Jump to content

Edmure Should Have Got It


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

"Hold Riverrun, and guard the rear."

Which he did. Your notion of "direct order" seems to involve adding stuff that wasn't there, then blaming the junior commander for not being a mind-reader.

No, my notion of direct order, is directly follow what I say, nothing more. Mind you, I'm not saying Edmure wouldn't make an okay king, or that Sansa was right for reprimanding him (that's another issue entirely). But he was absolutely wrong for acting of his own volition on that particular case, in order to seek glory for himself and his men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

"Hold Riverrun, and guard the rear."

Which he did. Your notion of "direct order" seems to involve adding stuff that wasn't there, then blaming the junior commander for not being a mind-reader.

He didn't. He fought against the Lannister forces and lost Robb's men for no reason.

Holding a castle means staying at the castle against a possible siege, it doesn't mean you can go and fight in a battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Blaer Dayle said:

If you think that it's okay to ignore a direct order to not engage in battle, simply because the ends (capturing a mill) justify the means (though even then, they don't, since they directly hurt the war effort) then you don't understand war strategy, at all. Let alone the supreme unquestionable rule of absolute monarchy in medieval society.

There was never such an order. Also, Westeros is by no means an absolute monarchy, and the months-old Kingdom in the North and Riverlands even less so. The high nobles have way too much power for it to be an absolute monarchy.

9 minutes ago, Blaer Dayle said:

If a general tells a platoon to hold a ridge, and they instead decide that the nearby village is a better goal; then they take it, but the enemy catches the special ops team, that was undercover, behind enemy lines, as a result, that platoon is reprimanded, and dressed down. They don't get commendations for their actions. Strategy is on a need to know basis. And Edmure didn't need to know. Period.  

You can't treat your top bannerman who is defending his own lands and who was until a few months ago the same rank as you as if he's a lowly lieutenant in a modern army. Not to mention that Edmure was supposed to operate on his own for months with barely any communication from Robb due to the distance. He needed to be told everything.

Also, it's quite obvious if you follow the sequence of events that Robb came up with the "Let's trap Tywin West" plan significantly after he left Riverrun to go the Westerlands. It didn't make sense to do it earlier because Renly was moving at a snail's pace towards KL and clearly intended to let the Lannisters and Starks fight it out before swooping in and defeating the victorious and exhausted party.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Blaer Dayle said:

Hold riverrun, and don't risk your men, while the lannisters hold the greater strength on the field, is absolutely a direct order. You're being willfully ignorant, if you argue otherwise

These Edmure fans never changed, I remember them arguing the same thing years ago,

They made Blackfish a liar, made Robb a liar, made Catelyn a liar, but Edmure is right even when Edmure apologizes for his own stupidity in the book :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what if Tywin had set a trap for Edmure. What if edmure had lost the battle, and been routed. What if he lost Riverrun as a stronghold, as a result, leaving Robb stranded behind enemy lines, ending the war, then and there. What if Robb had sent a raven, with explicit orders, that he could no longer fulfill, due to losing men at the mill. Would you still defend his actions then? No. Victory at the mill, does not justify acting, without express permission. Especially so, when doing so ruined a plan, that would have otherwise worked

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edmure won't be a great choice for king, true, but he gets a lot of flak here for wrong reasons.

 

Holding a castle traditionally meant using its garrison for forays into the land around it, until the castle was besieged. If the order was "Hold Riverrun and guard the rear", that is exactly what Edmure did. He protected the rear of the Robb's army by preventing Tywin from crossing. He did not get information that Robb wanted to expose his rear intentionally to lure Tywin into pursuit. He did not get order "Hold the castle and let enemy cross the river into our rear". 

Let's not pretend Robb's command style was flawless. He had absolutely no oversight over Bolton (which enabled Bolton to intentionally thin out Stark loyalists by sending them into losing fights while preferring his own force), he did not fully instruct Edmure about his intentions, he did break a promise to an important and at the same time quarrelsome and untrustworthy ally, he sent his valuable hostage away to his family. 

That is not to say Edmure did things right either. As he was supposed to hold Riverrun, one of basic preparations for siege would be turning the smallfolk out. It is sad, but that is war - and a castle preparing for siege should have as few mouths to feed as possible while maintaining defense readiness. he also probably did not follow Tywin so closely and did not send messengers out when Tywin began to move. But thew situation is definitely not "Idiot Edmure, Genius Robb". 

Most armies rely on commanders to show initiative and engage enemy if opportunity arises, especially if the enemy is asking for it by trying to pass through a chokepoint. If you do not want them to engage the enemy for a specific reason, you have to give precise orders otherwise you are going against the doctrine and training.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Erkan12 said:

Lmao, are you serious? Since when the kings have to explain their orders? :D

Kings have to explain their orders in detail if they want them followed in detail. It's pretty simple, really. "Protect Riverrun" does not necessarily mean "sit inside the walls and do nothing". Edmure won a great victory over Tywin fuckin' Lannister. That that turned out to be a good thing for Tywin and a bad thing for Robb doesn't change that fact, since no-one could've known it at that point except maybe Robb.

1 hour ago, Erkan12 said:

Yes Edmure is an idiot, everyone says that. Hating Robb Stark will not change that fact.

Yeah that's clearly the only reason I can have for saying what I'm saying. I hate Robb Stark. That was sarcasm, in case you're too thick to detect it, which your posting history suggests you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say Edmure sat in Riverrun and waved as Tywin passed by, then Tywin manged a sneak attack on Rob's rear and routed his army.  Edmure will still get blamed for not engaging when he had the tactical advantage of the river crossing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably pretty close to the same view as Runaway Penguin. I'm not excusing anything wrong that Robb did (because yes, of course he made mistakes, he was young, and new to war). And yes, he probably should have told Edmure what the plan was. But that doesn't fix the fact that Edmure didn't at least send a raven, to ask for clarification on Robb's plan, and instead, assumed he knew better, and took a mill with little to no strategic value. There's blame on both sides, to be sure, but I hold Edmure just a hair more responsible for what happened in the end

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheFirstofHerName said:

but it did piss me off that Sansa cut him off

I enjoyed it so much. After all, someone telling this joke of man to shut up and sit down. And that with these few words. 

He made himself ridiculous and she stopped it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mikkel said:

Granted, it has been a while since I read the books, so I could be forgetting something.

I remember him being smug and bragging about winning some battle until his uncle the Blackfish schooled him, telling him that his disobeying orders ruined their strategy.  The Blackfish was trying to lure the Lannisters into a trap which would have been the end of Tywin's army.  But Edmure screwed up and Tywin didn't fall for the trap.

As I remember it, but I haven't gone back and re-read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

Kings have to explain their orders in detail if they want them followed in detail. It's pretty simple, really. "Protect Riverrun" does not necessarily mean "sit inside the walls and do nothing". Edmure won a great victory over Tywin fuckin' Lannister. That that turned out to be a good thing for Tywin and a bad thing for Robb doesn't change that fact, since no-one could've known it at that point except maybe Robb.

 

Lmao, no they don't need to explain their orders genius. That's why they are kings.

Hold the castle means wait in the damn castle and don't fight in open battles and don't lose any men when they don't even have enough men for the battles already.

Haha, you think he defeated Tywin? And is that a ''great victory''?  So what did he gain? A fucking mill? Is that suppose to be impressive? :D Stop trolling. 

Tywin had more men, losing their men in a pointless battle where Tywin successfully retreats isn't a victory at all, let alone ''great victory'' :D Tywin probably wouldn't even retreat from there if he didn't hear about the news of Stannis.

50 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

 

Yeah that's clearly the only reason I can have for saying what I'm saying. I hate Robb Stark. That was sarcasm, in case you're too thick to detect it, which your posting history suggests you are.

Yes because you're defending Edmure who is an idiot , himself apologizes for his own stupidity, that's the only logical explanation.

You're too thick to detect the simplest things I am afraid, considering your posting history.

Here is the line where he apologizes;

“I told you to hold Riverrun, “ said Robb. “What part of that command did you fail to comprehend?”

“When you stopped Lord Tywin on the Red Fork,” said the Blackfish, you delayed him just long enough for riders out of Bitterbridge to reach him with word of what was happening to the east. Lord Tywin turned his host at once, joined up with Matthis Rowan and Randyll Tarly near the headwaters of the Blackwater, and made a forced march to Tumbler’s Falls, where he found Mace Tyrell and two of his sons waiting with a huge host and a fleet of barges. They floated down the river, disembarked half a day’s ride from the city, and took Stannis in the rear.”
Catelyn remembered King Renly’s court, as she had seen it at Bitterbridge. A thousand golden roses streaming in the wind, Queen Man gaery’s shy smile and soft words, her brother the Knight of Flowers with the bloody linen around his temples. If you had to fall into a woman’s arms, my son, why couldn’t they have been Margaery Tyrell’s? The wealth and power of Highgarden could have made all the difference in the fighting yet to come. And perhaps Grey Wind would have liked the smell of her as well.
Edmure looked ill. “I never meant ... never, Robb, you must let me make amends. I will lead the van in the next battle!”

And this is where shortly after Cat mocks with  Edmure :D

''For amends, Brother? Or for glory? Catelyn wondered.''

Is this too thick for you to detect? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sun Tzu said: "If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame."

Not telling your subcommanders what they need to know and only giving orders that are immune to changing circumstances? 

That leads to actions like Edmure's, which was a tactical succes but a strategic blunder, or to a subcommander too wary to do anyting at all that might look like initiative. Sudden openings, mistakes of the enemy, those things could happen and not be capitalized upon.

Decentralized command is a thing for a reason. That's because it's extremely effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mikkel said:

you twat.

Talking to yourself now ? :D

2 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

Of course he apologizes,

Yes, because he is wrong.

2 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

his king holds him accountable, and you don't argue with that. But a King - or any general - who wants his underlings to understand his plans had better fuckin' epxlain those plans to said underlings. In as much detail as possible.

 

Now you made Robb a liar huh? 

No commander needs to explain his plans to his underlings, this is not a fucking parliament.

And Edmure likes to show off as Cat says, he is both an idiot and a peacock.

5 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

 

"Hold Riverrun" is not an exhaustive or clear instruction when the enemy is bearing down on you, are you supposed to give them a free pass over all your terrain?

 

If you don't even understand what ''holding a castle'' means then you've indeed a comprehension problem like Edmure has :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Sansa had no business treating her uncle in that manner. The guy had genuinely suffered, presiding over the part of the realm that was most screwed by the War of the Five Kings. He'd have made a decent King himself, having the maturity, experience, and compassion to actually do the job. Bonus political points for the fact that he's not an alien kid who worships trees, but a conventional follower of the Seven, with capacity to produce children.

The treatment of Edmure on the show has always been criminal, and bringing him back just to abuse him (again) was appalling.

Edmure in the show (or in the books) really hasn't done anything to justify electing him king. Bran hasn't either, but edmure, god no!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Troy Wessels said:

Sun Tzu said: "If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame."

Not telling your subcommanders what they need to know and only giving orders that are immune to changing circumstances? 

That leads to actions like Edmure's, which was a tactical succes but a strategic blunder, or to a subcommander too wary to do anyting at all that might look like initiative. Sudden openings, mistakes of the enemy, those things could happen and not be capitalized upon.

Decentralized command is a thing for a reason. That's because it's extremely effective.

1- Edmure is known for likes to show off

2- Edmure is known for being an idiot

3- Hold a damn castle is a very clear command,

Especially when Tywin had larger forces than he had and fighting against him on the field without any ambush or any field advantage is just to bleed his nose is idiotic at best, only an idiot like Edmure, who likes to show off and pursues his own personal glory would've done that.

Edmure defied Robb's orders for his personal glory, and then he realized his stupidity and apologized for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was very happy to see him and Sweetrobin. I was wondering where they were.

At first, when he started his harangue, I was listening seriously and thought that he would, as a man who has the right to vote, support someone else. But I laughed so hard when I realized he is making a claim for himself.

Still one of my favourite minor characters. Very glad he survived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holding a castle does not mean passively sitting in it. Heck, that was one of reasons for castles - attacker was obliged to avoid or besiege them, as otherwise the garrison would attack his flanks and rear. That's why most of the 100 years war were sieges of fortified cities and castles and why French ultimately won despite losing many grand field battles.

Robb ordered Edmure to hold the castle. He did hold the castle. If Robb wanted Edmure to let the Enemy pass into his rear, he should have made that specific. Failure to do so lies on him. And since he was already an oathbreaker with regards to Freys at that time, what is a little lie? :P 

Again, it is not a case of "Genius Robb and Stupid Edmure who disobeyed orders". It is a case of a subordinate who performed his orders to the best of his abilities. Should he have requested updated orders? Yes, then again given the speed of communications and Robb being often off the RavenNet the opportunity would have passed.

Example how it is done is, for example, 5 Air Force in Papua-New Guinea in 1943. As a plan was in motion to lure Japanese to reinforce their forward bases they thought were out of range of Allied fighters, all units in the area had strict orders not to fly any mission past certain boundary. 

Same way, in preparation for the Battle of the Bulge German command ordered all frontline units to reduce usual activities (patrols, ambushes, local probing, artillery shelling) to lull enemy into a false sense of security.

If the commanders in these cases neglected this preparations, do you think they would take it on a hapless division/wing commander who unwittingly spoiled their plan? No, it would mean exposing their failure of leadership. There would be little difference between "Hold the castle" and "Hold this hill" - in both cases it is expected from the commander to improve his position as much as he can and use his troops to, preferably, spoil the enemy actions. There were also more than one ambush that failed because the subordinates did not get proper orders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...