Ned treated Jon really badly

[Bernie Mac]

7 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

 

Hoster and Catelyn do not have any contempt for the Blackswoods, Brackens, Whent, Piper or Vance, they do have it for the Freys for staying neutral until the last minute. The other ones were punished, with Darry losing half of it's lands for example.

Hoster's contempt for House Frey began before that according to his daughter.

[Thandros]

7 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

Lord Darry is a kid of 8. All his brothers died in the Rebellion or were exiled with Dany and Viserys. Dany is not Cersei to hate a boy for a something that happened before he was born. The fact that they were punish shows what happened to the ones that picked the wrong side.

Blackwood and Brackens fought at the same side during the War of the Five Kings, they both also took the side of Aegon I, unless you have a quote of one of them fighting on the loyalist side, I will stick with that they were rebels.

Your first statement makes no sense whatsoever and doesn't even seem like it intends to.

On the second. During Aegon's conquest both rose up against the Ironborn and everyone in the Riverlands hated the Ironborn. During the WoFK you have a particular set of circumstances that end up uniting both Rebels and Loyalists in the Riverlands, Rebels are fighting for the Starks and the Loyalists are fighting against Lannisters. Also on the basis of your argument the only Rebels in the Riverlands were the Tullys and Mallisters.

[Lee-Sensei]

On 10/22/2020 at 9:20 PM, Thandros said:

Given that Stannis claim he learned his taste for flesh while squiring for Robert it seems likely that almost all of his squireship was spent in King's Landing. If he did serve in the Greyjoy Rebellion as Robert's squire By the Time Robert would have gotten involved in the War it would have devolved into effectively a series of sieges on Land as the Greyjoy fleet was destroyed at Fair isle. On land the Greyjoys were never a threat and it seems unlikely there was any serious strategic or tactical considerations to do while sieging down Pyke. Yeh but Robar Royce and Theon weren't (at the time) on the opposite side of the faction whose leader's war council they sat on.

Everything we are saying is mostly assumptions. We have so little to work with we can't say anything with certainty.

Doesn't make him a great general.

Where does Ned say that? Don't include the Trident. Robert won that in a duel so it's kinda special case. Also Ashford was a particularly egregious case of stolen credit. Robert may have been present and even notionally in command for victories he personally had little to do with winning. Who won the battle of Tannenberg (1914) Hindenburg, Ludendorff or Hoffmann?

1) Robert was a womanizer before the Rebellion too. I don’t see why he’d have to pick that up in Kings Landing. As for the Greyjoy Rebellion, amphibious operations and sieges are among the most difficult tasks that an army and navy can be asked to perform. Planning the time of the landings, deciding the beachheads, moving ships full of men, weapons, grain, horses etcetera to Pyke. And on and on. He took the capital of the Iron Islands too, so it’s likely that his forces faced the fiercest opposition.

2) I don’t think so. Assuming that he got his army destroyed is an assumption. Me saying that he was a capable general famous for the speed of his armies, his charisma, his ability to win over enemies and winning against gratuitously long odds is pretty much established.

3) I disagree. I think that it does point to him being a great general.

4) George has said that the Battle of the Trident was more complicated than that. Do you have any evidence that someone else was responsible for winning his battles, besides him?

[Lee-Sensei]

On 10/23/2020 at 12:19 AM, HerblYY said:

Tywin Lannister, Stannis Baratheon, Randyll Tarly, Roose Bolton, Brynden Tully,  even Robb Stark, Jeor Mormont, Loras fucking Tyrell, Jamie Lannister, Kevan Lannister and even Tyrion defending KL etc. Should I continue?

The more you and @Lee-Sensei talk, the more you two make yourselves idiots.

Oh, and write me please down that Robert won a battle (which we know nothing more about) while outnumbered 5 to 1. Please just write it down again

 

 

Imagine actually believing this. Honestly, I don’t even see an argument for Roose Bolton, Jeor Mormont, Loras Tyrell, Jaime, Kevan and Tyrion. None of them have records that even compare to Roberts.

[Thandros]

2 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

1) Robert was a womanizer before the Rebellion too. I don’t see why he’d have to pick that up in Kings Landing. As for the Greyjoy Rebellion, amphibious operations and sieges are among the most difficult tasks that an army and navy can be asked to perform. Planning the time of the landings, deciding the beachheads, moving ships full of men, weapons, grain, horses etcetera to Pyke. And on and on. He took the capital of the Iron Islands too, so it’s likely that his forces faced the fiercest opposition.

 

Umm because Justin massey being Robert's squire while he was fostering in the Vale is as likely as. In fact it's so unlikely I can't think of a good comparison. Maybe but that's all the stuff Robert wouldn't care one bit for. He would have taken no part in much of the technical parts of an amphibious landing or maybe even much at all.  Maybe but even if they did the amount of tactical planning involved in the siege of Pyke mostly seems to have come down to batter the walls until we have a breach and then charge in and it seems to have mostly worked for them.

2 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

2) I don’t think so. Assuming that he got his army destroyed is an assumption. Me saying that he was a capable general famous for the speed of his armies, his charisma, his ability to win over enemies and winning against gratuitously long odds is pretty much established.

 

Gratuitously is very much the wrong word to use. 5 to 1 or ven 6 to 1 may be big numerical differences but they are very much winnable for any capable commander. I still think given Robert's supposed use of night marches he simply used to catch a larger loyalist force by surprise in the dead of night and routed them with the element of surprise. Any moderately capable general with sufficient aggression and a lack of risk aversion could pull it off. Also I don't think I ever said his army was destroyed. We know that isn't true. Doesn't mean it wasn't scattered and in tatters by Stoney Sept.

2 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

3) I disagree. I think that it does point to him being a great general.

 

Why? The only thing Robert is noted for is aggression and chasima. Aggression can get you a long way used right but it won't make you a great general. Charisma is good for maintaining morale and in a feudal system occasionally gathering reinforcement but it won't win you battles forever.

2 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

4) George has said that the Battle of the Trident was more complicated than that. Do you have any evidence that someone else was responsible for winning his battles, besides him?

Do you have any evidence that he was actually responsible for winning his battles after he joined up with the other armies. We already know he didn't win the Bells.

[Ivan Tsarevich]

15 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

George has said that the Battle of the Trident was more complicated than that.

May I ask what you refer to?

[Lee-Sensei]

On 10/25/2020 at 4:02 AM, Thandros said:

Umm because Justin massey being Robert's squire while he was fostering in the Vale is as likely as. In fact it's so unlikely I can't think of a good comparison. Maybe but that's all the stuff Robert wouldn't care one bit for. He would have taken no part in much of the technical parts of an amphibious landing or maybe even much at all.  Maybe but even if they did the amount of tactical planning involved in the siege of Pyke mostly seems to have come down to batter the walls until we have a breach and then charge in and it seems to have mostly worked for them.

Gratuitously is very much the wrong word to use. 5 to 1 or ven 6 to 1 may be big numerical differences but they are very much winnable for any capable commander. I still think given Robert's supposed use of night marches he simply used to catch a larger loyalist force by surprise in the dead of night and routed them with the element of surprise. Any moderately capable general with sufficient aggression and a lack of risk aversion could pull it off. Also I don't think I ever said his army was destroyed. We know that isn't true. Doesn't mean it wasn't scattered and in tatters by Stoney Sept.

Why? The only thing Robert is noted for is aggression and chasima. Aggression can get you a long way used right but it won't make you a great general. Charisma is good for maintaining morale and in a feudal system occasionally gathering reinforcement but it won't win you battles forever.

Do you have any evidence that he was actually responsible for winning his battles after he joined up with the other armies. We already know he didn't win the Bells.

What do you mean while he was fostering in the Vale? Robert had left the Vale at least by 277 or 278. The period between his parents dying and the end of his Rebellion would be about 6 or 7 years. Let’s say that Justin Massey was about 10 in 278. He could realistically have been with Robert through that entire period and have received a knighthood by the time that he was coronated in 284 at 16. The rest just has no evidence supporting it. There’s no evidence that Robert would have had no part in the planning of his landings in Pyke or that someone else was responsible for it. Robert is the one constantly given credit for defeating the Greyjoys and taking Pyke, he received a military education and he has an overwhelmingly victorious military record.

I said it before, but I’ll say it again. It seems like you want it to be the case that winning battles why outnumbered 5 to 1 isn’t that big of a deal. Why do you think that any moderately capable general could do it? And why don’t we hear about anyone else winning at these terrible odds?

I’ve already posted loads of evidence from the books that he’s a good general. I don’t know what else to say. You’re saying that charisma won’t win you battles forever, but he did win all of his battles except for one and he has two victorious wars under his belt.

Quote

He has a lord’s voice, Jon thought. His father had always said that in battle a captain’s lungs were as important as his sword arm. “It does not matter how brave or brilliant a man is, if his commands cannot be heard,” Lord Eddard told his sons, so Robb and he used to climb the towers of Winterfell to shout at each other across the yard. Donal Noye could have drowned out both of them. The moles all went in terror of him, and rightfully so, since he was always threatening to rip their heads off.

Ned says that a Captains voice in battle were as important as his arm.
 

Quote

It was the king’s voice that put an end to it … the king’s voice and twenty swords. Jon Arryn had told them that a commander needs a good battlefield voice, and Robert had proved the truth of that on the Trident. He used that voice now. “STOP THIS MADNESS,” he boomed, “IN THE NAME OF YOUR KING!”

Jon Arryn taught him and Robert that and Ned says that Robert was in command there.

 

Quote

Tyrell had a sizeable host, but some of his strength was with Rhaegar, certainly. Rhaegar actually outnumbered Robert on the Trident, although Robert's troops were more battle-tested. I haven't gone into the whole history of the fighting, but there was a good deal more to it than just two armies meeting on the Trident.

There was more to their victory than two armies meeting on the Trident.
 

Wouldn’t the burden of proof be on you? For almost every one of those battles, Robert is called their leader. If someone else was planning his battles and responsible for his victories, why isn’t that mentioned in the text like it is for Mace Tyrell?

[Lee-Sensei]

On 10/25/2020 at 5:44 AM, TsarGrey said:

May I ask what you refer to?

George talks about it here.
 

https://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/The_Siege_of_Storms_End

[Thandros]

8 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

What do you mean while he was fostering in the Vale? Robert had left the Vale at least by 277 or 278. The period between his parents dying and the end of his Rebellion would be about 6 or 7 years. Let’s say that Justin Massey was about 10 in 278. He could realistically have been with Robert through that entire period and have received a knighthood by the time that he was coronated in 284 at 16. The rest just has no evidence supporting it. There’s no evidence that Robert would have had no part in the planning of his landings in Pyke or that someone else was responsible for it. Robert is the one constantly given credit for defeating the Greyjoys and taking Pyke, he received a military education and he has an overwhelmingly victorious military record.

 

Perhaps but it seems unlikely. We don't know his age so your raising as much speculation as I am. In fact we only know he was Robert's squire because of an off hand line by Stannis. Everything else about the timing is pure speculation. You can't prove anything about his record. What he did and didn't do is all up in the air. We have a vague timeline of events and a few references to it and that's it. We can't say anything beyond that and you want to make him out like some god of war. We have enough to imply he knew what he was doing but so do most generals. You have no evidence Robert had anything to do with the organization of the landings on Pyke. Given Stannis was in command of the navy he probably had more to do with organizing it.

8 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

I said it before, but I’ll say it again. It seems like you want it to be the case that winning battles why outnumbered 5 to 1 isn’t that big of a deal. Why do you think that any moderately capable general could do it? And why don’t we hear about anyone else winning at these terrible odds?

 

Why yes. Why? Because plenty of generals have done it without being lauded from the heavens for their greatness. The reason we don't hear about it. Because most leaders aren't stupid enough to commit to battle at such odds without some particular advantage in their favour.  Medieval battles were kind of a last resort. Anything could happen and to gamble on such risky terms was more a sign of desperation or military necessity unless you had an overwhelming advantage and even then it was always a gamble.

Besides who was Robert even facing in this battle. One should not judge a general on their skills alone but on the skills of their opponents.

8 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

I said it before, but I’ll say it again. It seems like you want it to be the case that winning battles why outnumbered 5 to 1 isn’t that big of a deal. Why do you think that any moderately capable general could do it? And why don’t we hear about anyone else winning at these terrible odds?

 

That we know of. George did say there are Targaryen victories we haven't heard about it. Odds on one of them at least was another defeat for Robert.

8 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

Ned says that a Captains voice in battle were as important as his arm.

Jon Arryn taught him and Robert that and Ned says that Robert was in command there.

There was more to their victory than two armies meeting on the Trident.

Of course which means there was also more to the victory than Robert just having to be the one shouting orders. You can't prove that the orders Robert was shouting were his own can you?

8 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

Wouldn’t the burden of proof be on you? For almost every one of those battles, Robert is called their leader. If someone else was planning his battles and responsible for his victories, why isn’t that mentioned in the text like it is for Mace Tyrell?

Technically speaking the burden of proof is on both of us to prove our own position. I can't prove my position for lack of evidence but neither can you. Until more evidence is presented we are in a deadlock. We'll go back and forth neither able to convince the other of anything since we know nothing. Just like ancient history. As for the comparison to Ashford. I've already stated that was a particularly egregious case of credit stealing. Robert was on the field and probably giving some of the orders. Whether they were his orders (some of them might have been) or planned battle scenarios or even someone whispering in his ear. We can't know. We don't have the details and may never have them.

[Lee-Sensei]

9 hours ago, Thandros said:

Perhaps but it seems unlikely. We don't know his age so your raising as much speculation as I am. In fact we only know he was Robert's squire because of an off hand line by Stannis. Everything else about the timing is pure speculation. You can't prove anything about his record. What he did and didn't do is all up in the air. We have a vague timeline of events and a few references to it and that's it. We can't say anything beyond that and you want to make him out like some god of war. We have enough to imply he knew what he was doing but so do most generals. You have no evidence Robert had anything to do with the organization of the landings on Pyke. Given Stannis was in command of the navy he probably had more to do with organizing it.

Why yes. Why? Because plenty of generals have done it without being lauded from the heavens for their greatness. The reason we don't hear about it. Because most leaders aren't stupid enough to commit to battle at such odds without some particular advantage in their favour.  Medieval battles were kind of a last resort. Anything could happen and to gamble on such risky terms was more a sign of desperation or military necessity unless you had an overwhelming advantage and even then it was always a gamble.

Besides who was Robert even facing in this battle. One should not judge a general on their skills alone but on the skills of their opponents.

That we know of. George did say there are Targaryen victories we haven't heard about it. Odds on one of them at least was another defeat for Robert.

Of course which means there was also more to the victory than Robert just having to be the one shouting orders. You can't prove that the orders Robert was shouting were his own can you?

Technically speaking the burden of proof is on both of us to prove our own position. I can't prove my position for lack of evidence but neither can you. Until more evidence is presented we are in a deadlock. We'll go back and forth neither able to convince the other of anything since we know nothing. Just like ancient history. As for the comparison to Ashford. I've already stated that was a particularly egregious case of credit stealing. Robert was on the field and probably giving some of the orders. Whether they were his orders (some of them might have been) or planned battle scenarios or even someone whispering in his ear. We can't know. We don't have the details and may never have them.

1) I don’t know what else to say. We don’t know Justin Masseys age, but many people that were around Robert during his wars seem to have a high opinion of his generalship. Stannis was in command at Great Wyk while Barristan took a portion of their forces and landed at Old Wyk and Robert made landings at Pyke. This isn’t speculation. We’re told that Robert was in command at these places and we’re never given any evidence that someone else did the planning like with Mace Tyrell. Do you have one quote indicating that Robert was taking credit for the plans of other people?

Quote

Tyrell's reputation rested on one indecisive victory over Robert Baratheon at Ashford, in a battle largely won by Lord Tarly's van before the main host had even arrived.

We know that it’s true for Mace Tyrell, because we’re told this multiple times.

 

Quote

“Your father is an able soldier,” King Stannis said. “He defeated my brother once, at Ashford. Mace Tyrell has been pleased to claim the honors for that victory, but Lord Randyll had decided matters before Tyrell ever found the battlefield. He slew Lord Cafferen with that great Valyrian sword of his and sent his head to Aerys.”

Is there even one example of someone saying that Robert was taking credit for other people’s victories?

 

2) Except that many of these generals do become famous like Napoleon during the Six Day Campaign or Nobunaga in the Battle of Okehazama. Being able to win while horribly outnumbered is generally a mark of competence, which is probably why George put it in there and why Stannis uses it as an example for Jon.

 

3) Maybe, but that’s entirely speculative. The only defeat of a Roberts that’s ever brought up is Ashford. Given that his record as far as we know is overwhelmingly victorious, chances are that in those battles that haven’t been mentioned yet, he was still winning a lot more than losing.

 

4) The burden of proof is on you. Ned says that Robert was in command and gives Robert credit for the victory. We know that there was more to the Battle than two armies meeting on the Trident. Do you have any evidence that someone else made a plan and Robert was just following it like with Randall Tarly and Mace Tyrell?

 

5) It really isn’t. I’ve provided plenty of evidence that Robert is viewed as a good general. He was famous rather than infamous for his forced marches and midnight rides. He won three battles in a single day at Ashford by defeating the armies in detail before they could unite against him. He was able to retreat in good order at Ashford. He would win battles at odds worse than 5 to 1. He was insanely charismatic and able to win men over to his cause and inspire loyalty in them. He commanded a battle weary and outnumbered force at the Trident to win his Throne. He made landings on Pyke and conquered the seat of House Greyjoy. Ned feels sure that if Robert went to war with a Tywin, that Tywin would be crushed. Barristan was sure that if the Martells went to war with Robert, he’d have crushed them like he crushed the Greyjoys. Stannis’ men constantly praise him and Jon considers him a competent military leader.  Stannis says that if Renly had joined him they could have won a crushing victory over the Lannisters that would have even impressed Robert. I can go on, but I don’t have to. Your argument is that we don’t know. Maybe someone else planned his battles and he just took credit for them. It’s not very convincing. If Robert was taking credit for other people’s plans, Stannis would have said as much and he certainly wouldn’t have used him as an example to aspire to.

[Thandros]

3 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

1) I don’t know what else to say. We don’t know Justin Masseys age, but many people that were around Robert during his wars seem to have a high opinion of his generalship. Stannis was in command at Great Wyk while Barristan took a portion of their forces and landed at Old Wyk and Robert made landings at Pyke. This isn’t speculation. We’re told that Robert was in command at these places and we’re never given any evidence that someone else did the planning like with Mace Tyrell. Do you have one quote indicating that Robert was taking credit for the plans of other people?

 

We already know that Robert consistently had to tell people that Ned won the battle of the bells. Clearly people thought of the victory as his and he had to correct them. How do you know that people aren't making the same error for other encounters where Robert is less willing to correct their assertion of his own authority. Also you seem to think Robert could somehow command on Pyke, Great Wyk and Old Wyk. Even if Robert was in command I doubt the Greyjoy rebellion was a particularly tough fight for him. THe bulk of the Ironborn ha been smashed at fair island. That would have left limited forces for him to face at Pyke.

3 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

2) Except that many of these generals do become famous like Napoleon during the Six Day Campaign or Nobunaga in the Battle of Okehazama. Being able to win while horribly outnumbered is generally a mark of competence, which is probably why George put it in there and why Stannis uses it as an example for Jon.

 

And just as many you've never heard of. Such as Archbishop Christian of Mainz, Gaius Suetonius Paulinus. I could go on to find and name others you've never heard of. A sign of competence maybe. Or perhaps a sign of the incompetence of the enemy. A difference of equipment and morale. Or maybe massive tactical blunders. Also You haven't heard of Oda Nobunaga because he won the battle of Okehazama. You've heard of him because he almost reunited Japan after a century of division. You've heard of Napoleon because of his victories while slightly outnumbered earlier in his career. Not because of his victories at the end while hopelessly strategically outnumbered. Also most generals don't fight while horribly outnumbered. That's why Napoleon made no serious efforts to defend Paris and instead tried to attack the Coalition's lines of communication. He knew he couldn't win against their numbers and was forced to defeat them indirectly.

4 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

3) Maybe, but that’s entirely speculative. The only defeat of a Roberts that’s ever brought up is Ashford. Given that his record as far as we know is overwhelmingly victorious, chances are that in those battles that haven’t been mentioned yet, he was still winning a lot more than losing.

 

 Maybe. But that doesn't make him a great general like you try to make him out to be. Who was he fighting against. Were they any good or were they incompetent buffoons who any decent general could beat. Ashford is only brought up in the presence of Tyrells or Tarlys. We've likely never had any of the leaders of these other battles in the presence of someone who might give an aside about a victory.

4 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

4) The burden of proof is on you. Ned says that Robert was in command and gives Robert credit for the victory. We know that there was more to the Battle than two armies meeting on the Trident. Do you have any evidence that someone else made a plan and Robert was just following it like with Randall Tarly and Mace Tyrell?

 

Does he? Where does Ned that say that. Don't give me those lines about the voice for a general. For all you know Jon Arryn might have been giving orders but his voice wasn't loud enough any more so he Robert do the shouting for him over the din of battle. The only thing it means is that Robert could be heard over the din of battle. Not that his orders were any good or made any difference if he was the one making them. Do you have any evidence that Robert was a key part of planning and organizing the battle.

4 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

5) It really isn’t. I’ve provided plenty of evidence that Robert is viewed as a good general. He was famous rather than infamous for his forced marches and midnight rides. He won three battles in a single day at Ashford by defeating the armies in detail before they could unite against him. He was able to retreat in good order at Ashford. He would win battles at odds worse than 5 to 1. He was insanely charismatic and able to win men over to his cause and inspire loyalty in them. He commanded a battle weary and outnumbered force at the Trident to win his Throne. He made landings on Pyke and conquered the seat of House Greyjoy. Ned feels sure that if Robert went to war with a Tywin, that Tywin would be crushed. Barristan was sure that if the Martells went to war with Robert, he’d have crushed them like he crushed the Greyjoys. Stannis’ men constantly praise him and Jon considers him a competent military leader.  Stannis says that if Renly had joined him they could have won a crushing victory over the Lannisters that would have even impressed Robert. I can go on, but I don’t have to. Your argument is that we don’t know. Maybe someone else planned his battles and he just took credit for them. It’s not very convincing. If Robert was taking credit for other people’s plans, Stannis would have said as much and he certainly wouldn’t have used him as an example to aspire to.

Viewed. A perception as opposed to reality. The ability to move an army quickly is not necessarily the making of a great general. Any decent general can maneuver an army between three others to defeat them in detail with enough fore knowledge of their maneuvers. The fact Robert fought at Ashford at all seems suspect as to his abilities. You mention Robert's ability to retreat from Ashford successfully as a mark in his favour. Does that mean you Connington was a great general as well? His force at the Trident was battle harden not battle weary and there is nothing to suggest he wa significantly outnumbered only perhaps slightly outnumbered. Ned and Barristan's comments could easily be based purely on numbers the Lannister could gather maybe 50,000 and the Dornish luck to gather 20,000. Robert could easily gather over 80,000 to face them with no difficulty and maybe significantly more depending on who else would side with him. Neither would have significant support from the other kingdoms and would fight alone hopelessly outnumbered. Most of your stuff you call upon is from Stannis' campaign in the North where acting aggressively like Robert and moving swiftly on Winterfell might have worked in Stannis' favour allowing to take Winterfell before the Boltons arrived and Stannis' is also facing an incoming Winter would grind his campaign to a halt while events in the south would slowly move against him. Most of your sources are at best second hand accounts of Robert's brilliance by people who weren't there. Stannis' even mocks Horpe's assertions about Robert's greatness. You can't prove anything. Maybe I can't either but that doesn't mean you can either.

[Lee-Sensei]

6 hours ago, Thandros said:

We already know that Robert consistently had to tell people that Ned won the battle of the bells. Clearly people thought of the victory as his and he had to correct them. How do you know that people aren't making the same error for other encounters where Robert is less willing to correct their assertion of his own authority. Also you seem to think Robert could somehow command on Pyke, Great Wyk and Old Wyk. Even if Robert was in command I doubt the Greyjoy rebellion was a particularly tough fight for him. THe bulk of the Ironborn ha been smashed at fair island. That would have left limited forces for him to face at Pyke.

And just as many you've never heard of. Such as Archbishop Christian of Mainz, Gaius Suetonius Paulinus. I could go on to find and name others you've never heard of. A sign of competence maybe. Or perhaps a sign of the incompetence of the enemy. A difference of equipment and morale. Or maybe massive tactical blunders. Also You haven't heard of Oda Nobunaga because he won the battle of Okehazama. You've heard of him because he almost reunited Japan after a century of division. You've heard of Napoleon because of his victories while slightly outnumbered earlier in his career. Not because of his victories at the end while hopelessly strategically outnumbered. Also most generals don't fight while horribly outnumbered. That's why Napoleon made no serious efforts to defend Paris and instead tried to attack the Coalition's lines of communication. He knew he couldn't win against their numbers and was forced to defeat them indirectly.

 Maybe. But that doesn't make him a great general like you try to make him out to be. Who was he fighting against. Were they any good or were they incompetent buffoons who any decent general could beat. Ashford is only brought up in the presence of Tyrells or Tarlys. We've likely never had any of the leaders of these other battles in the presence of someone who might give an aside about a victory.

Does he? Where does Ned that say that. Don't give me those lines about the voice for a general. For all you know Jon Arryn might have been giving orders but his voice wasn't loud enough any more so he Robert do the shouting for him over the din of battle. The only thing it means is that Robert could be heard over the din of battle. Not that his orders were any good or made any difference if he was the one making them. Do you have any evidence that Robert was a key part of planning and organizing the battle.

Viewed. A perception as opposed to reality. The ability to move an army quickly is not necessarily the making of a great general. Any decent general can maneuver an army between three others to defeat them in detail with enough fore knowledge of their maneuvers. The fact Robert fought at Ashford at all seems suspect as to his abilities. You mention Robert's ability to retreat from Ashford successfully as a mark in his favour. Does that mean you Connington was a great general as well? His force at the Trident was battle harden not battle weary and there is nothing to suggest he wa significantly outnumbered only perhaps slightly outnumbered. Ned and Barristan's comments could easily be based purely on numbers the Lannister could gather maybe 50,000 and the Dornish luck to gather 20,000. Robert could easily gather over 80,000 to face them with no difficulty and maybe significantly more depending on who else would side with him. Neither would have significant support from the other kingdoms and would fight alone hopelessly outnumbered. Most of your stuff you call upon is from Stannis' campaign in the North where acting aggressively like Robert and moving swiftly on Winterfell might have worked in Stannis' favour allowing to take Winterfell before the Boltons arrived and Stannis' is also facing an incoming Winter would grind his campaign to a halt while events in the south would slowly move against him. Most of your sources are at best second hand accounts of Robert's brilliance by people who weren't there. Stannis' even mocks Horpe's assertions about Robert's greatness. You can't prove anything. Maybe I can't either but that doesn't mean you can either.

1) Do we know that? Harwin only says that Robert gave Ned credit for the victory of the Battle of the Bells. We never hear that people were constantly giving him credit for Ned’s victories and the fact that he admits that it was Ned’s victory is just more evidence that he’s not taking credit For other people’s victories. And I never said that he commanded on all of those islands. Read it again. Stannis took a Great Wyk, Barristan took Old Wyk and Robert took Pyke. Where’s the evidence that the bulk of their forces were defeated already? The Iron Fleet is about 100 ships with around 100 men on each ship. They also have around 400 longships carrying around 30 men on each.

2) I already knew about both of those Generalsand Napoleon and Nobunaga are famous for winning victories while incredibly outnumbered. That’s just not all that they’re famous for.

3) Do you have a shred of evidence that he’s a bad general? Saying that someone else might have been planning his battles Nd he just took credit for them just doesn’t wash.

4) In fact, that does mean that he was in command. For goodness sakes, when Robert gives credit to Ned for the Battle of the Bells you consider it Ned’s victory. You don’t say that someone else was planning it secretly and Ned took credit for it. But when Zroberts given credit for the victory at the Trident... not just by Ned, but by many people including George R.R. Martin, you give someone else credit.

5) I’m sorry, but this is ridiculous. The ability to move an army quickly and defeat enemies in detail isn’t the mark of a great general? Any general can do it? Do you speak from experience? Robert manages to retreat in good order and continue fighting. Jaime gets captured and ends up having his army destroyed. Randyll Tarly won a minor and indecisive clash. Robb one a strategic victory that ended up destroying the second largest force that the Lannisters had and capturing a major hostage. There’s no “perhaps” about it. They were outnumbered and Rhaegars troops were fresh. Do you have any evidence that they were just talking about numbers when they said that Robert would have crushed the Lannisters s or the Martells? A handful of my stuff is from Stannis’ northern campaign and Stannis wasn’t mocking Horpe first believing in a Roberts greatness. He was shutting him down, because he lives in a Roberts shadow and he doesn’t want to be told to be more like his brother again, although he admits later on that he has to be more like Robert if he wants to win. We aren’t equal here. I have evidence and you have speculation.

[Daeron the Daring]

3 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

1) Do we know that? Harwin only says that Robert gave Ned credit for the victory of the Battle of the Bells. We never hear that people were constantly giving him credit for Ned’s victories and the fact that he admits that it was Ned’s victory is just more evidence that he’s not taking credit For other people’s victories. And I never said that he commanded on all of those islands. Read it again. Stannis took a Great Wyk, Barristan took Old Wyk and Robert took Pyke. Where’s the evidence that the bulk of their forces were defeated already? The Iron Fleet is about 100 ships with around 100 men on each ship. They also have around 400 longships carrying around 30 men on each.

2) I already knew about both of those Generalsand Napoleon and Nobunaga are famous for winning victories while incredibly outnumbered. That’s just not all that they’re famous for.

3) Do you have a shred of evidence that he’s a bad general? Saying that someone else might have been planning his battles Nd he just took credit for them just doesn’t wash.

4) In fact, that does mean that he was in command. For goodness sakes, when Robert gives credit to Ned for the Battle of the Bells you consider it Ned’s victory. You don’t say that someone else was planning it secretly and Ned took credit for it. But when Zroberts given credit for the victory at the Trident... not just by Ned, but by many people including George R.R. Martin, you give someone else credit.

5) I’m sorry, but this is ridiculous. The ability to move an army quickly and defeat enemies in detail isn’t the mark of a great general? Any general can do it? Do you speak from experience? Robert manages to retreat in good order and continue fighting. Jaime gets captured and ends up having his army destroyed. Randyll Tarly won a minor and indecisive clash. Robb one a strategic victory that ended up destroying the second largest force that the Lannisters had and capturing a major hostage. There’s no “perhaps” about it. They were outnumbered and Rhaegars troops were fresh. Do you have any evidence that they were just talking about numbers when they said that Robert would have crushed the Lannisters s or the Martells? A handful of my stuff is from Stannis’ northern campaign and Stannis wasn’t mocking Horpe first believing in a Roberts greatness. He was shutting him down, because he lives in a Roberts shadow and he doesn’t want to be told to be more like his brother again, although he admits later on that he has to be more like Robert if he wants to win. We aren’t equal here. I have evidence and you have speculation.

What is the exact definition of evidence to you? Those facts you made up so you can prove that you're right?

Like the fact that an entire kingdom defeated some shitty islands? Or that he managed to win 3 battles a day, while he outnumbered each by 3 to 1? Or that he retreated well from a loss? Or that he killed Rhaegar, and THIS decided the Trident (not those ? Or that whothefuckexactly glorifies him? Please answer to these questions and don't compare Jaime's loss to his battles. The 2 have nothing in common.

All you do is putting things in a better light.

You should just stop, for real. All you achieve with this is the downgrade of the value of your later replys and topics.

[Thandros]

1 hour ago, Lee-Sensei said:

1) Do we know that? Harwin only says that Robert gave Ned credit for the victory of the Battle of the Bells. We never hear that people were constantly giving him credit for Ned’s victories and the fact that he admits that it was Ned’s victory is just more evidence that he’s not taking credit For other people’s victories. And I never said that he commanded on all of those islands. Read it again. Stannis took a Great Wyk, Barristan took Old Wyk and Robert took Pyke. Where’s the evidence that the bulk of their forces were defeated already? The Iron Fleet is about 100 ships with around 100 men on each ship. They also have around 400 longships carrying around 30 men on each.

We know that Robert was given credit over the victory at Stoney Sept and he had to correct people and give the credit to Ned. It stands to reason that in other victories Robert was present at or near at hand he may have been given credit that wasn't totally justified and he didn't feel the need to correct people on.

Both Victarion and Aeron both describe in different ways that the Iron Fleet was smashed at Fair Island. It's probable that other Longships were part of the fleet. We don't have a lot of details but we do know that both of Rodrick Hawlaw's sons and his brother in law died so clearly ships of house Hawlaw were part of the fleet so it seems possible that the Iron fleet had other Long ships present. The fleet is the bulk of the Ironborn military presence. The men they can raise and the ships they can muster use the same men in both. If there fleet is shattered they won't have and troops to fight on land anymore.

1 hour ago, Lee-Sensei said:

2) I already knew about both of those Generalsand Napoleon and Nobunaga are famous for winning victories while incredibly outnumbered. That’s just not all that they’re famous for.

Napoleon was often outnumbered but never incredibly. Even at the battle of Leipzig he wasn't even outnumbered 2 to 1 and he was utterly beaten. Nobunaga was only seriously outnumbered at Okehazama where depending on which account you believe he may only have fought a small part of the Imagawa forces in the battle itself. Most of the rest of his battles he had numerical supremacy and he didn't even win all of them either.

1 hour ago, Lee-Sensei said:

3) Do you have a shred of evidence that he’s a bad general? Saying that someone else might have been planning his battles Nd he just took credit for them just doesn’t wash.

 

I'm not saying he's a bad general. Just that he's not the all conquering god you seem to make him out to be.

1 hour ago, Lee-Sensei said:

4) In fact, that does mean that he was in command. For goodness sakes, when Robert gives credit to Ned for the Battle of the Bells you consider it Ned’s victory. You don’t say that someone else was planning it secretly and Ned took credit for it. But when Zroberts given credit for the victory at the Trident... not just by Ned, but by many people including George R.R. Martin, you give someone else credit.

 

Let's just assume that Robert was in command. Do you actually think the Trident is actually a good example of generalship. A bloody slogfest in the middle of a river which results in the river running red with blood which is only resolved when Robert gets his hammer into Rhaegar's chest to kill him and finally end the battle.

1 hour ago, Lee-Sensei said:

5) I’m sorry, but this is ridiculous. The ability to move an army quickly and defeat enemies in detail isn’t the mark of a great general? Any general can do it? Do you speak from experience? Robert manages to retreat in good order and continue fighting. Jaime gets captured and ends up having his army destroyed. Randyll Tarly won a minor and indecisive clash. Robb one a strategic victory that ended up destroying the second largest force that the Lannisters had and capturing a major hostage. There’s no “perhaps” about it. They were outnumbered and Rhaegars troops were fresh. Do you have any evidence that they were just talking about numbers when they said that Robert would have crushed the Lannisters s or the Martells? A handful of my stuff is from Stannis’ northern campaign and Stannis wasn’t mocking Horpe first believing in a Roberts greatness. He was shutting him down, because he lives in a Roberts shadow and he doesn’t want to be told to be more like his brother again, although he admits later on that he has to be more like Robert if he wants to win. We aren’t equal here. I have evidence and you have speculation.

So Harold Godwinson was a great general and his crushing defeat at Hastings was a minor hiccup. That Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull where military genius for convincing Custer to split up his own force so it could be defeated in detail. All Robert needed to do to win a victory in detail at Summerhall was get there quickly enough and allow the enemy to arrive in divided columns. That only requires speed (which we know he could do) and decent intelligence on enemy plans (which he clearly had). Yes Rhaegar's troops were fresh and relatively inexperienced. You seem to somehow think that Robert's army was exhausted from prolonged fighting before the Trident. There isn't anything to support that assertion or that Rhaegar army might not have been tired from the march to the battlefield. It's likely neither army had any degree of tiredness. That they'd had plenty of time to rest in the lead up to the battle and went to it relatively well rested. Does it matter with the Lannisters and Martells? The numbers are such that even with only decent commanders victory would be fairly certain.

With Stannis I'm not even certain which line you're referring to. I can't find any line where he decides he has to be more like Robert. He does decide he has to march on Winterfell but there are lots of good military reasons to do so.

We both have evidence of a sort. You've got some statements from second hand sources mostly and others likely distorted by time perceptions and the distortions of passing between people. I've got my own evidence. Or else my replies would be much shorter.

[Naerys Stark]

On 10/9/2020 at 11:47 AM, Alyn Oakenfist said:

The Reach and Dorne would both side with him, maybe some marriages needed there (Jon and Robb to Arianne and Marge perhaps).

The Reach? Maybe. Dorne siding with a child born of Rhaegar with someone that's not Elia, through cheating on Elia (on their eyes at least)? I doubt that very much.

[Walter White]

Lyanna being kidnapped actually makes her look a lot better than her selfishly running off with the prince. Who looks down on Jon exactly? Thorne and Catelyn do sure but they have very personal reasons to dislike him. Ned didn't tell Jon the truth because Jon was a dumb child who easily could have blurted it out and got himself killed. Jon threw his pretty good life away because he was a total dumbarse. Not Ned's fault at all. This seems like it's just trying to be contrarian and make Ned into some horrible person he's not.

[SeanF]

On 10/9/2020 at 9:04 AM, Alyn Oakenfist said:

So a lot of people have a problem with Cat for how she treated Jon. But think about it, she thought him the bastard son of her husband, with a woman she didn't know and he was being paraded in front of him. So why Cat was a bit of a bitch to Jon, I can't really blame him. Who I can blame however, is Ned. So...

- First off he pisses a bit on his sisters memory by going along with the lie that it was kidnapping, when it so obviously wasn't (might have been something wrong there after Brandon's death, but no way it was kidnapping). Nice honor you got there Ned.

- Then he takes the rightful heir to the Iron Throne, and makes him a bastard. Sure he's treated better then most bastards, but he's still looked down upon. Ned might have promised to keep him safe, but not to keep him happy or respected.

- Furthermore, he refuses to tell the boy the truth, letting him suffer wondering who his mom was. Again nice honor you got there Ned.

- He also refuses to tell his wife the truth, instead letting her hate the boy, for no reason other then his lies.

- He continues to support a fat oaf of a King, who can't be bothered to rule, who claims he loved his sister but has made whoring a sport and who revels at dead children and tries to kill some more.

- All the while he has the rightful King of Westeros by his side and keeps on that he's a bastard. Now is he protecting Jon, or is he protecting the fat leech, and the second coming of Aerys the second in the form of his heir.

- Even more then that, when he learns the truth, he keeps on about how Stannis is the rightful King... Is he really Ned?

- But the worst part is the Watch. Ned actively encourages Jon to join the Nights Watch.

- He purposefully withholds the truth of how much of a shithole the Watch is, knowing that is Jon knew he wouldn't in a million years join.

- He is perfectly content to let the child of his sister and the rightful King of Westeros to rot at the Wall, miserable and childless.

Really honorable of him, what can I say

Ned's treatment of Jon, in canon, was  .....not that good.

Just rereading the relevant chapters at the start of AGOT, Jon is:-

(a) intensely self-conscious of his bastard status. It's been driven home to him that he is very much an inferior Stark (and that's not just due to Catelyn. We will learn that comments from Robb, Sansa, and his treatment in the Great Hall all reinforce this). Think of his outburst to Benjen about fathering children out of marriage;

(b) convinced wrongly that bastards can prosper at the Wall. Most bastards end up on the wrong end of a wildling's axe. It was all extremely fortuitous that he ended up as Lord Commander. Benjen tried to warn him what he was letting himself in for. Ned didn't.  It's not like joining the Watch is like Prince Edward joining the Marines, something you can back out of when you realise your mistake.  This is a life sentence in a penal colony.

What parent, who knows what life at the Wall is truly like, would want their son to be a part of it?

(c) Aware that sooner or later, he will be destitute. His sisters can expect to be married, his brothers will be given holdfasts, and he will get nothing. This, despite the fact the Starks must own a score of holdfasts and millions of acres of land. At best, he'll be living off the charity of one of his brothers for the rest of his life.  Who apart from Ned would have told him he had no prospects?

This is all pretty odd. Many fathers would do nothing for a bastard. An ordinarily decent rich father would likely settle a substantial sum of money on the mother, or arrange for the child to be fostered with a vassal. There was nothing to stop Ned from fostering him, or from sending him as a squire to another lord, or even enrolling him as a squire among his own men. His upbringing at Winterfell has only made him more, not less, aware of his inferior status.

Ned was fulfilling the letter of his promise to Lyanna, but he was not fulfilling the spirit of it. He was keeping him alive, but seems to have had no interest in providing for his future apart from that, and basically washed his hands of him once he went to the Wall.

Jon was not treated like Falia Flowers, but Ned could have behaved a lot better towards him.

Ned is not a bad man, but I think he was deeply conflicted by his love for his sister, and his loyalty to Robert Baratheon.  

[frenin]

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

(a) intensely self-conscious of his bastard status. It's been driven home to him that he is very much an inferior Stark (and that's not just due to Catelyn. We will learn that comments from Robb, Sansa, and his treatment in the Great Hall all reinforce this). Think of his outburst to Benjen about fathering children out of marriage;

I don't think this is either fair or really true. Jon is a bastard. Bar Cat, all his siblings treat him as a brother, a beloved one at that, Sansa is the only one that calls him half brother... which he is.

His treatment on the Great Hall was bound to happen, Jon cannot  dine with royals, he eats with his family every other day of the week, he is as perhaps the best treated bastard in the country, but a bastard anyway, there's nothing Ned can do to relieve him for that burden.

 

 

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

(b) convinced wrongly that bastards can prosper at the Wall. Most bastards end up on the wrong end of a wildling's axe. It was all extremely fortuitous that he ended up as Lord Commander. Benjen tried to warn him what he was letting himself in for. Ned didn't.  It's not like joining the Watch is like Prince Edward joining the Marines, something you can back out of when you realise your mistake.  This is a life sentence in a penal colony.

But it is true... Bastards can and have greatly prospered at the Wall and the Wall as any dangerous job... has its dangers. It was extremely fortuitous that he ended up as Lord Commander... that soon. But as Sam points out he was beeb groomed to the office just because he was Ned Stark's bastard.

Ned considered the Wall honorable... why would he tell Jon something he himself didn't believe??

 

 

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

(c) Aware that sooner or later, he will be destitute. His sisters can expect to be married, his brothers will be given holdfasts, and he will get nothing. This, despite the fact the Starks must own a score of holdfasts and millions of acres of land. At best, he'll be living off the charity of one of his brothers for the rest of his life.  Who apart from Ned would have told him he had no prospects?

Any history book?? Bastards do not inherit anything, in fact most younger siblings do not inherit anything and they pretty much lived off the charity the lordling for the rest of their lives. Since when do bastard get to inherit anything??

Does Ned really need to tell him something that is the very root of feudalism?

 

 

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

This is all pretty odd. Many fathers would do nothing for a bastard. An ordinarily decent rich father would likely settle a substantial sum of money on the mother, or arrange for the child to be fostered with a vassal. There was nothing to stop Ned from fostering him, or from sending him as a squire to another lord, or even enrolling him as a squire among his own men. His upbringing at Winterfell has only made him more, not less, aware of his inferior status.

We don't know how Jon been sent out would have felt, maybe even more abandoned?? It's pretty easy to imagine an alternative where everything goes well. Besides, Ned didn't foster any of his children and his intention was to have Robb and Jon to grow as brothers, which fostering makes really hard.

Btw, i don't know if an ordinarily decent rich father would have settled a sum for their bastards, that's something new.

 

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

Ned was fulfilling the letter of his promise to Lyanna, but he was not fulfilling the spirit of it. He was keeping him alive, but seems to have had no interest in providing for his future apart from that, and basically washed his hands of him once he went to the Wall.

Jon was raised as a noble and we have no idea of what his intention towards Jon were, they separate when the latter is 14.

[SeanF]

13 minutes ago, frenin said:

I don't think this is either fair or really true. Jon is a bastard. Bar Cat, all his siblings treat him as a brother, a beloved one at that, Sansa is the only one that calls him half brother... which he is.

His treatment on the Great Hall was bound to happen, Jon cannot  dine with royals, he eats with his family every other day of the week, he is as perhaps the best treated bastard in the country, but a bastard anyway, there's nothing Ned can do to relieve him for that burden.

 

 

But it is true... Bastards can and have greatly prospered at the Wall and the Wall as any dangerous job... has its dangers. It was extremely fortuitous that he ended up as Lord Commander... that soon. But as Sam points out he was beeb groomed to the office just because he was Ned Stark's bastard.

Ned considered the Wall honorable... why would he tell Jon something he himself didn't believe??

 

 

Any history book?? Bastards do not inherit anything, in fact most younger siblings do not inherit anything and they pretty much lived off the charity the lordling for the rest of their lives. Since when do bastard get to inherit anything??

Does Ned really need to tell him something that is the very root of feudalism?

 

 

We don't know how Jon been sent out would have felt, maybe even more abandoned?? It's pretty easy to imagine an alternative where everything goes well. Besides, Ned didn't foster any of his children and his intention was to have Robb and Jon to grow as brothers, which fostering makes really hard.

Btw, i don't know if an ordinarily decent rich father would have settled a sum for their bastards, that's something new.

 

Jon was raised as a noble and we have no idea of what his intention towards Jon were, they separate when the latter is 14.

As to the treatment of bastards, I don't think I agree.  Neither Robb nor Sansa is being deliberately mean to him.  They're just reminding him of what's what.  But, Jon's outburst to Benjen suggests it does hurt. 

He's not being treated like Falia Flowers, granted.  But, Prince Oberyn's children, Ser Aurane Waters, even Edric Storm (though not the rest of Robert's byblows) have it better.

If Ned thinks the Watch is an honourable calling, he's gravely mistaken.  95% of its people are there as an alternative to death or castration.  Sure, as the son of Ned, and nephew of Benjen, he has better prospects than most, but the likeliest prospect is a quick death.  In fact, Jon was remarkably lucky not to get killed, prior to becoming Lord Commander.

WRT real medieval life, royal, or noble bastards would never inherit the title or family seat.  But, they were frequently provided for. Most popes and cardinals had  "nephews and nieces" who were vested with lands and honours.  Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond, may have been exceptional, but providing for natural children was not at all unusual.

[frenin]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

As to the treatment of bastards, I don't think I agree.  Neither Robb nor Sansa is being deliberately mean to him.  They're just reminding him of what's what.  But, Jon's outburst to Benjen suggests it does hurt.

Ofc it hurts but it's not like there's something about it. At the end of the day, they are legit and Jon isn't. Nothing can change that and that's what stings.

 

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

He's not being treated like Falia Flowers, granted.  But, Prince Oberyn's children, Ser Aurane Waters, even Edric Storm (though not the rest of Robert's byblows) have it better.

Edric isn't treated better than Jon in any conceivable way, nor he has it better than him, I'll bet Edric would like to swap places with him, you know get to be to be with relatives that actually care about you and don't want you dead. Otherwise there's absolutely nothing Edric has or might have that Jon lacks of.

We don't really know much of Aurane Water's childhood to pass a judgment.

The sand snakes come from completely different cultures.

 

 

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

If Ned thinks the Watch is an honourable calling, he's gravely mistaken.  95% of its people are there as an alternative to death or castration.  Sure, as the son of Ned, and nephew of Benjen, he has better prospects than most, but the likeliest prospect is a quick death.  In fact, Jon was remarkably lucky not to get killed, prior to becoming Lord Commander

Well ofc he's mistaken, most of the Northmen are. But you can't hardly fault him for not telling Jon something he didn't know himself.

There's a possibility of a likely death in almost every dangerous job in Westeros. 

 

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

WRT real medieval life, royal, or noble bastards would never inherit the title or family seat.  But, they were frequently provided for. Most popes and cardinals had  "nephews and nieces" who were vested with lands and honours.  Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond, may have been exceptional, but providing for natural children was not at all unusual.

And father actually provided his children with lands and titles even when the oldest were to take the biggest prize.

Westeros is not that.