Frey Kings Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 You know I never understood why Lords and their heirs fight in Wars when they are absolutely horrible and could easily backfire for their side. Case in point: The two Manderly Brothers. Boosting their troops morale and giving counsel is one thing but what on earth are you doing on the battlefield? The Karstarks were better fighters I assume. But not as formidable as the Dustins. Rhaegar was not a great fighter and when he was faced off with Robert, but the rebels have won with their Prince slain. Summary: Why do Lords and their Heirs who are most likely suck at fighting doing on the battlefield when they end up being a liability and most likely end up getting captured or killed? Argument: There is a argument to be made, Lyn Corbray outshine everyone as soon as his father fell and was tended by his older brother. Which IMO.... Gave Lyn a clearer head and mayhaps some weight lifted off his shoulders so he can concentrate and fight hard and slay the stinky dornishmen and not worry about his kin. (Assuming his family were sh!tty fighters and Lyn actual cared about them). I understand that some want to chase glory or go out fighting so they dont have live to 104 & let their heir rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Three-Fingered Pete Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 It's because GRRM is emulating a high medieval culture and back then the leader led from the front to inspire the men and show that they were worthy of respect and command. In real history I don't think it was until the 16th century or so that it went out of fashion, but I'd have to look it up to be sure. It did lead to many tragic endings. The Battle of Hastings comes to mind. Even Tyrion, who had no business being on a battlefield, knew the importance of this symbolism. To my recollection, only Tywin manages to lead from the rear and still reap the rewards and respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 This is something hard to relate to, but in the feudal era this series is based off of, with how crazy religious people were, their mentality might be that if this lord and or his heir should fall, then god willed it, and the survivors will have to adapt. the Westorosi could have a similar outlook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frey Kings Posted July 26, 2018 Author Share Posted July 26, 2018 Medieval Battles can last forever, its exhausting, its noisy, it could get confusing, good chance you won't be able to hear the commands as the fighting goes on, cramps & muscle stiffness, no time outs, no lunch breaks, no water breaks, can't dive to get a penalty kick, no safe zones to get a band-aid, Sounds lovely to be stuck in the middle of a area with thousands of people trying to kill each other! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foot_Of_The_King Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 It’s a very martial society. It’s what’s to be excepted. And yes, it is easier to fight for a man when he is fighting along side you. Look at the Blackwater when Jof left the battlements. There’s a lot of truth to the whole “the side that breaks first looses.” I get what the OP is saying. From a pragmatic view, it’s completely stupid to have a lord or heir on the front lines but culture, society, and tradition made the rules here. 1 hour ago, Trefayne said: To my recollection, only Tywin manages to lead from the rear and still reap the rewards and respect. Also Stannis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Three-Fingered Pete Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 59 minutes ago, Frey Kings said: Medieval Battles can last forever, its exhausting, its noisy, it could get confusing, good chance you won't be able to hear the commands as the fighting goes on, cramps & muscle stiffness, no time outs, no lunch breaks, no water breaks, can't dive to get a penalty kick, no safe zones to get a band-aid, Sounds lovely to be stuck in the middle of a area with thousands of people trying to kill each other! Medieval sieges could last a very long time if the castle had good supplies and fresh water available, but most battles were rather short in comparison. An average battle wouldn't last more than a few hours, although there are notable exceptions. That isn't to say that a small campaign might not include several skirmishes in a single or nearby locations over many days, but generally, when it got dark the fighting stopped for the day. Hearing on the battlefield is difficult, which is why they had trumpeters to blow out signals, a system that lasted through the 19th and early 20th centuries and was last used for the cavalry in WWI. They also used signal banners and flags to communicate commands. They did get breaks during long battles if there wasn't too much urgency and if they had the troops. They would rotate in fresh men and bring others off the field for dressing wounds and a rest. That being said, a medieval training regimen dictated that one should be able to run at least one mile in full armor and not be too tired to fight afterward. Battlefields were generally picked well in advance if it could be helped. Both sides wanted a position that they felt favored, or at least, didn't disfavor them. Most battles weren't that mobile and camps were set up to handle the wounded and other logistics. A favorite tactic was to sneak around and attack the camp from behind when the troops were elsewhere. As far as the cramps and muscle stiffness? I can readily attest to that. I have been going to renaissance faires for over twenty-five years wearing various kinds of real, battle ready armor ranging from chainmail w/studded leather or ringmail over it to chain/w plate to full plate armor. After walking around for six hours or so with all that on there was nothing I wouldn't do to get it off! And I wasn't even swinging a sword. One thing I know for sure about that time period is that medieval knights had bad backs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Three-Fingered Pete Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 4 minutes ago, Foot_Of_The_King said: Also Stannis. True, but I think that's more fear. But that's still respect under the Machiavelli philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Hoare Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 4 hours ago, Frey Kings said: Summary: Why do Lords and their Heirs who are most likely suck at fighting doing on the battlefield when they end up being a liability and most likely end up getting captured or killed? Because their titles came from their ability to fight. Besides, it's really hard to die in a medieval war if you're wealthy enough to buy a good armour. Most lords are actualy much better warriors than the vast majority of peasants, considering that training to war is their foremost duty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Three-Fingered Pete Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 5 minutes ago, The Hoare said: Most lords are actualy much better warriors than the vast majority of peasants, considering that training to war is their foremost duty. Without a doubt. Training for a knight began at age seven and didn't stop until retirement. It takes years just to train a good warhorse, let alone the skills to ride and fight on one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kandrax Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 During medieval times, lords and kings (if not too young) were expected to fight alongside their man. Somewhere, i have read that, at least in France, this changed after capture of king Jean le Bon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corvo the Crow Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 Because if King Robert do not fight in battle, then Eddard, LP of North won't risk his neck, seeing Eddard not fighting, Howland also won't risk his neck and this will go down through the layers of nobility/land holders down to "the guy who raises five friends" do you think those five guys will fight if their friend won't? Also they don't suck, they get training starting from a very young age unlike the peasant levy, many guards and even some knights and men-at-arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Suburbs Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 15 hours ago, Frey Kings said: You know I never understood why Lords and their heirs fight in Wars when they are absolutely horrible and could easily backfire for their side. Case in point: The two Manderly Brothers. Boosting their troops morale and giving counsel is one thing but what on earth are you doing on the battlefield? The Karstarks were better fighters I assume. But not as formidable as the Dustins. Rhaegar was not a great fighter and when he was faced off with Robert, but the rebels have won with their Prince slain. Summary: Why do Lords and their Heirs who are most likely suck at fighting doing on the battlefield when they end up being a liability and most likely end up getting captured or killed? Argument: There is a argument to be made, Lyn Corbray outshine everyone as soon as his father fell and was tended by his older brother. Which IMO.... Gave Lyn a clearer head and mayhaps some weight lifted off his shoulders so he can concentrate and fight hard and slay the stinky dornishmen and not worry about his kin. (Assuming his family were sh!tty fighters and Lyn actual cared about them). I understand that some want to chase glory or go out fighting so they dont have live to 104 & let their heir rule. To not fight marks you as craven, and nobody, neither noble or smallfolk, respects or heeds a craven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Leftwich Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 Because that is how feudalism works, if you aren't fighting and administering a fief, what are you doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Melnibonean Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 16 hours ago, Frey Kings said: You know I never understood why Lords and their heirs fight in Wars when they are absolutely horrible and could easily backfire for their side. Case in point: The two Manderly Brothers. Boosting their troops morale and giving counsel is one thing but what on earth are you doing on the battlefield? The Karstarks were better fighters I assume. But not as formidable as the Dustins. Rhaegar was not a great fighter and when he was faced off with Robert, but the rebels have won with their Prince slain. Summary: Why do Lords and their Heirs who are most likely suck at fighting doing on the battlefield when they end up being a liability and most likely end up getting captured or killed? Argument: There is a argument to be made, Lyn Corbray outshine everyone as soon as his father fell and was tended by his older brother. Which IMO.... Gave Lyn a clearer head and mayhaps some weight lifted off his shoulders so he can concentrate and fight hard and slay the stinky dornishmen and not worry about his kin. (Assuming his family were sh!tty fighters and Lyn actual cared about them). I understand that some want to chase glory or go out fighting so they dont have live to 104 & let their heir rule. Because they have been trained from birth to do it. When the lord commands enough men to field maneuverable battles (ie a van, center, and rear), it would make eminent good sense for that lord to command the center or reserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frey Kings Posted July 28, 2018 Author Share Posted July 28, 2018 So basically if you fat and suck at fighting, you still expected to go get captured or die? jeez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmfn Posted July 28, 2018 Share Posted July 28, 2018 On 7/26/2018 at 1:45 PM, Trefayne said: True, but I think that's more fear. But that's still respect under the Machiavelli philosophy. Stannis is regarded as perhaps the top military commander in Westeros. Never lost a battle till the Blackwater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frey Kings Posted July 28, 2018 Author Share Posted July 28, 2018 7 minutes ago, dmfn said: Stannis is regarded as perhaps the top military commander in Westeros. Never lost a battle till the Blackwater. He didn't lose he just forgot he left his stove on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmfn Posted July 28, 2018 Share Posted July 28, 2018 On 7/26/2018 at 10:51 AM, Frey Kings said: Rhaegar was not a great fighter Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frey Kings Posted July 28, 2018 Author Share Posted July 28, 2018 Just now, dmfn said: Really? otherwise he would be alive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmfn Posted July 28, 2018 Share Posted July 28, 2018 3 minutes ago, Frey Kings said: otherwise he would be alive Rhaegar＜Robert＜a boar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.2f8ac830fe1925cfa7cdb55c61c273c6.png)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.