Edmure Should Have Got It

[Troy Wessels]

2 minutes ago, Erkan12 said:

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.

But it's really not as clear as you make it out to be. His orders were to hold Riverrun and guard Robb's rear. Contesting Tywin's crossing fulfills those orders. He won that battle, turned Tywin back and took a bloody toll from him. By all acounts it was a solid victory. 

Any other general would have done the same. The only reason not to take an easy victory such as that would be if you knew that it would harm your overall strategy. 

Which means that the argument about 'need to know' is rather silly. Yes, strategy and tactics can be compartmentalized, either way though, Edmure did need to know.

[Erkan12]

1 minute ago, Runaway Penguin said:

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?  

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.

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.

Oh nice to hear,

So if I get an order like holding a castle from my superior, I can gather an army and fight at the open field without their approval... 

 

I think no one here who defends Edmure never worked as a soldier in their life before. In army, when they give you an order, you do that only, no more no less.

You can't go out there and fight at the open field, that's defying the orders.

The book clearly implies that Edmure defied the orders for his personal glory, he is a peacock, and he is a fool. Plain and simple.

[Erkan12]

1 minute ago, Troy Wessels said:

But it's really not as clear as you make it out to be. His orders were to hold Riverrun and guard Robb's rear. Contesting Tywin's crossing fulfills those orders. He won that battle, turned Tywin back and took a bloody toll from him. By all acounts it was a solid victory. 

Any other general would have done the same. The only reason not to take an easy victory such as that would be if you knew that it would harm your overall strategy. 

Which means that the argument about 'need to know' is rather silly. Yes, strategy and tactics can be compartmentalized, either way though, Edmure did need to know.

Let me ask you this, did you work as a soldier in any army before? I did for a while.

In army, there is no such a thing as doing more or doing less. You do only what they tell you to do. You can't go there and try to be a hero, that's denying the orders. And that's exactly what Edmure did for his personal glory which Catleyn also implied.

Which is why a veteran soldier like Blackfish is holding Edmure responsible, and which is why Edmure understands that he was wrong, and apologizes for it, plain and simple.

[Bradam]

1 minute ago, Erkan12 said:

Edmure understands that he was wrong, and apologizes for it, plain and simple

Whether he agrees or not dosen't matter, his king yelled at him, so he aplogized.  What was he supposed to do in that senario?  Pull a "FU Rob, maybe next time tell me wtf is going on",  surely that would have gone over well   =0

And damnit stop making me defend Edmure, i never cared for the guy at all.  

[Erkan12]

1 minute ago, Bradam said:

Whether he agrees or not dosen't matter, his king yelled at him, so he aplogized.  What was he supposed to do in that senario?  Pull a "FU Rob, maybe next time tell me wtf is going on",  surely that would have gone over well   =0

And damnit stop making me defend Edmure, i never cared for the guy at all.  

Blackfish isn't Edmure's king, and he holds Edmure responsible for denying the orders.

Ow no, now you will tell me that Blackfish was actually lying to support Robb... 

Stop posting ridiculous arguments then, you people have no idea how a chain of command works in an army.

[Gerg Sknab]

Shucks when you not a good range shot be fire up your father's funeral bier you shouldn't be included in any council to appoint a new leader of the six kingdoms.

[Troy Wessels]

Just now, Erkan12 said:

Let me ask you this, did you work as a soldier in any army before? I did for a while.

In army, there is no such a thing as doing more or doing less. You do only what they tell you to do. You can't go there and try to be a hero, that's denying the orders. And that's exactly what Edmure did for his personal glory which Catleyn also implied.

Which is why a veteran soldier like Blackfish is holding Edmure responsible, and which is why Edmure understands that he was wrong, and apologizes for it, plain and simple.

Edmure is not a soldier. He is a general in his own right. He has to make decision that impact the wellbeing of not only a huge chunk of the army, but also has to take care of the civillians sworn to him. He is not some low-ranked nobody. He is Robb's number two, in regards to rank and people under him. He is entitled to way more information than a company sergeant.

If he'd known the strategy, he could have acted within those boundaries.

Besides, even as a small unit commander you have agency. Your superior might tell you and your men to take that building or machine gunner, but if he knows what he's doing he'll let you decide the best way to do it. You're the man on the spot, the actual plan is yours. Which is the way of every good military.

[Aldarion]

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.

Eh, there are people who would have made good kings, but Edmure is not one of them:

1) Blackfish

2) Blackfish

3) Blackfish

3 hours ago, Erkan12 said:

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

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

Orders have to be given context, especially in Middle Ages where you cannot just dial your commander and ask "Situation has changed, what should I do now"? It is Robb's fault for not properly contextualizing his orders.

Now, you can say that Edmure was going outside his orders when he marched out of Riverrun to confront Tywin. However, Riverrun is not just castle itself, but surrounding land; and remember that Edmure successfully beat back Tywin's attacks thanks to terrain advantage. Point is, castle does not necessarily have to be defended from within castle walls. There are numerous examples of castle/fort garrison leaving their fortifications and engaging in open battle when they believed it would gain them some advantage: either to defend surrounding land, to buy time for people to withdraw to castle proper, to ambush the enemy while latter is approaching, and so on. Castle is, more than anything, a center of operations; you do not hole up in castle until the enemy forces you to, because doing so loses the whole point of the castle (ensuring presence of force and threatening enemy rear).

That being said, from what I remember Edmure had terrain advantage against Tywin at the fords. If he did not, then the entire equation changes and he does indeed become an idiot for taking such a risk.

3 minutes ago, Erkan12 said:

 Blackfish isn't Edmure's king, and he holds Edmure responsible for denying the orders.

Ow no, now you will tell me that Blackfish was actually lying to support Robb... 

Stop posting ridiculous arguments then, you people have no idea how a chain of command works in an army.

There is however a difference between disobeying orders and interpreting unclear orders. Further, an army with non-instant communications is, by necessity, highly decentralized. Do you think Napoleon's marshals requested orders from him? No, he would merely give them tasks which have to be completed - and that included the context, why they have to be achieved, so individual army commanders can adapt to changing circumstances in the field. You cannot compare modern army with a medieval one, nor can you compare strategic command with tactical one. Micromanagement is never a good thing, especially on strategic level - and Edmure was a general, not a platoon commander.

[Erkan12]

1 minute ago, Troy Wessels said:

Edmure is not a soldier. He is a general in his own right. He has to make decision that impact the wellbeing of not only a huge chunk of the army, but also has to take care of the civillians sworn to him. He is not some low-ranked nobody. He is Robb's number two, in regards to rank and people under him. He is entitled to way more information than a company sergeant.

If he'd known the strategy, he could have acted within those boundaries.

Besides, even as a small unit commander you have agency. Your superior might tell you and your men to take that building or machine gunner, but if he knows what he's doing he'll let you decide the best way to do it. You're the man on the spot, the actual plan is yours. Which is the way of every good military.

You clearly have no idea how the things works in an army...

If your superior tells you to do something, it doesn't matter how high ranking you've, you would follow that order.

Robb didn't say ''hold the castle, and fight at open field if you find any opportunity'' , he said ''hold the castle''. That's the final order, his job was the holding the castle, not fighting at the open field and losing more men.

[Hodor's Dragon]

4 hours ago, Erkan12 said:

Robb is KING. Edmure is his subject. Robb doesn't need to tell him anything but to stay and guard the Riverrun.

Instead he went and faced with the Lannisters forces against Robb's orders.

It was purely Edmure's stupidity, which is why Blackfish also calls him idiot.

A lord ordered to defend his own lands will do so as he sees fit, including by repelling raiding parties. If Robb wanted something explicit of him, he should've said as much. A plan to "lure" an enemy force in a certain direction is pretty much bound to fail when local commanders are not informed of it.

[Erkan12]

3 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Eh, there are people who would have made good kings, but Edmure is not one of them:

1) Blackfish

2) Blackfish

3) Blackfish

Orders have to be given context, especially in Middle Ages where you cannot just dial your commander and ask "Situation has changed, what should I do now"? It is Robb's fault for not properly contextualizing his orders.

Now, you can say that Edmure was going outside his orders when he marched out of Riverrun to confront Tywin. However, Riverrun is not just castle itself, but surrounding land; and remember that Edmure successfully beat back Tywin's attacks thanks to terrain advantage. Point is, castle does not necessarily have to be defended from within castle walls. There are numerous examples of castle/fort garrison leaving their fortifications and engaging in open battle when they believed it would gain them some advantage: either to defend surrounding land, to buy time for people to withdraw to castle proper, to ambush the enemy while latter is approaching, and so on. Castle is, more than anything, a center of operations; you do not hole up in castle until the enemy forces you to, because doing so loses the whole point of the castle (ensuring presence of force and threatening enemy rear).

That being said, from what I remember Edmure had terrain advantage against Tywin at the fords. If he did not, then the entire equation changes and he does indeed become an idiot for taking such a risk.

There is however a difference between disobeying orders and interpreting unclear orders. Further, an army with non-instant communications is, by necessity, highly decentralized. Do you think Napoleon's marshals requested orders from him? No, he would merely give them tasks which have to be completed - and that included the context, why they have to be achieved, so individual army commanders can adapt to changing circumstances in the field. You cannot compare modern army with a medieval one, nor can you compare strategic command with tactical one. Micromanagement is never a good thing, especially on strategic level - and Edmure was a general, not a platoon commander.

Right, which is why he only said ''hold the castle'' ,

he didn't say ''hold the castle and if you find any opportunity attack Tywin''

Attacking Tywin and losing men is denying the orders, as Blackfish says, they told him to hold the castle only, no more no less.

[Troy Wessels]

Just now, Erkan12 said:

You clearly have no idea how the things works in an army...

If your superior tells you to do something, it doesn't matter how high ranking you've, you would follow that order.

Robb didn't say ''hold the castle, and fight at open field if you find any opportunity'' , he said ''hold the castle''. That's the final order, his job was the holding the castle, not fighting at the open field and losing more men.

Are you reading? Of course you'd follow that order, but the how can be determined by the man actually doing it.

If you don't allow the men under you that flexibility you get tragic Soviet situations. Following stupid and impossible orders, blindly, only to get your men killed

[Erkan12]

1 minute ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

A lord ordered to defend his own lands will do so as he sees fit, including by repelling raiding parties. If Robb wanted something explicit of him, he should've said as much. A plan to "lure" an enemy force in a certain direction is pretty much bound to fail when local commanders are not informed of it.

Robb said ''hold the castle'', he GAVE THE ORDER. Robb didn't leave him without orders, if he did leave him without orders, then they couldn't blame Edmure, now they blame Edmure because he wanted to do more. You can't do more in army without the approval of your superiors, that's why Blackfish holds him responsible.

[Aldarion]

7 minutes ago, Erkan12 said:

Right, which is why he only said ''hold the castle'' , he didn't say ''hold the castle and if you any opportunity attack Tywin''

 Attacking Tywin and losing men is denying the orders, as Blackfish says, they told him to hold the castle only, no more no less.

My point was that "hold the castle" can be interpreted in various ways, some of which do not require him to stay inside the castle. At least if you interpret "hold the castle" to mean "defend the castle"; if it means "stay inside", then yes.

EDIT: But keep in mind my previous point of castle as base of operations. Castle isn't there just to defend castle, but to impede enemy operations; and manner in which it is done is generally left up to the commander.

[Bradam]

11 minutes ago, Erkan12 said:

Blackfish isn't Edmure's king, and he holds Edmure responsible for denying the orders.

Ow no, now you will tell me that Blackfish was actually lying to support Robb... 

Stop posting ridiculous arguments then, you people have no idea how a chain of command works in an army.

If anything Blackfish was pissed at the result, but he also knew the grand plan where Edmure didn't.   Gotta blame someone, might as wel blame the guy everyone already knows is an idiot even if in this one particular case he wasn't solely to blame.  

I liked Blackfish until his completely stupid going to die for.. reasons?  Instead of leaving to fight another day. 

Chain of command in an army also varies wildly from army to army.  Every commander has differnt opinions on how much leeway his suborinates have to execute orders.  Generally if the end result was postive then yay everyone is happy, but if negative results happen then the blame game begins.  and shit rolls down hill.

[Erkan12]

2 minutes ago, Troy Wessels said:

Are you reading? Of course you'd follow that order, but the how can be determined by the man actually doing it.

If you don't allow the men under you that flexibility you get tragic Soviet situations. Following stupid and impossible orders, blindly, only to get your men killed

Since when holding a castle is a stupid and an impossible order? 

Tywin didn't even attack the Riverrun, he was trying to go Westerlands to pursue Robb. But Edmure the idiot, leaves the castle and attacks Tywin.

[Erkan12]

3 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

My point was that "hold the castle" can be interpreted in various ways, some of which do not require him to stay inside the castle. At least if you interpret "hold the castle" to mean "defend the castle"; if it means "stay inside", then yes.

Hold the castle means hold the castle.

Don't leave it and don't attack Tywin who wasn't even trying to siege Riverrun instead he was trying to return Westerlands.

[Gerg Sknab]

Incompetence does not merit celebration, neither demure or sweetrobin deserve anything complementary said in their regards.

[Hodor's Dragon]

Just now, Erkan12 said:

Robb said ''hold the castle'', he GAVE THE ORDER. Robb didn't leave him without orders, if he did leave him without orders, then they couldn't blame Edmure, now they blame Edmure because he wanted to do more. You can't do more in army without the approval of your superiors, that's why Blackfish holds him responsible.

And didn't Edmure hold the castle? What's your point?

Even in modern parlance, Edmure was the officer on the ground and would have authority to make necessary decisions called for by the local tactics. In GOT parlance, Edmure was the lord of his castle and if Robb wanted him not to exercise the authority that a lord has over his own castle and territory, he needed to make explicit orders to that effect.

To return to my original point, "luring" an enemy somewhere has to be a coordinated operation. It has little prayer of working if local commanders are not informed of the role they are to play.

Hey, I'm not saying "Edmure for King," he never comes across that way even in the books, and in the show he's pretty much played for comic relief. But--at least based on what we see and are told--this one is mostly on Robb, not Edmure, and Robb was snotty to chew him out over it instead of accepting responsibility.

[Troy Wessels]

1 minute ago, Erkan12 said:

Since when holding a castle is a stupid and an impossible order? 

Tywin didn't even attack the Riverrun, he was trying to go Westerlands to pursue Robb. But Edmure the idiot, leaves the castle and attacks Tywin.

So now he has to read Tywin's mind as well? He could've easily gone for Riverrun if he'd wanted to, or take Robb in the rear. 

At this point I'm pretty sure you're trolling...