see has chainmail, a helmet, and heavy infantry weapon. Read this for a lot more information you're not including.

How many men have we seen? Do you have more than dozen samples? Love to hear them and their rank as I imagine the soldiers surrounding Roose are not got going to be a reflection of the entire force. Your quotes don't seem to prove anything nor do they contradict Cat or the author's own take on militia. 

2 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

 

 

If you look at Stannis' troops, Renly's troops

Why would we? We are talking about a specific battle, the battle of the Green Fork. None of Renly or Stannis' troops were there. 

I get that you are grasping at straws and need to add something, but please focus on the present subject. Thank You. 

2 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

I've never, ever said anything of the sort.

Excellent. Just wanted to clarify your position as you seem to have taken up Fire Eater's cause. 

2 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

That's completely untrue. See above.

No, it is mostly true, see GRRM's quote above. The majority of the Northern infantry are going to be poorly equipped and trained, especially in relation to Tywin's own force. 

2 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Also look at them marching in formation to drums, then moving into a charge when the drums change beat. Clearly these guys have gone through drill enough to move around.

Wow such training! 

2 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Even if it were true, why would you have untrained, ersatz soldiers charge at heavily armed and armored opponents who are well drilled and highly disciplined?

To keep Tywin engaged. Seems the primary reason why Robb sent Roose. Or, just to clarify, are you under the impression that Robb thought Roose would win?

2 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

 

That's a pretty nifty move for men who have been doing no training.

Who said anything about zero training? 

And to clarify, as I was generalising, the majority will not have received much training, will be poorly equipped (in comparison to their enemy) and was rushed together. But some, Household guards etc. will have been more efficient and trained due to their peacetime occupation. But for the most part I stand by GRRM and Cat's assessment of the Northern host. 

 

3 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

 

We know he has archers:

I never claimed he had no archers, what I pointed out is that  there is zero northern pov in Roose's host. You have no idea if Roose utilised his archers. Tyrion for most of the battle is occupied on his own position and movements, he is not giving thorough details on every move the entire Northern army is making. GRRM is pretty keen on the Fog of War. 

3 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

We don't know where that came from, nor does Tyrion. It could be northern archers. It could be Tywin's archers. Given that Tywin, ya know, deploys his archers in an effective way, I'd hope it was him.

eh? So you admit even the one time Tyrion focuses on arrows, because they are raining down on him, we the reader do not know who fired them. How does this add any credence to your claim that Roose did not use any of the Northern archers? Come on, you have to be more reasonable than this. Not everything is mentioned. Just because something is not explicitly mentioned does not mean it did not happen. 

3 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

So once again this comes back to Roose's desire to undermine his neighbors and increase his power/influence OR he's incompent:

Once again what? You have not proven anything regarding the archers. Do you really not understand what evidence is?

3 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

1) Uses heavy infantry to attack heavy cavalry instead of defend against it

2) Either didn't deploy his archers, deployed them in a way that's completely ineffectual, or used them when his troops were in the line of fire

1) Defend what? What is he supposed to defend? Describe the battlefield, the access the hills had, the vulnerable potions, the state of the weather and the previous days weather. 

We know very little on the subject and here you are jumping to conclusions because you want to prove a theory. 

2) And you know this how? Any real historian would admit that a few paragraphs from one man in a battle is not enough to determine if the opposite commander was trying to deliberately lose.

• Especially when Tyrion or Tywin himself never thinks it, never considers that Roose was trying to throw the battle, are actually frustrated that they did not have a more comprehensive victory
• That the Freys and Northern nobles who were captured think there was anything suspicious about his leadership
• That the Blackfish (and his network of outriders)and the other nobles find nothing strange about the battle 
• Or that Robb, who wanted answers from Glover and Edmure for their battles, had no such problems with Roose losing a 5th of his host

3 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

 

I won't even rehash the other points. People have analyzed Roose and the GF and other actions to death. Ned never trusted him, according to Jon. The author himself says he looks out for #1 and he's keeping his options open. Why some people think he couldn't have been doing at GF is beyond me.

Yes, looking out for yourself does not mean you are betraying someone. There is a clear difference. 

[Universal Sword Donor]

30 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Cool. It is an important quote from the books. 

Here is another important quote, this one straigt from the author

GRRM: Infantry outnumbered cavalry by a considerable margin, but for the most part we are talking about feudal levies and peasant militia, with little discipline and less training. Although some lords do better than others. Tywin Lannister's infantry was notoriously well disciplined

How many men have we seen? Do you have more than dozen samples? Love to hear them and their rank as I imagine the soldiers surrounding Roose are not got going to be a reflection of the entire force. Your quotes don't seem to prove anything nor do they contradict Cat or the author's own take on militia. 

Thousands for sure. We see the karstark men and the frey men. Care to cite anything where someone says "They are untrained?"

I mean I literally showed you the quote from a Lannister messenger saying the Lannister levies formed a shield wall against and they are "notoriously well-disciplined." The stark forces marched over hills together in a shield wall, and then we have the Karstarks forming specific formations while under arrow fire after they charged.

Cat's take on the levy (not militia) is not incorrect. It just has nothing to do with how much training those men do nor their equipment. We see their equipment. We see how they deploy (the same or better as Tywin's notoriously well-disciplined men).

30 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Why would we? We are talking about a specific battle, the battle of the Green Fork. None of Renly or Stannis' troops were there. 

Point of reference. If Stannis' men, Renly's men, Robb's men, and Tywin's men are all armed and armored similarly, then it proves my point even more. 

30 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

I get that you are grasping at straws and need to add something, but please focus on the present subject. Thank You. 

Apparently points of reference, or what is commonly known as 'supporting information,' is not important to you. But for reference:

I took that trend considerably further in Westeros, and felt free to mix armor styles from several different periods. You will also note that Westerosi armor tends to "later" styles as you go south.

So we have the author telling us armor gets better (plate > mail) as you go south, but the infantry wears the same stuff all over the 7K. It's almost as if nearly all the infantry we see is well armed and armored.

30 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Excellent. Just wanted to clarify your position as you seem to have taken up Fire Eater's cause. 

No you clearly projected a viewpoint onto my posts in a rather clumsy, hamfisted way.

30 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

No, it is mostly true, see GRRM's quote above. The majority of the Northern infantry are going to be poorly equipped and trained, especially in relation to Tywin's own force. 

Yet they aren't. He's writing from a historical English perspective, when men of certain incomes were expected to bring a haubergon, infantry arms, cap, and more if hey had more property. And they acted the same when deployed in combat. I don't know what more you want.

30 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Wow such training! 

They are literally moving and deploying the same way the Lannister troops did. Are they not notoriously well disciplined?

30 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

To keep Tywin engaged. Seems the primary reason why Robb sent Roose. Or, just to clarify, are you under the impression that Robb thought Roose would win?

He could have done anything from lose spectacularly to draw Tywin north without ever having fought a pitched battle, thereby saving 5k-7k soldiers for future fighting.

30 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Who said anything about zero training? 

You said poorly trained. Zero training, poorly trained. These guys have training and plenty of them are going to be veterans of RR and the GR. 

30 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

And to clarify, as I was generalising, the majority will not have received much training, will be poorly equipped (in comparison to their enemy) and was rushed together. But some, Household guards etc. will have been more efficient and trained due to their peacetime occupation. But for the most part I stand by GRRM and Cat's assessment of the Northern host. 

The training comes due when they march or sit around at WF or MC. Their yearly (or whatever) muster isn't going to be able to give them much but will teach them the basics. When soldiers gather together for a reason they train. This is true from ancient through medieval to modern times.

30 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

I never claimed he had no archers, what I pointed out is that  there is zero northern pov in Roose's host. You have no idea if Roose utilised his archers. Tyrion for most of the battle is occupied on his own position and movements, he is not giving thorough details on every move the entire Northern army is making. GRRM is pretty keen on the Fog of War. 

I don't know if Roose utilized his archers. I pointed out prevailing, intelligent military strategy, which Roose clearly didn't follow. Tyrion was watching the Archers when they fired. If they had been under fire he'd have noticed them in the 3 volleys he watched.

30 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

eh? So you admit even the one time Tyrion focuses on arrows, because they are raining down on him,

we the reader do not know who fired them. How does this add any credence to your claim that Roose did not use any of the Northern archers? Come on, you have to be more reasonable than this. Not everything is mentioned. Just because something is not explicitly mentioned does not mean it did not happen. 

Did you even read what I wrote. You clearly weren't reading the book. Tyrion watches his own archers fire three volleys (~30 seconds given historical pace). He later notices a large volley of arrows fall on his flank. Either Tywin fired on his own son or Roose fired on his own troops. Take your pick?

30 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Once again what? You have not proven anything regarding the archers. Do you really not understand what evidence is?

Yes you clearly don't like applying contemporary military strategy (Which tywin uses to win) to the pretty plain text we have.

30 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

1) Defend what? What is he supposed to defend? Describe the battlefield, the access the hills had, the vulnerable potions, the state of the weather and the previous days weather. 

They have hilltops which is ever broken terrain or preceded by broken terrain, which is basically gold for infantry. They can hold a shield wall stationary against cavalry which has to march through broken terrain and charge uphill. That's a force multiplier times who knows, maybe even as much as Tywin's fond of quoting: 'A man on a wall is worth ten below."

30 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

We know very little on the subject and here you are jumping to conclusions because you want to prove a theory. 

I'm not proving anything. I'm laying out several options and you are using head canon and a poor misunderstanding of the text and history to support yours.

30 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

2) And you know this how? Any real historian would admit that a few paragraphs from one man in a battle is not enough to determine if the opposite commander was trying to deliberately lose.

• Especially when Tyrion or Tywin himself never thinks it, never considers that Roose was trying to throw the battle, are actually frustrated that they did not have a more comprehensive victory
• That the Freys and Northern nobles who were captured think there was anything suspicious about his leadership
• That the Blackfish (and his network of outriders)and the other nobles find nothing strange about the battle 
• Or that Robb, who wanted answers from Glover and Edmure for their battles, had no such problems with Roose losing a 5th of his host

If they were deployed in the center and engaging first, Tywin's archers would have come under fire. They did not

If he deployed them elsewhere, it's against prevailing (successful) military strategy. Just ask Tywin

If Tywin's men didn't fire those arrows, it had to be Roose's men. I doubt there was a rogue company of archer trolls trying to do that

30 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Yes, looking out for yourself does not mean you are betraying someone. There is a clear difference. 

That's why I never said Roose betrayed Robb at the GF. Please just read some military history books. That thread I gave you about the armor is quoting canon and tying it into history. It's amazing how much I learned by diving into those threads and history books.

[Kandrax]

7 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

I'll be honest I don't even know who that is. Even a googling didn't bring anything up. Most of what I've read is is PhD work from the last 30 years or so with some nifty little books elsewhere.

Actually, it's Oman. He is nineteen century historian who had written about medieval warfare. His work is now outdated, yet Hollywood seems to still use it for medieval battles.

[Bernie Mac]

5 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Thousands for sure. We see the karstark men and the frey men. Care to cite anything where someone says "They are untrained?"

Why is "they are untrained" in quotation marks? Not once have I said that. It would be nice if you actually argued with words I have said rather than what you think I have said. This is not the first time this has happened in a discussion I have had on this forum. I had to reread every post I had made in this thread to make sure (which seems a harsh and vindictive punishment). 

I have been pretty clear, I have stated they were rushed together and poorly trained in comparison with the men with Robb (the mounted cavalry of the North) and in comparison with Tywin's forces (in particular his 7,500 cavalry). I am going to repeat the author's quote on the matter as it is very relevant. 

GRRM: Infantry outnumbered cavalry by a considerable margin, but for the most part we are talking about feudal levies and peasant militia, with little discipline and less training. Although some lords do better than others. Tywin Lannister's infantry was notoriously well disciplined

I'd also add that Cat's quote backs this up as does the militia we see raised in the Sworn Sword and, perhaps the greatest speech in the series, Meribald's monologue

Almost all are common-born, simple folk who had never been more than a mile from the house where they were born until the day some lord came round to take them off to war. Poorly shod and poorly clad, they march away beneath his banners, ofttimes with no better arms than a sickle or a sharpened hoe, or a maul they made themselves by lashing a stone to a stick with strips of hide. Brothers march with brothers, sons with fathers, friends with friends.

I think there are enough examples to say that GRRM has made his thoughts clear on the strengths and training of the majority of the infantry seen in the series. They, for the most part, are poorly trained and poorly equipped when compared to the cavalry, who are going to have superior equipment and training. 

When Robb split his forces up he took with him the best of the North and the Twins both in terms of training and equipment and gave Roose the worst trained and equipped part of the North and the Twins. And he chose to take on Jaime, who not had less than half the cavalry that Robb and his father had. 

Quote

I mean I literally showed you the quote from a Lannister messenger saying the Lannister levies formed a shield wall against and they are "notoriously well-disciplined." The stark forces marched over hills together in a shield wall, and then we have the Karstarks forming specific formations while under arrow fire after they charged.

I have zero idea what you are trying to say here as you wrongly have quoted something I have not said. You are arguing against an opinion I do not share, I have not claimed they have had zero training. 

And in fairness I have done the same to you, presumed that you share the same opinion as Fire Eater as you have replied to posts I have made to him. Neither of us are without blame on this, but arguing points that we think the other person has said is only going to send us down a pointless rabbit hole. 

To clarify, my opinion, based on the GRRM quote I have used twice in this thread, is that the infantry is poorly trained compared to the superior cavalry. My thoughts on the infantry is backed up in the Sworn Sword, Cat and Meribald. 

Quote

Cat's take on the levy (not militia) is not incorrect. It just has nothing to do with how much training those men do nor their equipment. We see their equipment. We see how they deploy (the same or better as Tywin's notoriously well-disciplined men).

How do they deploy better? They were beaten when Roose was in charge and destroyed when a less cautious Glover lead a portion of them. I don't think we have seen a Northern infantry unit score a win in the series as Rodrik's host was beaten by Ramsay's (presumably) horsed force, Harrenhal was taken by the Bloody Mummers while Edmure's victory over Tywin was done with Roose's force in reserve. Even historically Roddy the Ruin's force was more famed for their  kamikaze style of battle rather than discipline. 

Quote

Point of reference. If Stannis' men, Renly's men, Robb's men, and Tywin's men are all armed and armored similarly, then it proves my point even more. 

And you seem to have been missing the point of the discussion I have been having with Fire Eater. 

Stannis', Renly, Robb and Tywin's infantry may all well be similarly armed and armoured but in general their infantry has inferior armour and training compared to the cavalry units. 

Tywin has 7,500 cavalry and GRRM points out that Tywin's infantry is more disciplined than his peers. Roose was at a huge disadvantage. 

Quote

Apparently points of reference, or what is commonly known as 'supporting information,' is not important to you. But for reference:

I took that trend considerably further in Westeros, and felt free to mix armor styles from several different periods. You will also note that Westerosi armor tends to "later" styles as you go south.

So we have the author telling us armor gets better (plate > mail) as you go south, but the infantry wears the same stuff all over the 7K. It's almost as if nearly all the infantry we see is well armed and armored.

But not compared to the cavalry, which the author is very, very clear on. 

 

6 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

 

No you clearly projected a viewpoint onto my posts in a rather clumsy, hamfisted way.

Fuck me, you made up a quote I didnt say. None of us are perfect, I at least tried to clarify your position rather than continue going in circles. 

6 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

He could have done anything from lose spectacularly to draw Tywin north without ever having fought a pitched battle, thereby saving 5k-7k soldiers for future fighting.

Could he? So why didnt he? Why is Robb and the Blackfish not more angry? Why is Glover, the Freys and all the other Nobles not pissed? Why is it that Tywin and Tyrion, two sneaky bastards, are not suspicious of why it was so easy?

Why is it that the people who live in Westeros, experienced this battle first hand, saw Roose's orders, actions and deployments have not came to the same conclusion that you have from a couple of paragraphs?

Can you not see that we don't have anywhere near enough information on the battle, the layabout of the area, the conditions to properly determine if it was a betrayal from the few paragraphs we have read from Tyrion's chapter?

Had Roose not actually betrayed Robb at the Red Wedding no one would be talking about the Green Fork as a betrayal. 

6 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

You said poorly trained. Zero training, poorly trained.

Which mean completely different things. A poorly trained doctor is still a doctor. 

I was having a very clear discussion with FireEater on the subject of Robb;s force and Rooses force and that was were poorly trained came in. Now either you had been following the discussion and would have known that or, more likely, you got a little pissy with me for replying to you in the Twin's thread and decided to start an argument without following the discussion. 

6 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

 

These guys have training and plenty of them are going to be veterans of RR and the GR. 

Who in this thread has claimed that they had zero training or that none of them were veterans. 

Is this how you conduct every argument? 

6 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

I don't know if Roose utilized his archers

Exactly, more bupkis. 

6 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

.

They have hilltops which is ever broken terrain or preceded by broken terrain, which is basically gold for infantry. 

Basically? Why don;t you quote everything we know about the terrain, the ease of access from all direction on to the hilltops, the suitability that those hilltops could actually defend the Northmen from all sides. 

You are basing your 'evidence' on a few words about the area. Claiming with certainty that what Roose did was wrong. Why do none of the characters come to this conclusion, the ones with a better view and understanding of the battle field? Are they all braindead? These men, who you have gone to great lengths to argue have been trained ( which no one has claimed otherwise) could not spot the same thing you, Atwell and others have been able to determine on a few words?

6 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

I'm not proving anything. 

Well on that we agree on. 

 

[Universal Sword Donor]

You know what. I am not even gonna come close to convincing someone who doesn't read closely and lacks pretty much context that GRRM is drawing from, let alone someone who wont won't compare to direct quotes involving the same types of characters.

 @Bernie Mac, enjoy your version of the books.

Last words: Take a very very close look at what the northern infantry use and what the peasants in TSS and Septon Meribalds speech go to war with. Or don't. A skimming will show you what I mean. 

Seriously, just read this. You clearly haven't.

[Corvo the Crow]

Can't give quotes now but to correct some things;

Ser Osgrey, who was on the losing side of a rebellion and got punished for it, says he will(or may, whatever) find some bits of armor for his levies once they are ready and Eustace would be the poorest of the poor among land owners both due to punishment and neglecting the land. We alo clearly see his levy get some training in that very short span of time. Think how much training troops would get if it takes them weeks just to leave home territory.

So even if you mass as many untrained peasants as possible, by the time they reach the field there will be enough drills they would be considered properly trained. And unless you are piss poor they'll at least be decently equipped, that is unless you want them to be something besides arrow fodder.

The ill equipped and discipline lacking wildling men were exactly that in Stannis' eyes and these are, in the eyes of 7K people, savage fighters.

If Roose had arrow fodder class infantry Tyrion would have seen them instead of well disciplined pike men marching to the beating of drums behind tall shields.

[Universal Sword Donor]

2 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Can't give quotes now but to correct some things;

Ser Osgrey, who was on the losing side of a rebellion and got punished for it, says he will(or may, whatever) find some bits of armor for his levies once they are ready and Eustace would be the poorest of the poor among land owners both due to punishment and neglecting the land. We alo clearly see his levy get some training in that very short span of time. Think how much training troops would get if it takes them weeks just to leave home territory.

So even if you mass as many untrained peasants as possible, by the time they reach the field there will be enough drills they would be considered properly trained. And unless you are piss poor they'll at least be decently equipped, that is unless you want them to be something besides arrow fodder.

The ill equipped and discipline lacking wildling men were exactly that in Stannis' eyes and these are, in the eyes of 7K people, savage fighters.

If Roose had arrow fodder class infantry Tyrion would have seen them instead of well disciplined pike men marching to the beating of drums behind tall shields.

Don't even try. He's reading his own books. When northern infantry and Tywin's well-disciplined infantry do the same thing, it's just evidence of the notherners being poorly trained and armed. Obviously

[Bernie Mac]

17 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

You know what. I am not even gonna come close to convincing someone who doesn't read closely and lacks pretty much context that GRRM is drawing from, let alone someone who wont won't compare to direct quotes involving the same types of characters.

I don't even think you are aware of the point I am trying to make. 

Infantry, in general. have inferior training to their cavalry counterparts. That is something GRRM is quite clear on. 

GRRM: Infantry outnumbered cavalry by a considerable margin, but for the most part we are talking about feudal levies and peasant militia, with little discipline and less training. Although some lords do better than others. Tywin Lannister's infantry was notoriously well disciplined

Robb split his forces up, the best trained and equipped went with him, and the worst trained and equipped went with Roose, 

At no point have I said that the Infantry have had zero training like you claimed I had. You have been arguing against something that has never been said. 

 

[Universal Sword Donor]

8 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

I don't even think you are aware of the point I am trying to make. 

Infantry, in general. have inferior training to their cavalry counterparts. That is something GRRM is quite clear on. 

GRRM: Infantry outnumbered cavalry by a considerable margin, but for the most part we are talking about feudal levies and peasant militia, with little discipline and less training. Although some lords do better than others. Tywin Lannister's infantry was notoriously well disciplined

Robb split his forces up, the best trained and equipped went with him, and the worst trained and equipped went with Roose, 

At no point have I said that the Infantry have had zero training like you claimed I had. You have been arguing against something that has never been said. 

I agreed with you re the cavalry. I was disagreeing with your assertion that TSS and Septon Meribald's speech have any relevance in what we see among the northern infantry, who clearly are heads and shoulders above anything we see in those stories. And it doesn't take as much training as the heavy horse will get to hold a shield wall or pike formation defensively, which is why training would take a backseat in a conversation about heavy cavalry charging heavy infantry.

[Bernie Mac]

21 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

I agreed with you re the cavalry. I was disagreeing with your assertion that TSS and Septon Meribald's speech have any relevance in what we see among the northern infantry,

They have relevance to every infantry we see in the series. 

21 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

 

who clearly are heads and shoulders above anything we see in those stories.

lol that is ridiculous. Head and shoulders above? They were soundly defeated in every battle we have seen them in the War of the Five Kings. Obviously there are mitigating factors in this but the idea they are head and shoulders above everyone else borders on delusional. 

 

[Universal Sword Donor]

19 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

They have relevance to every infantry we see in the series. 

lol that is ridiculous. Head and shoulders above? They were soundly defeated in every battle we have seen them in the War of the Five Kings. Obviously there are mitigating factors in this but the idea they are head and shoulders above everyone else borders on delusional. 

Just because someone loses doesn't mean they are awful at their job.

You clearly either haven't read those passages in detail or just lack the critical reasoning to make the comparison.

There is literally no comparing the northern infantry to what we see in Septon Meribald's description or in the TSS. The fact you have apparently no background in medieval warfare is only aggravating that. The difference between the what the book says on those groups is night and day.

[Bernie Mac]

5 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Just because someone loses doesn't mean they are awful at their job.

Again, making accusations that I have not made. I have actually argued that Roose did well too keep losses down, so I have no idea where you are getting the idea that I have said that losing makes you awful at your job. 

You claimed that the Northern infantry were "head and shoulders above anything we see in these stories", that is what I found ridiculous. Not agreeing with your assertion that they are the best does not mean that I think they are awful at their job. 

5 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

You clearly either haven't read those passages in detail or just lack the critical reasoning to make the comparison.

lol a personal insult from someone who has not even responded to what I have said and rather made up their own arguments. If you are jumping to false accusations to my replies it is more than possible you are doing the same with the text. 

 

5 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

There is literally no comparing the northern infantry to what we see in Septon Meribald's description or in the TSS.

Yeah, there is. That is what most of these infantries are going to be (in all armies), poor schmucks quickly assembled with a smattering of well trained men at arms with them. Not only do we have GRRM telling us that directly, but we have the Cat quote, the Meribald speech and the evidence from TSS. 

5 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

The fact you have apparently no background in medieval warfare is only aggravating that.

You do realise this is a fictional universe, right? GRRM has been very clear on the soldiers in an infantry, I have quoted him. You are confusing real life with this fictional universe. No need to get salty about it. 

 

[cpg2016]

On 3/9/2018 at 4:36 AM, Bernie Mac said:

At no point have I said that the Infantry have had zero training like you claimed I had. You have been arguing against something that has never been said. 

 

This often is not true.  Because cavalry are often noblemen, who are more interested in seeking glory than in maintaining discipline.  Additionally, the kind of cavalry we're talking about (heavily armored knights) have little use after the first moments of the battle; they'd be used to disrupt an enemy formation and cause a rout, and afterwards would function more as just a mobile soldier.  Those horses and destriers don't run very fast with an armored man on top.  History is replete with examples of cavalry going haring off to pursue a "defeated" enemy or plunder a camp.  This is also true of infantry, of course, but it happens to both.  The difference is in the type of breakdown in discipline.  Tywin Lannister's "regulars" if you will (his household guards) will likely be very well trained men-at-arms, who are more obedient to orders and more traditionally disciplined than most cavalry.

Also, I could not disagree more about Roose.  No, he doesn't "betray" Robb, but it's very obvious that even at this point, he's using his command position to weaken his rivals.  Even in the context of Robb winning the entire war it benefits him.  It's not a coincidence that most of the men captured at the Green Fork are Bolton rivals.  The entire strategy is obviously engineered to cause maximal damage to non-Bolton men, win or lose.

Think about his entire tactical deployment.  He goes for a night march and battle, guaranteeing that he'll have exhausted his troops, despite the fact that it's almost impossible to surprise Tywin, who is a very cautious commander in these respects.  It's why Roose chooses to attack into the Lannisters, instead of merely holding a superior position and harrying the enemy.  We can guess at what his orders were; to prevent Tywin from riding to the aid of Riverrun so that Robb can defeat Jaime, reunite with Roose, and then crush the rest of the Westerlands army in detail.  And yet, we see Roose committing to an attack with tired men, with non-Boltons leading the charge.  Just like Duskendale, the idea is that Roose will continue to gain in relative strength to his peers, while hiding behind the veil of plausible deniability.  If Robb wins his war, awesome: Roose is now the #1 vassal, since he has taken the fewest losses.  If Robb loses, then Roose is best positioned to capitalize on the power vacuum in the North.  We see him also do this with Ramsay taking the Hornwood lands by force.

[Universal Sword Donor]

Don't bother cpg2016. He takes evidence of Robb's infantry doing the same exact maneuvers as Tywin's infantry in battle as evidence they are poorly trained quoting GRRM saying Tywin's infantry is "notoriously well disciplined."

[Bernie Mac]

34 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Don't bother cpg2016. He takes evidence of Robb's infantry doing the same exact maneuvers as Tywin's infantry in battle as evidence they are poorly trained quoting GRRM saying Tywin's infantry is "notoriously well disciplined."

lol who pissed in your cornflakes?

 

2 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

This often is not true.  Because cavalry are often noblemen, who are more interested in seeking glory than in maintaining discipline. 

In real history you may well be right. This is not real history though, so when GRRM states that in his fictional world

GRRM: Infantry outnumbered cavalry by a considerable margin, but for the most part we are talking about feudal levies and peasant militia, with little discipline and less training. Although some lords do better than others. Tywin Lannister's infantry was notoriously well disciplined

we should take him at his word. GRRM may have wanted to mirror real history but his knowledge on the matter may not be as good as yours on the subject. 

 

[Chaircat Meow]

I have to say I agree with Bernie Mac on the question of the discipline/training of westerosi infantry. The author has said in no uncertain terms that the bulk of the westerosi infantry are poorly trained and lacking in discipline and singled out Tywin's forces as the exception. You can't just write this off because it doesn't square with your views of medieval warfare. Same goes for the Meribald speech.  

[Universal Sword Donor]

24 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I have to say I agree with Bernie Mac on the question of the discipline/training of westerosi infantry. The author has said in no uncertain terms that the bulk of the westerosi infantry are poorly trained and lacking in discipline and singled out Tywin's forces as the exception. You can't just write this off because it doesn't square with your views of medieval warfare. Same goes for the Meribald speech.  

You can when the infantry from the northern army and Tywin's army perform the exact same maneuvers in battle. Hell Tywin's infantry even perform the same (or worse if you take into account the arrows and actual usage in battle). 

As for Septon Meribald or TSS, just list out what you see those guys do for training and what they have to fight with. Then contrast that with what we see in every single sequence we see with Tywin and Robb's armies, specifically the infantry.

[Chaircat Meow]

4 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

You can when the infantry from the northern army and Tywin's army perform the exact same maneuvers in battle. Hell Tywin's infantry even perform the same (or worse if you take into account the arrows and actual usage in battle). 

As for Septon Meribald or TSS, just list out what you see those guys do for training and what they have to fight with. Then contrast that with what we see in every single sequence we see with Tywin and Robb's armies, specifically the infantry.

You can't you judge how well disciplined he infantry were from the battle of the Green Fork as there is not enough detail provided there. And certainly not enough to conclude the northern infantry were as well disciplined as Tywin's, which contradicts the author's own statements.

Not everyone fits the description of a farmboy with a hoe but it gets across the idea that much of the infantry is not well armed, trained or disciplined.

I don't think the two armies did perform the exact same manoeuvres either. The northerners advanced and stood to receive a cavalry charge (in Tyrion's part of the battlefield) while Tywin expected Kevan's infantry to wheel during the battle and catch the troops the Starks were supposed to commit to exploit the crumbling Lannister left. As it happened they never did but I think you can see from that that the Lannisters were capable of  sophisticated manoeuvres.