Jump to content

Machiavelli ,Clausewitz,Sun Tzu, and others think of Robb Stark


Mrstrategy

Recommended Posts

Sun Tzu said tactics without strategy is the longest road to defeat so nothing good

Machiavelli believed in democracy and rule of the people (the Prince is partially a satirical work highlighting the immense efforts and cruelties one needs to maintain an autocracy). He also thinks that war should best be avoided and that human loses are tragedies. Again a pretty poor opinion, especially given his hatred of the blind feedback-less feudalism Robb embodies

Haven't read enough about Clausewitz to say

All in all nothing good

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Sun Tzu would say avoid war, Robb started one. 

Machiavelli showed outward kindness and humility, Robb shows righteous privilege 

Clausewitz focused on the historical cause of war and warfare, Robb didn't care about history, he just took the title of King in the north without much consideration. 

 

They would not like him.  

I agree.  Although generals such as Napoleon and Washington might take a liking to Robb Stark because of his talent on the field of battle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Only 89 selfies today said:

I agree.  Although generals such as Napoleon and Washington might take a liking to Robb Stark because of his talent on the field of battle. 

Napoleon in particular would admire his great use of maneuver and defeat in detail

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Napoleon in particular would admire his great use of maneuver and defeat in detail

I think it's a stretch to describe as an effective use of defeat in detail, sure he defeated the weaker arm of an enemy army but his main force was sent to engage the enemy's main force and was defeated. He even defeated Jaime (EDIT: Jaime's army as whole, not Jaime's little anti raider force) with an inferior force so it's not even like he concentrated his power on the weaker Lannister army.  

If anything he lucked out that not a single Lannister scout managed to report his movements. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Trigger Warning said:

I think it's a stretch to describe as an effect use of defeat in detail, sure he defeated the weaker arm of an enemy army but his main force was sent to engage the enemy's main force and was defeated. He even defeated Jaime with an inferior force so it's not even like he concentrated his power on the weaker Lannister army.  

An contrare

When he first splits off his forces he sends Bolton to non decisively engage Tywin. That's just the first part.

Next he further splits up his forces by luring Jaime and defeating him with superior numbers at the point (Whispering Woods)

Then he uses the geography of RIverrun and the way the enemies are separated to quickly brake the siege

All cases of great use of defeat in detail. The only battle were Robb does not have the edge is the Green Fork were he leaves orders for Roose to be cautious and non decisive (even if Roose kinda fucks up)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

An contrare

When he first splits off his forces he sends Bolton to non decisively engage Tywin. That's just the first part.

Next he further splits up his forces by luring Jaime and defeating him with superior numbers at the point (Whispering Woods)

Then he uses the geography of RIverrun and the way the enemies are separated to quickly brake the siege

All cases of great use of defeat in detail. The only battle were Robb does not have the edge is the Green Fork were he leaves orders for Roose to be cautious and non decisive (even if Roose kinda fucks up)

 

Defeat in detail is explicitly using overwhelming force to engage the smaller sections of an enemy army. While I'll concede that defeating Jaime's force before engaging his main force is an example of this it's a poor one. Jaime's force is superior to Robb's and Robb's strategy relies entirely on Jaime's lack of a strong screen of scouts and Jaime splitting his forces. While this works out fine and you can argue that it worked because they knew Jaime would behave this way it's hard to justify as a good use of defeat in detail when it relies massively on huge enemy mistakes and holds huge risks. Defeat in detail is entirely about minimising risks, had a single man seen Robb's men and reached Jaime then Robb would be entirely outnumbered. 

I really can't see taking such huge risks and potential to be outnumbered as a good example defeat in detail. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2020 at 2:30 PM, Mrstrategy said:

What would Machiavelli,Clausewitz,Sun Tzu and other leading political and military writers think of Robb Stark actions and conduct during the war of five kings?

Those military theorists would like his talent in that area but say his politics could have been better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2020 at 2:30 PM, Mrstrategy said:

What would Machiavelli,Clausewitz,Sun Tzu and other leading political and military writers think of Robb Stark actions and conduct during the war of five kings?

Sun Tzu and Machiavelli would rank the following masterminds ahead of Robb Stark:  (1) Walder, (2) Tyrion, (3) Tywin, (4) Daenerys, (5) Mance, (6) Petyr, (7) Stannis, and (8) Roose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

Missed Chanakya 

Machiavelli and Chanakya would go gaga over Roose, Tywin, Walder, Petyr, Varys, Tyrion (to an extent). Just look at their quotes. Politics has no relation to morals. Whatever is needed is dharma (right morally/ethically). Blah blah. Defeat your enemy by the roots so he doesn't stroke back. Like Sicilian Mafiosa. LA Cosa Nostra. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...