Explain to me why Lords and their heirs fight in battles?

[Three-Fingered Pete]

50 minutes ago, dmfn said:

Stannis is regarded as perhaps the top military commander in Westeros. Never lost a battle till the Blackwater.

... And possibly Winterfell. I believe the jury is still out on that, unless we are taking Ramsey's word for it. Anyone dopey and stubborn enough to go stomping around the North on the doorstep of winter should be regarded as well as another two "top" real world military commanders that fell prey to harsh winter weather.

[Three-Fingered Pete]

1 hour ago, Frey Kings said:

So basically if you fat and suck at fighting, you still expected to go get captured or die?

 

jeez

Or be passed over by your father like Sam Tarly. Or make excuses like Lord Manderly and pay others very well to do it for you.

[dmfn]

11 minutes ago, Trefayne said:

... And possibly Winterfell. I believe the jury is still out on that, unless we are taking Ramsey's word for it. Anyone dopey and stubborn enough to go stomping around the North on the doorstep of winter should be regarded as well as another two "top" real world military commanders that fell prey to harsh winter weather.

The WoW sample chapters seem to indicate the pink letter is false, but good point about the weather. 

Of course, it isn't like they can just wait six months in Westeros. May be snowing for ten years.

[Frey Kings]

1 hour ago, Trefayne said:

Or be passed over by your father like Sam Tarly. Or make excuses like Lord Manderly and pay others very well to do it for you.

I don't know if its a Northern thing. But Jaime slain half of the characters, while the other half got captured. But the Westerlands lords are a-okay.

 

wait what? 

[Frey Kings]

On 7/26/2018 at 1:38 AM, Foot_Of_The_King said:

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. 

Also Stannis.

 

On 7/26/2018 at 2:54 AM, The Hoare said:

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.

 

On 7/26/2018 at 3:02 AM, Trefayne said:

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.

 

On 7/26/2018 at 3:04 AM, Kandrax said:

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

 

On 7/26/2018 at 2:50 PM, John Suburbs said:

To not fight marks you as craven, and nobody, neither noble or smallfolk, respects or heeds a craven.

 

On 7/26/2018 at 2:54 PM, Ser Leftwich said:

Because that is how feudalism works, if you aren't fighting and administering a fief, what are you doing?

 

On 7/26/2018 at 3:19 PM, Lost Melnibonean said:

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. 

Yea these make sense.

They are trained to fight/command but they are also trained to rule. But they end up making valuable hostages that hurts their side. And also endangers your House with all your heirs out. And even the best can be slain. 

At what point where you are more of a liability than a asset?

[SeanF]

Your soldiers will fight better for you if they know you are present on the battlefield.  A commander doesn't necessarily have to fight in the front line, but many choose to, the better to inspire their men.

Also, a lord will be well-armoured, and have a good ransom value, so that the risks of dying are less than those of a common soldier.

[Lost Melnibonean]

7 hours ago, Frey Kings said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea these make sense.

They are trained to fight/command but they are also trained to rule. But they end up making valuable hostages that hurts their side. And also endangers your House with all your heirs out. And even the best can be slain. 

At what point where you are more of a liability than a asset?

Men don't go to war believing they will be killed or captured. They either go in a desperate gamble to protect what's theirs, or confident that they will win, killing and capturing the other guy. Under either assumption, the lord should lead his forces since he should be one of the most skilled fighters, and since he will likely need to make battlefield decisions that will shape the outcome of the fighting. 

[John Suburbs]

9 hours ago, Frey Kings said:

Yea these make sense.

They are trained to fight/command but they are also trained to rule. But they end up making valuable hostages that hurts their side. And also endangers your House with all your heirs out. And even the best can be slain. 

At what point where you are more of a liability than a asset?

This is also the reason why women were expected to produce many fine sons for their lord husbands, so that even if the oldest are sent off to war, there is a younger one to inherit the title.

[Stuart Littlefinger]

On 7/26/2018 at 4:56 AM, Trefayne said:

The Battle of Hastings comes to mind.

 

On 7/26/2018 at 7:54 AM, The Hoare said:

Besides, it's really hard to die in a medieval war if you're wealthy enough to buy a good armour.

 

Ya the main reason the Battle of Hastings and the Battle of Bosworth are so famous is because they actually resulted in the death of the King. It didn't happen all that often. 

[Moiraine Sedai]

On 7/25/2018 at 10:51 PM, Frey Kings said:

 

 

 

Their religion and their tradition glorify battle.  A house can gain status when it's Lord is a battle hero.

[Three-Fingered Pete]

3 hours ago, Stuart Littlefinger said:

Ya the main reason the Battle of Hastings and the Battle of Bosworth are so famous is because they actually resulted in the death of the King. It didn't happen all that often. 

Quite true. The King was almost always surrounded by very loyal knights/men (a kingsguard if you will). You'd have to go through quite a Cuisinart to get to them. Usually, a stray arrow or spear was the culprit in injuring or killing a king or a prince.

Nobles, however, were another story. They dropped like flies during the Crusades, the Hundred Years War and the War of the Roses, on which the Westeros part of ASoIaF is based.

[Hugorfonics]

Do that many noblemen die during battle? I can think of a few like sons of Karstark or uncle of Lannister, but for the most part they seem fine. 

I assume warring is only somewhat dangerous, like a tourney or skateboarding. Really no ones trying to kill you, your worth more as a hostage. And those that are trying to capture you are usually smallfolk, so their equipment is probably shotty, and they dont really know how to use it anyway

[LucionLannister]

I think Robb Stark summed it up A Game of Thrones when his mother asks why Greatjon Umber or Roose Bolton couldn't have led his army; How can an honorable man expect other men to die for him while he hides away?

And just because the Manderlys and other lords were captured doesn't mean they were on the front lines in the thick of the fighting. If you lose a battle, you can easily be captured in the ensuing retreat, especially if its disorderly or you're surrounded (i.e., Randyll Tarly one way and Gregor Clegane the other).

And having your lord at least on the battlefield (even if they're in the back) is good for moral. Bronn tells Tyrion in A Storm of Swords that when the men saw Joffrey leave the battlements during The Battle of the Blackwater, the men panicked and started to desert.

And then there's just the fact that young knights want to win glory for themselves and their Houses, and battles are the best way to do that.

[Frey Kings]

On 7/28/2018 at 9:43 AM, Lost Melnibonean said:

Men don't go to war believing they will be killed or captured. They either go in a desperate gamble to protect what's theirs, or confident that they will win, killing and capturing the other guy. Under either assumption, the lord should lead his forces since he should be one of the most skilled fighters, and since he will likely need to make battlefield decisions that will shape the outcome of the fighting. 

i bet its real nice and peaceful on the battlefield to hear all the commands from your lord

[Frey Kings]

On 7/28/2018 at 12:31 PM, John Suburbs said:

This is also the reason why women were expected to produce many fine sons for their lord husbands, so that even if the oldest are sent off to war, there is a younger one to inherit the title.

thats sexist

[John Suburbs]

8 minutes ago, Frey Kings said:

thats sexist

Well, sure, but we're talking about a medieval, feudal society. To them it's perfectly rational.

[Lost Melnibonean]

18 minutes ago, Frey Kings said:

i bet its real nice and peaceful on the battlefield to hear all the commands from your lord

Perhaps you don't have any military experience. Fortunately, I never found myself in a battle, but when I served in the 10th Mountain, we practiced battlefield communications across great distances with smoke, flares, and radios. Armies of the past used drums, horns, whistles, flags, and riders to communicate. 

[Loose Bolt]

Another thing is that victorious general could get "ideas". Or if nominal leader is either too weak or too coward to fight his own battles those men who actually fought in those battles could gain enough support to successfully replace their previous leader via coup or assassination. Same way any heir for lordship who will not fight in battles could get a reputation as either a weak or coward.