Jump to content

How would you have resolved the Hornwood succession crisis?


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

So basically he should’ve stayed back with his mother and let the men do the fighting?

Of course not but their is a difference between overseeing a battle as a general from a safe position and charging headlong into the enemy where any random foot soldier could in theory kill him and end the northern campaign in an instant.

13 hours ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

You've got it backwards. Jaime was the one leaping at Robb when he realised that he was trapped. It was Daryn's hard luck that both he and his dad got killed in two different battles (though I do blame Roose Bolton for putting Halys in the line of fire purely so he'd die). 

Maybe it was Jamie leading a charge against him but Robb hardly gave him a difficult task. Robb is explicitly leading the charge in Catelyn's description of it. He also must have already lost his horse and had a gouge carved into his shield before Jamie even got to him as by the Jamie got to him he was unarmed. Also Jamie led his charge up the valley meaning Robb had to basically already be right in the middle or pretty close to the middle before Jamie spotted him and led his charge. it may have been bad luck Daryn died but it was only good luck that Jamie didn't get the kill to end the war there and then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2021 at 5:48 PM, The Young Maester said:

If Berena Hornwood is Lord Halys only sibling than by default her two sons (or herself) become the new rulers of hornwood.

 

Exactly so.   It doing so would also reinforce the loyalty of both House Tallhart and the newly-settled leadership team of House Hornwood.  I'd still let Lady Donella marry Ser Rodrik, but invite them to reside in Winterfell to avoid mischief. Although they are sisters-in-law, I cannot imagine Lady Donella and Lady Berena (either as the new regnant Lady of Hornwood, or in a quasi-regency capacity if she demurs for her son as the new lord - they are still children, right?) getting along all that well inside one castle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Thandros said:

Of course not but their is a difference between overseeing a battle as a general from a safe position and charging headlong into the enemy where any random foot soldier could in theory kill him and end the northern campaign in an instant.

A leader that joins the fray of the fighting is someone that will gain his mens loyalty and it would boost morale. So no their is nothing wrong with charging headlong into battle. It’s the Middle Ages, kings and nobleman would constantly put themselves at risk.

Their are risks in war and if you willingly join an army on campaign than you already acknowledged the risks. Daryn willingly joined robbs guard and by doing so he also knows that he will sacrifice his life for robbs.

So blaming robb for daryns death is like blaming a world leader for one of his bodyguards taking a bullet for him.

It was his job and he did his job successfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

A leader that joins the fray of the fighting is someone that will gain his mens loyalty and it would boost morale. So no their is nothing wrong with charging headlong into battle. It’s the Middle Ages, kings and nobleman would constantly put themselves at risk.

Their are risks in war and if you willingly join an army on campaign than you already acknowledged the risks. Daryn willingly joined robbs guard and by doing so he also knows that he will sacrifice his life for robbs.

So blaming robb for daryns death is like blaming a world leader for one of his bodyguards taking a bullet for him.

It was his job and he did his job successfully.

The thing is that there is a difference between fighting alongside your men and leading a charge. Stannis, Tywin, Roose and even Renly aren't leading the charges of their armies into the heart of battle. Only Renly was even considering being anywhere near the actual fighting. Most leaders are clever enough to realise that getting stuck into a battle might get you a little morale for your men but being able to coordinate the battle, direct reinforcements and react effectively to events is more important.

The thing is it really isn't medieval it's more early renaissance where even in the real world generals were understanding this as well. As for loyalty he would probably have had more if he'd been a bit more cautious in his deployment. Not only might he not have to deal with a serious collapse in the North but he also wouldn't have lost the Karstarks in the way he did.

One could even take Robb's decision to lead from the front is reflective in his extremely narrow view of the conflict which results in errors and mistakes which undo his entire campaign while Tywin who leads from the rear is able to defeat him because he takes a broader view of the conflict and capitalize on Robb's mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Thandros said:

The thing is that there is a difference between fighting alongside your men and leading a charge.

On your first point you said their is a difference between overseeing the battle at a safe position and charging into it. But now you say its either leading a charge or fighting alongside other men. So im not sure which one is the point you stand on.

6 hours ago, Thandros said:

Stannis, Tywin, Roose and even Renly aren't leading the charges of their armies into the heart of battle. Only Renly was even considering being anywhere near the actual fighting. Most leaders are clever enough to realise that getting stuck into a battle might get you a little morale for your men but being able to coordinate the battle, direct reinforcements and react effectively to events is more important.

All 3 of robbs battles didnt involve any reserves and they were all ambush battles which have very little risks because you caught the enemy unawares. Stannis, roose, and Tywin led pitched battles not coordinated ambushes. In most of robbs ambush battles it’s quite obvious that whatever struggle the enemy gave lasted very little, so their was no need to stay back and coordinate when by the time your orders would be fulfilled the enemy would’ve been routed. Only exception would be whispering wood in which Jamie’s army was geared and ready to battle, only difference is that they didn’t expect to be ambushed. Mayhaps if robb fought in a pitched battle we wouldve seen how he handles it but we never get to see that.

And fighting along sides your men does wonders to morale. Morale is the most important thing when heading into battle. And fighting for a warrior king will inspire people. Seeing your lord take the same risks as you will make you risk yourselves even more.

6 hours ago, Thandros said:

The thing is it really isn't medieval it's more early renaissance where even in the real world generals were understanding this as well. As for loyalty he would probably have had more if he'd been a bit more cautious in his deployment. Not only might he not have to deal with a serious collapse in the North but he also wouldn't have lost the Karstarks in the way he did.

Westeros is nowhere near renaissance. It’s social, feudal, and economic structure resembles more the early Middle Ages. Only thing that resembles early renaissance  era is military equipment.

Their are risks and rewards when fighting. Robb reaped all the rewards, since after his death, his subjects talk fondly about him and his bravery. After his marriage to a women of lower status, desertion of Freys, and karstarks. His lords still remained loyal.

The one thing we can pin on him, which resulted with lords deserting/switching sides. Is the Frey betrayal, his marriage really was a slap on the face. Everything else the karstark and boltons was a result of other peoples action which were out of his control.

6 hours ago, Thandros said:

One could even take Robb's decision to lead from the front is reflective in his extremely narrow view of the conflict which results in errors and mistakes which undo his entire campaign while Tywin who leads from the rear is able to defeat him because he takes a broader view of the conflict and capitalize on Robb's mistakes.

I attribute it more towards robb being young and naive, whilst Tywin was an experienced man who is willing to take the extra step to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

On your first point you said their is a difference between overseeing the battle at a safe position and charging into it. But now you say its either leading a charge or fighting alongside other men. So im not sure which one is the point you stand on.

I'm making the point is that even if he has to go and fight with his men he doesn't need to be the one leading the charge he could place himself in the middle of his men sharing their dangers without being an idiot and putting himself in unnecessary harm.

1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

All 3 of robbs battles didnt involve any reserves and they were all ambush battles which have very little risks because you caught the enemy unawares. Stannis, roose, and Tywin led pitched battles not coordinated ambushes. In most of robbs ambush battles it’s quite obvious that whatever struggle the enemy gave lasted very little, so their was no need to stay back and coordinate when by the time your orders would be fulfilled the enemy would’ve been routed. Only exception would be whispering wood in which Jamie’s army was geared and ready to battle, only difference is that they didn’t expect to be ambushed. Mayhaps if robb fought in a pitched battle we wouldve seen how he handles it but we never get to see that.

And fighting along sides your men does wonders to morale. Morale is the most important thing when heading into battle. And fighting for a warrior king will inspire people. Seeing your lord take the same risks as you will make you risk yourselves even more.

In an ambush battle if would be arguably even more important to be overseeing the battle to make sure everything is going well. At the Whispering Wood if a small detachment of Jamie's army had been able to slip away by luck and Robb had been unable to coordinate a pursuit because he was too busy chasing after glory in the heart of battle we would be lambasting him for his failures. Perhaps if he'd been overseeing the Oxcross more carefully he'd have been able to direct his forces after fleeing Lannisters better and they'd have killed even more of them.

As for the second point I don't morale is the most important thing. High morale when going into a battle that will see your army slaughtered is not going to help you in the long term. What's most important for winning battles is Logistics and Discipline. There what ensure's your army will actually win battles rather than charging off to be utterly destroyed every time you tried to fight.

1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

Westeros is nowhere near renaissance. It’s social, feudal, and economic structure resembles more the early Middle Ages. Only thing that resembles early renaissance  era is military equipment.

Their are risks and rewards when fighting. Robb reaped all the rewards, since after his death, his subjects talk fondly about him and his bravery. After his marriage to a women of lower status, desertion of Freys, and karstarks. His lords still remained loyal.

The one thing we can pin on him, which resulted with lords deserting/switching sides. Is the Frey betrayal, his marriage really was a slap on the face. Everything else the karstark and boltons was a result of other peoples action which were out of his control.

Westeros and the broader world look nothing like the early middle ages at all. You have complex banking systems, sophisticated trade networks, the importance of money over feudal contract, the increasing emphasis on mercenaries and a lot of other things you could point to definitely push it up the theoretical timeline comparison towards the Renaissance. It definitely isn't early middle ages. And remember Westeros is the primitive ass end of the world and far behind the rest of the world. For all their posturing Westeros is behind everywhere else in a lot of ways.

No the ignominy of how he was killed got his those favourable opinions after his death. The memory of good Stark rule by better Lords than Robb. Karstark and Bolton defections can be linked back to his desire to be far too close to the action at the Whispering wood. The Karstarks quite directly and the Boltons indirectly through the Hornwood succession crisis and the fighting that results. A conflict only addressed in part during the harvest feast in the North while Robb blindly ignores the ticking time bomb about to blow up his kingdom. Robb undoubtedly faced more disloyalty and defections if he'd survived the Twins but he didn't because the first act of open treachery was enough to end him completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Westeros is nowhere near renaissance. It’s social, feudal, and economic structure resembles more the early Middle Ages. Only thing that resembles early renaissance  era is military equipment.

 

The system of Westeros is more accurately in the early modern period, starting in 1450. My opinion, at least. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thandros said:

I'm making the point is that even if he has to go and fight with his men he doesn't need to be the one leading the charge he could place himself in the middle of his men sharing their dangers without being an idiot and putting himself in unnecessary harm.

But your whole point is that he should stay back and supposedly lead. Your point is that he can better lead his army from the rear. So this is still confusing.
 

Put himself in danger? Who cares he is at war, men die in war, if he dies it’s fine he has 2 heirs available, and dozens of lords that are willing to protect his family’s rights.

2 hours ago, Thandros said:

In an ambush battle if would be arguably even more important to be overseeing the battle to make sure everything is going well. At the Whispering Wood if a small detachment of Jamie's army had been able to slip away by luck and Robb had been unable to coordinate a pursuit because he was too busy chasing after glory in the heart of battle we would be lambasting him for his failures.

Well some other man at arms would’ve given chase. You had dozens of lords in that battle. They all would’ve reacted accordingly. They all know the plan, you cant expect one person to make all the decisions. Your seeing it from a board games point of view. Where you as the player can make instant decisions which would otherwise take minutes or hours for the orders to be sent.

The whole point of giving other lords command is for them to lead and react to things.

You think if someone like greatjon or Richard karstark saw some men slip right past them, that they would just simply ignore them? Their commander would be hundreds of meters away overseeing the battle (as you say), why wait for an order when you know they can’t escape. Plus in this era most nobleman in battle would make their own decisions. It’s why this era was really tough on battles since victory can’t be guaranteed due to the fickleness of men.

2 hours ago, Thandros said:

Perhaps if he'd been overseeing the Oxcross more carefully he'd have been able to direct his forces after fleeing Lannisters better and they'd have killed even more of them.

It’s impossible to completely kill/capture an entire army. Especially if that army is twice your size. Your again thinking from a board players point of view. By the time the enemy retreats/routs, most of the army would be too tired to give chase and those that do wont be able to do as much damage as you believe. Grant you most casualties in battle come from when the enemy is retreating, but to expect your men to give chase for the full retreat is naive.

2 hours ago, Thandros said:

As for the second point I don't morale is the most important thing. High morale when going into a battle that will see your army slaughtered is not going to help you in the long term.

How else do you keep an army from disintegrating. I’d rather have a starving army than an army low on morale. A starving army can still have the will to carry on and win the day, whilst an army with low morale will break at smallest possibility of defeat, let’s not forget desertion too.

In any aspects of life that rely on a team, morale is absolutely the most important thing.

2 hours ago, Thandros said:

What's most important for winning battles is Logistics and Discipline. There what ensure's your army will actually win battles rather than charging off to be utterly destroyed every time you tried to fight.

This is true for the modern and gunpowder era, but in the Middle Ages, discipline was almost non existent, and logistics were essentially “live off the enemy’s lands.”Some did carry baggage trains, but if they are invading a foreign land than theyd ditch the baggage and instead take the food off the peasants. 

2 hours ago, Thandros said:

Westeros and the broader world look nothing like the early middle ages at all. You have complex banking systems, sophisticated trade networks, the importance of money over feudal contract, the increasing emphasis on mercenaries and a lot of other things you could point to definitely push it up the theoretical timeline comparison towards the Renaissance. It definitely isn't early middle ages. And remember Westeros is the primitive ass end of the world and far behind the rest of the world. For all their posturing Westeros is behind everywhere else in a lot of ways.

As you said broader world. And saying essos is close to the renaissance era is another arguable discussion.

All these points you said apply to Essos only (which I wouldn’t consider continent in brisk of the renaissance era) Westerosi nobles still grumble at the presence of merchants, and they think counting money is beneath them. Westeros dosent have a banks, lawyers, university’s, a larger interest on trade from noblemen, more centralisation, and emphasis on conscripted and trained soldiers, and less use of knights and man at arms that most be called upon. And mercenaries have been around since men have learnt that money can be made off war.

The behaviour of the westerosi resembles more the brutal and savage manner people in the early Middle Ages acted.

2 hours ago, Thandros said:

No the ignominy of how he was killed got his those favourable opinions after his death. The memory of good Stark rule by better Lords than Robb.

His death defo made him a martyr in the north. But his actions during his campaign is what made him likeable.

2 hours ago, Thandros said:

The Karstarks quite directly and the Boltons indirectly through the Hornwood succession crisis and the fighting that results.

As I said linking the events during that battle to these events of betrayal is laughable. It’s like blaming me for giving you money to call a taxi home and on the way home the taxi crashes and you get injured. The sons of these lords willingly joined a campaign where they can Die, pinning their deaths on their leader is ridiculous especially when they offered themselves as guards to said leader.

2 hours ago, Thandros said:

A conflict only addressed in part during the harvest feast in the North while Robb blindly ignores the ticking time bomb about to blow up his kingdom.

Robb was campaigning in the west, when the crisis began. When a king is far away from their kingdom they leave regents behind (e.g Richard lionheart when he was campaigning in Jerusalem). You cant expect a king to rule his realm whilst his on campaign. They dont have telephones or supersonic ravens.

And you forget how long it takes for news to reach people across the continent. If robb heard about the abduction of lady hornwood, than he wouldve heard later on how Rodrick dealt with the issue and killed ramsey. By the time he gets news of the capture of winterfell he is also told his brothers are dead.

2 hours ago, Thandros said:

Robb undoubtedly faced more disloyalty and defections if he'd survived the Twins but he didn't because the first act of open treachery was enough to end him completely.

This is an assumption, had went north and taken moat cailin. He would later secure and stabilise the rest of the north. From than on it’s all speculation what would happen. If his lords didn’t defect with all the bad events that happened (duskandale, winterfell, moat cailin, deepwood motte, Frey-karstark desertion). Than I don’t see how him liberating the north would lead to more defections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

But your whole point is that he should stay back and supposedly lead. Your point is that he can better lead his army from the rear. So this is still confusing.
 

Put himself in danger? Who cares he is at war, men die in war, if he dies it’s fine he has 2 heirs available, and dozens of lords that are willing to protect his family’s rights.

You once again miss the point. it is better to command from the rear. Just about everyone realised this as the 15th century rolled on. If you're going to fight alongside your men you shouldn't be doing it from the front rank which will get you killed and leave you with little opportunity to command your men. You should do it from the middle of your ranks where you are well protected.

Yes he has two heirs. An eight year old cripple who can't walk and a four year old. Neither can lead the army and the disputes over who would serve as formal regent would no doubt cripple the Northern war effort as arguments and disagreements about what is in the best interests of the kingdom and the Starks themselves. It's exactly why Robb had to take overall command of the army marching south in the first place. He can't have someone else simply take over the army.

9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Well some other man at arms would’ve given chase. You had dozens of lords in that battle. They all would’ve reacted accordingly. They all know the plan, you cant expect one person to make all the decisions. Your seeing it from a board games point of view. Where you as the player can make instant decisions which would otherwise take minutes or hours for the orders to be sent.

The whole point of giving other lords command is for them to lead and react to things.

You think if someone like greatjon or Richard karstark saw some men slip right past them, that they would just simply ignore them? Their commander would be hundreds of meters away overseeing the battle (as you say), why wait for an order when you know they can’t escape. Plus in this era most nobleman in battle would make their own decisions. It’s why this era was really tough on battles since victory can’t be guaranteed due to the fickleness of men.

Sure the Greatjon, Rickard Karstark and others would send men after them. But if the Lannisters split up to increase their chances and they aren't properly coordinated then perhaps might slip through the net. Besides the only battle where we see significant autonomous actions by subordinates is the battle of the camps and that's only because the command had been decapitated. Elsewhere we see very little autonomy demonstrated by the lords fighting the battles. I think your misconceptions about the era ASOIAF is set in is affecting you.

9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

This is true for the modern and gunpowder era, but in the Middle Ages, discipline was almost non existent, and logistics were essentially “live off the enemy’s lands.”Some did carry baggage trains, but if they are invading a foreign land than theyd ditch the baggage and instead take the food off the peasants. 

Logistics and discipline affects more than you seem to think. Logistics isn't just ensuring you have enough supplies. It's also ensuring you have sufficient equipment, ammunition for battle and that they are in good condition. Discipline has been the foundation of some of the most effective armies in every period. Ill discipline can destroy an army by leading it into traps, allowing it to be picked apart piece by piece and a thousand other problems that a lack of discipline can cause. It's not just the modern and gunpowder era.

9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

As you said broader world. And saying essos is close to the renaissance era is another arguable discussion.

All these points you said apply to Essos only (which I wouldn’t consider continent in brisk of the renaissance era) Westerosi nobles still grumble at the presence of merchants, and they think counting money is beneath them. Westeros dosent have a banks, lawyers, university’s, a larger interest on trade from noblemen, more centralisation, and emphasis on conscripted and trained soldiers, and less use of knights and man at arms that most be called upon. And mercenaries have been around since men have learnt that money can be made off war.

The behaviour of the westerosi resembles more the brutal and savage manner people in the early Middle Ages acted.

There is a bank in Westeros,  the Bank of Oldtown, it's never mentioned in the books themselves but that doesn't mean it doesn't still exist. These is also a university, the Citadel which you would have heard of. The Lannister army is mostly trained men and professional armies don't really exist even in the renaissance period at least not universally. Landed Aristocracy have been grumbling about people who earn their money through other means before the renaissance and long after. The absence of lawyers and the disinterest of some of the nobility in trade and financial management might be more down to the Maesters doing their best to monopolize power through control of knowledge rather Westeros not being advanced.

Also people have always been nasty, brutal and savage. The people of the early middle ages are no worse than the people of the Renaissance.

9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

His death defo made him a martyr in the north. But his actions during his campaign is what made him likeable.

Did they? Please provide evidence and proof of the beloved nature of Robb. Most of the North seems more interested in avenging their own dead and the Mountain Clansmen are fighting for Ned rather than Robb.

9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

As I said linking the events during that battle to these events of betrayal is laughable. It’s like blaming me for giving you money to call a taxi home and on the way home the taxi crashes and you get injured. The sons of these lords willingly joined a campaign where they can Die, pinning their deaths on their leader is ridiculous especially when they offered themselves as guards to said leader.

It's called responsibility. Leaders have a duty to protect the men who serve them. Take reckless risks that endanger them, which Robb did, makes him responsible for their deaths when they die. There are always risks but when you deliberately take them that endanger people needlessly then you have the problem.

9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Robb was campaigning in the west, when the crisis began. When a king is far away from their kingdom they leave regents behind (e.g Richard lionheart when he was campaigning in Jerusalem). You cant expect a king to rule his realm whilst his on campaign. They dont have telephones or supersonic ravens.

And you forget how long it takes for news to reach people across the continent. If robb heard about the abduction of lady hornwood, than he wouldve heard later on how Rodrick dealt with the issue and killed ramsey. By the time he gets news of the capture of winterfell he is also told his brothers are dead.

It's a week by raven from Winterfell to Riverrun maybe a day or two more. Given roughly when the Harvest feast happened and when Oxcross happened it's not unreasonable that a message could have been sent to Robb from Winterfell to ask for judgement on the issue he could easily have had a few days to decide on a course of action and then send a response North before he departs westward

9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

This is an assumption, had went north and taken moat cailin. He would later secure and stabilise the rest of the north. From than on it’s all speculation what would happen. If his lords didn’t defect with all the bad events that happened (duskandale, winterfell, moat cailin, deepwood motte, Frey-karstark desertion). Than I don’t see how him liberating the north would lead to more defections.

Maybe not necessarily defections but I suspect a lot of men may decide that the dangers to their own home are too great to leave again or the 'injuries' they sustained in the fighting mean they can't rejoin a southern campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Thandros said:

You once again miss the point. it is better to command from the rear. 

Just when professional army were becoming a thing. Its much easier to command an army that actually obeys. Especially compared to the medieval knights whom were prone to disobey. 

16 hours ago, Thandros said:

Just about everyone realised this as the 15th century rolled on.

15th century? You sure about that. History will prove you wrong. I can point to you towards the war of the roses and youll see lots of nobles that fought tooth and nail alongside other men. 

And Saying "Just about everyone realised this" is a bold claim since it is nowhere near the truth. Had you said that people started to see the advantage of not getting involved than it would be more believable, especially since its when muskets started being rolled in.

16 hours ago, Thandros said:

If you're going to fight alongside your men you shouldn't be doing it from the front rank which will get you killed and leave you with little opportunity to command your men. You should do it from the middle of your ranks where you are well protected.

You say you shouldnt but thats your opinion. We literally have tons of evidence of leaders doing exactly what robb did in both asoiaf and our own real world. Trying to use a modern warfare mindset to criticise/compare what men in the middle ages is silly because they do what they simply because its considered normal at the time. I can say Lords shouldnt marry off their daughters against their will (my opinion and modern mindset), but it dosent mean im right because this is considered normal for the time.

If someone wants to risk their life more than they already are than thats on them. They will reap the rewards and win glory. Its the dark ages not modern times.

This is especially true because your trying to link one mans action of bravery to a succession crisis which really has nothing to do with it. 

16 hours ago, Thandros said:

Yes he has two heirs. An eight year old cripple who can't walk and a four year old. Neither can lead the army and the disputes over who would serve as formal regent would no doubt cripple the Northern war effort as arguments and disagreements about what is in the best interests of the kingdom and the Starks themselves. It's exactly why Robb had to take overall command of the army marching south in the first place. He can't have someone else simply take over the army.

I assume you forgot catelyn exists. She is still the lady of winterfell before whispering wood. If lords wish to challenge her regency they might try but seeing as lady Lysa wasnt challenged than I don’t see how catelyn (a very capable women), would fail. Whoever she names leader of the army its up to her.

16 hours ago, Thandros said:

Sure the Greatjon, Rickard Karstark and others would send men after them. But if the Lannisters split up to increase their chances and they aren't properly coordinated then perhaps might slip through the net. Besides the only battle where we see significant autonomous actions by subordinates is the battle of the camps and that's only because the command had been decapitated. Elsewhere we see very little autonomy demonstrated by the lords fighting the battles. I think your misconceptions about the era ASOIAF is set in is affecting you.

It’s not modern pike and shot era. Middle Ages battles were simpler. Just bash into the enemy, some tactical plan were made (they mostly weren’t followed). Whoever had the strongest will would win.

What you want to happen wouldnt work for the era because for their to be maneuvers and coordination you need a professional army with separate regiments, platoons etc. which we dont see until the Protestant reformation. Check Gustavus Adolphus

16 hours ago, Thandros said:

Logistics and discipline affects more than you seem to think. Logistics isn't just ensuring you have enough supplies. It's also ensuring you have sufficient equipment, ammunition for battle and that they are in good condition. Discipline has been the foundation of some of the most effective armies in every period. Ill discipline can destroy an army by leading it into traps, allowing it to be picked apart piece by piece and a thousand other problems that a lack of discipline can cause. It's not just the modern and gunpowder era.

Equipment? The soldiers the lords call upon have their own equipment. Lords didnt equip their armies, they only equipped the retinues. Ammunition, only people that cared about a steady supply of ammunition were the English (heavily centralised kingdom for the time). And nowhere do we see other kingdoms have this level of care for ammunition.

16 hours ago, Thandros said:

Discipline has been the foundation of some of the most effective armies in every period. Ill discipline can destroy an army by leading it into traps, allowing it to be picked apart piece by piece and a thousand other problems that a lack of discipline can cause. It's not just the modern and gunpowder era.

True for the roman age, and modern age. But not for the middle ages.

Tell that to the pompous knights that seem charge without orders. Same goes for lords deciding to do their own things during battles. Its the dark ages, not the romans or the modern one. Middle Ages saw heavy stagnation on every aspect of life (military, construction, literature etc).

Their are so many examples of even the best of soldiers lacking discipline. The age of chivalry was more about personal glory.

Its not so hard to see. Armies werent professionally trained, they were called upon in times of war and every man would bring their own training, experience, and equipment. They knew how to stand in a formation, how to do shieldwall, and knights/man at arms with horses knew that when charging at the enemy you stay knee to knee when in a cavalry formation. But other than that no other training or discipline is installed into these men.

17 hours ago, Thandros said:

There is a bank in Westeros,  the Bank of Oldtown, it's never mentioned in the books themselves but that doesn't mean it doesn't still exist.

One bank which is never mentioned and we dont even know it exists. One city in the middle ages would have dozens of banks.

17 hours ago, Thandros said:

These is also a university, the Citadel which you would have heard of.

Not really a university more like a monastery (but of higher learning), with the maesters being monks. 

17 hours ago, Thandros said:

The Lannister army is mostly trained men

 "He watched Ser Gregor as the Mountain rode up and down the line, shouting and gesticulating. This wing too was all cavalry, but where the right was a mailed fist of knights and heavy lancers, the vanguard was made up of the sweepings of the west: mounted archers in leather jerkins, a swarming mass of undisciplined freeriders and sellswords, fieldhands on plow horses armed with scythes and their fathers' rusted swords, half-trained boys from the stews of Lannisport … and Tyrion and his mountain clansmen." Tyrion at the green fork.

These trained men are knights (with ill discipline). The lannister army isnt drilled yearly, they dont have platoons or regiments (whatever it is called). Ghengis khans Hordes has a closer shot at being called professional.

17 hours ago, Thandros said:

and professional armies don't really exist even in the renaissance period at least not universally.

Ehm very wrong because in the early periods of the renaissance era is when they started to create a bureaucracy, and a more stable administration. And raising armies of knights and man at arms was too expensive. Whilst recruiting random peasants and equipping them and training them proved to be cheaper. 

17 hours ago, Thandros said:

Landed Aristocracy have been grumbling about people who earn their money through other means before the renaissance and long after.

Yes but they didnt feel disgusted and jealous by the merchant class as much as their medieval ancestors did. They realised that trade is more important than taxes.

17 hours ago, Thandros said:

The absence of lawyers and the disinterest of some of the nobility in trade and financial management might be more down to the Maesters doing their best to monopolize power through control of knowledge rather Westeros not being advanced.

Well thats a westerosi problem. Easily solved by kings/lords building their own institution so that they can receive men trained in certain roles. And all tho maesters do learn what a man had available in a middle ages university (astronomy, engineering, etc.) this is only available at oldtown. Whilst by the 14th century kingdoms throughout europe already had more than one university in their respective kingdoms, and westeros is three times the size of western europe. If this dosent scream stagnation than I dont know what does.

17 hours ago, Thandros said:

Also people have always been nasty, brutal and savage. The people of the early middle ages are no worse than the people of the Renaissance.

From our point of you we dont see the difference. But civilisation has always been a progressive one. The middle ages were dark for the people, and in the renaissance era we see more gentlemanly things. In the renaissance you had kingdoms promoting freedom of religion and bill of rights. Not to forget you werent burned as a heretic by some zealot priest because you somehow discovered how to cure a disease.

17 hours ago, Thandros said:

Did they? Please provide evidence and proof of the beloved nature of Robb. Most of the North seems more interested in avenging their own dead and the Mountain Clansmen are fighting for Ned rather than Robb.

Leobald Tallhart had his turn the following day. He spoke of weather portents and the slack wits of smallfolk, and told how his nephew itched for battle. "Benfred has raised his own company of lances. Boys, none older than nineteen years, but every one thinks he's another young wolf. When I told them they were only young rabbits, they laughed at me. Now they call themselves the Wild Hares and gallop about the country with rabbitskins tied to the ends of their lances, singing songs of chivalry."

"I have fought beside the Young Wolf in every battle," Dacey Mormont said cheerfully. "He has not lost one yet."

In the days that followed, Robb was everywhere and anywhere; riding at the head of the van with the Greatjon, scouting with Grey Wind, racing back to Robin Flint and the rearguard. Men said proudly that the Young Wolf was the first to rise each dawn and the last to sleep at night, but Catelyn wondered whether he was sleeping at all. He grows as lean and hungry as his direwolf.
 "In truth, the young lord commander and her king had more in common than either one would ever be willing to admit. Stannis had been a younger son living in the shadow of his elder brother, just as Jon Snow, bastard-born, had always been eclipsed by his trueborn sibling, the fallen hero men had called the Young Wolf."

She had taken her other daughters with her, but as one of Robb's battle companions Dacey had chosen to remain by his side. He has Ned's gift for inspiring loyalty. Olyvar Frey had been devoted to her son as well. Hadn't Robb said that Olyvar wanted to remain with him even after he'd married Jeyne?

Smalljon Umber and Robin Flint sat near Robb, to the other side of Fair Walda and Alyx, respectively. Neither of them was drinking; along with Patrek Mallister and Dacey Mormont, they were her son's guards this evening.

She saw Smalljon Umber wrestle a table off its trestles. Crossbow bolts thudded into the wood, one two three, as he flung it down on top of his king.

"The Young Wolf is dead," Manderly allowed, "but that brave boy was not Lord Eddard's only son. Robett, bring the lad."

17 hours ago, Thandros said:

It's called responsibility. Leaders have a duty to protect the men who serve them. Take reckless risks that endanger them, which Robb did, makes him responsible for their deaths when they die. There are always risks but when you deliberately take them that endanger people needlessly then you have the problem.

You cant be serious? So because Mr.Robb decided to be brave and charge into battle. Which is completely normal thing to do. You blame daryns and others death on him doing what chivalry and honour demands. 

17 hours ago, Thandros said:

It's a week by raven from Winterfell to Riverrun maybe a day or two more. Given roughly when the Harvest feast happened and when Oxcross happened it's not unreasonable that a message could have been sent to Robb from Winterfell to ask for judgement on the issue he could easily have had a few days to decide on a course of action and then send a response North before he departs westward

Yes i assume ravens can smell robbs army on the move and just coincidentally land on robbs shoulder. Robb left regents why would rodrik or luwin ask for orders when they are left in charge. They cant bother him with matters of state because he is campaigning in enemy land.

17 hours ago, Thandros said:

Maybe not necessarily defections but I suspect a lot of men may decide that the dangers to their own home are too great to leave again or the 'injuries' they sustained in the fighting mean they can't rejoin a southern campaign.

Convincing men to march south again would be hard with winter approaching. But that dosent mean a lord would outright deny him and rebel. And seemed that robb planned to spend the winter in winterfell, but we will never know.

So no, defections dont apply here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

Just when professional army were becoming a thing. Its much easier to command an army that actually obeys. Especially compared to the medieval knights whom were prone to disobey. 

Umm no. It gives the ability to observe the battlefield and equal ensures the army doesn't rout when the general is killed or captured. This is a thing even in the medieval period.

1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

15th century? You sure about that. History will prove you wrong. I can point to you towards the war of the roses and youll see lots of nobles that fought tooth and nail alongside other men. 

And Saying "Just about everyone realised this" is a bold claim since it is nowhere near the truth. Had you said that people started to see the advantage of not getting involved than it would be more believable, especially since its when muskets started being rolled in.

Nobles, not necessarily the ones leading the army. Those nobles were directly commanding their own men not leading the entire army. Also muskets are a 16th century thing and even the Arquebus is a late 15th century invention.

1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

You say you shouldnt but thats your opinion. We literally have tons of evidence of leaders doing exactly what robb did in both asoiaf and our own real world. Trying to use a modern warfare mindset to criticise/compare what men in the middle ages is silly because they do what they simply because its considered normal at the time. I can say Lords shouldnt marry off their daughters against their will (my opinion and modern mindset), but it dosent mean im right because this is considered normal for the time.

If someone wants to risk their life more than they already are than thats on them. They will reap the rewards and win glory. Its the dark ages not modern times.

This is especially true because your trying to link one mans action of bravery to a succession crisis which really has nothing to do with it. 

One there is no dark ages. That's a bunch of histography myths about the last bit of Late antiquity that don't really hold up outside of Briton. Two it definitely isn't in the Dark ages since Feudalism is at least notionally a thing. And sure plenty of leaders led from the front that doesn't mean it's a good idea for everyone to do it. Some leaders are better off at the front particularly if they are excellent warriors which Robb most certainly isn't. 

2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

I assume you forgot catelyn exists. She is still the lady of winterfell before whispering wood. If lords wish to challenge her regency they might try but seeing as lady Lysa wasnt challenged than I don’t see how catelyn (a very capable women), would fail. Whoever she names leader of the army its up to her.

Yes but she can't lead an army. Maybe she'd be fine if they were at peace but in the middle of a war it doesn't fix the problem. Also given how badly grief is affecting Catelyn she may not be in any state to govern if Robb died in front of her. She also says Robb could have named someone else to lead the army and he says he couldn't. Catelyn would realise the same thing as well.

2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

It’s not modern pike and shot era. Middle Ages battles were simpler. Just bash into the enemy, some tactical plan were made (they mostly weren’t followed). Whoever had the strongest will would win.

What you want to happen wouldnt work for the era because for their to be maneuvers and coordination you need a professional army with separate regiments, platoons etc. which we dont see until the Protestant reformation. Check Gustavus Adolphus

yet in ASOIAF we see quite a bit of complex tactical plans set up by the various leaders involved. Clearly that suggests the level of development is higher than the medieval period. Also I suspect you are underestimating the amount of thought that could go into the planning of a medieval battle.

2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Equipment? The soldiers the lords call upon have their own equipment. Lords didnt equip their armies, they only equipped the retinues. Ammunition, only people that cared about a steady supply of ammunition were the English (heavily centralised kingdom for the time). And nowhere do we see other kingdoms have this level of care for ammunition.

No we explicitly see that Tywin has an organized baggage train containing spare equipment which is used to equip Tyrion's clansmen when they arrive. There is clearly some level of organized equipment procurement and repair present in Tywin's army.

2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

True for the roman age, and modern age. But not for the middle ages.

Tell that to the pompous knights that seem charge without orders. Same goes for lords deciding to do their own things during battles. Its the dark ages, not the romans or the modern one. Middle Ages saw heavy stagnation on every aspect of life (military, construction, literature etc).

Their are so many examples of even the best of soldiers lacking discipline. The age of chivalry was more about personal glory.

Its not so hard to see. Armies werent professionally trained, they were called upon in times of war and every man would bring their own training, experience, and equipment. They knew how to stand in a formation, how to do shieldwall, and knights/man at arms with horses knew that when charging at the enemy you stay knee to knee when in a cavalry formation. But other than that no other training or discipline is installed into these men.

There are plenty are examples where you could point to medieval forces having discipline to varying degrees. Do you think that William the Conquer would have been able to pull of feigned retreats at Hastings without a lot of discipline among his forces. Should I point how tricky it is to get and infantry line to hold firm in the face of charging cavalry and how often they could actually pull that off. You seem to think medieval arms were rabbles of men and glory seeking knights even if it weren't particularly true.

2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

One bank which is never mentioned and we dont even know it exists. One city in the middle ages would have dozens of banks.

No they would have had money lenders for sure but not Banks. You seem to not understand the difference between a bank and a guy who lends people money.

2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

 "He watched Ser Gregor as the Mountain rode up and down the line, shouting and gesticulating. This wing too was all cavalry, but where the right was a mailed fist of knights and heavy lancers, the vanguard was made up of the sweepings of the west: mounted archers in leather jerkins, a swarming mass of undisciplined freeriders and sellswords, fieldhands on plow horses armed with scythes and their fathers' rusted swords, half-trained boys from the stews of Lannisport … and Tyrion and his mountain clansmen." Tyrion at the green fork.

These trained men are knights (with ill discipline). The lannister army isnt drilled yearly, they dont have platoons or regiments (whatever it is called). Ghengis khans Hordes has a closer shot at being called professional.

You literally restrict yourself to the one twentieth of Tywin's army which is deliberately filled with ill disciplined men and raw recruits so that it will break as a tactical plan. And then you claim it extends to the entire army which is clearly described elsewhere using terms implying a much better trained and equipped force.

2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Yes but they didnt feel disgusted and jealous by the merchant class as much as their medieval ancestors did. They realised that trade is more important than taxes.

Maybe but I don't seem to see many Westerosi nobles being exceptionally disgusted by the merchants. When Lyonel Corbray marries a merchant's daughter the wedding is well attended even by unexpected members of the Lords Declarant. The main issue seems to be common birth requiring a large dowry.

2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Well thats a westerosi problem. Easily solved by kings/lords building their own institution so that they can receive men trained in certain roles. And all tho maesters do learn what a man had available in a middle ages university (astronomy, engineering, etc.) this is only available at oldtown. Whilst by the 14th century kingdoms throughout europe already had more than one university in their respective kingdoms, and westeros is three times the size of western europe. If this dosent scream stagnation than I dont know what does.

One I assume by most european kings that excludes Poland, Scotland, Hungary, Bohemia and Scandinavia who didn't have any by the start of the 14th century and most of them either only got one in the 14th century or none at all. Also setting up such an institution I don't think is as simple as you think it is. You need to find a large number of educated men. You need to organize a system of teaching and certificates to demonstrate progress and capability and you need to be able to convince people that those certificates are worth something. Not an easy thing given the Maesters control of higher learning to pull off. You'd probably need to get contacts with the Free cities which runs into other problems as well.

2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

From our point of you we dont see the difference. But civilisation has always been a progressive one. The middle ages were dark for the people, and in the renaissance era we see more gentlemanly things. In the renaissance you had kingdoms promoting freedom of religion and bill of rights. Not to forget you werent burned as a heretic by some zealot priest because you somehow discovered how to cure a disease.

Two things to note here. One you seemed to have mistaken the Renaissance for the Enlightenment which are about 200 years or so apart. No one was talking about freedom of religion or bills of rights in the Renaissance. Secondly I don't think anyone was burning people as heretics for discovering how to cure disease. You'd be burned for witchcraft which is actually If I understand correctly more of a Renaissance thing than a medieval thing.

2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Leobald Tallhart had his turn the following day. He spoke of weather portents and the slack wits of smallfolk, and told how his nephew itched for battle. "Benfred has raised his own company of lances. Boys, none older than nineteen years, but every one thinks he's another young wolf. When I told them they were only young rabbits, they laughed at me. Now they call themselves the Wild Hares and gallop about the country with rabbitskins tied to the ends of their lances, singing songs of chivalry."

"I have fought beside the Young Wolf in every battle," Dacey Mormont said cheerfully. "He has not lost one yet."

In the days that followed, Robb was everywhere and anywhere; riding at the head of the van with the Greatjon, scouting with Grey Wind, racing back to Robin Flint and the rearguard. Men said proudly that the Young Wolf was the first to rise each dawn and the last to sleep at night, but Catelyn wondered whether he was sleeping at all. He grows as lean and hungry as his direwolf.
 "In truth, the young lord commander and her king had more in common than either one would ever be willing to admit. Stannis had been a younger son living in the shadow of his elder brother, just as Jon Snow, bastard-born, had always been eclipsed by his trueborn sibling, the fallen hero men had called the Young Wolf."

She had taken her other daughters with her, but as one of Robb's battle companions Dacey had chosen to remain by his side. He has Ned's gift for inspiring loyalty. Olyvar Frey had been devoted to her son as well. Hadn't Robb said that Olyvar wanted to remain with him even after he'd married Jeyne?

Smalljon Umber and Robin Flint sat near Robb, to the other side of Fair Walda and Alyx, respectively. Neither of them was drinking; along with Patrek Mallister and Dacey Mormont, they were her son's guards this evening.

She saw Smalljon Umber wrestle a table off its trestles. Crossbow bolts thudded into the wood, one two three, as he flung it down on top of his king.

"The Young Wolf is dead," Manderly allowed, "but that brave boy was not Lord Eddard's only son. Robett, bring the lad."

A bunch of fools caught up in stories. An extreme optimist trying to convince herself they can still win. A king trying to convince his men he is worth following clearly because some might have been having doubts. Melisandre making a comment I'm not sure is relevant. Catelyn making probably a distorted impression of him and his success in gathering loyal followers. Right guards doing their most basic job. Manderly showing loyalty to the Starks a trait we already know he possesses.

At best you could argue from this is that Robb had a good enough work ethic to encourage loyalty. That doesn't explain why he had to be charging off into danger with every battle.

2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

You cant be serious? So because Mr.Robb decided to be brave and charge into battle. Which is completely normal thing to do. You blame daryns and others death on him doing what chivalry and honour demands. 

Right and you say this about a series which suggests that Honour is something to be careful and chivalry is a pile of garbage said by knights to make themselves seem batter.

2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Yes i assume ravens can smell robbs army on the move and just coincidentally land on robbs shoulder. Robb left regents why would rodrik or luwin ask for orders when they are left in charge. They cant bother him with matters of state because he is campaigning in enemy land.

Two things. One Rodrick and Luwin explicitly say they are asking about this to give information so Robb can make a decision. Two when the Harvest feast was going on Robb probably wasn't in the field and even if he was he wasn't in the Westerlands and out of contact he was probably only just beginning to probe the borders looking for passage into the Westerlands so he could still have time to make a decision.

2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Convincing men to march south again would be hard with winter approaching. But that dosent mean a lord would outright deny him and rebel. And seemed that robb planned to spend the winter in winterfell, but we will never know.

So no, defections dont apply here.

I never said they'd rebel and it wouldn't be the first time a lord had sent fewer men than they could have. THe Dustins already sent as few men as they dared and others might have done the same. If Robb wants to launch a second southern campaign who's to say more might take the opportunity to hold men back from the actual campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Thandros said:

Umm no. It gives the ability to observe the battlefield and equal ensures the army doesn't rout when the general is killed or captured. This is a thing even in the medieval period.

Um yes, These armies were literal a large number of men that were called upon. You don’t know maybe you never campaigned with them before. 

A leader could do what he wanted and absolutely no one would criticise him for taking the same risks as other men.

6 hours ago, Thandros said:

Nobles, not necessarily the ones leading the army. Those nobles were directly commanding their own men not leading the entire army. Also muskets are a 16th century thing and even the Arquebus is a late 15th century invention.

Yes, Edward iv and Richard iii were warrior kings. Edward was a 6 foot 6 giant that gained the admiration of his men because he fought alongside them. He won the largest battle fought in English soil (battle of towton). All while fighting in the front amongst the confusion and the massive blizzard that was present. You know why he won? Because his nobles acted independently and didn’t require him to sit back and sit on his arse trying to give orders even tho you couldn’t see anything within 50 meters due to the blizzard.

Richard iii also famously fought in the front. Betrayed at bosworth field when the earl of percy betrayed him by not committing his left flank.

The lancaster didn’t have a martial king. Prince Edward (son of Henry iv), was looking like a remake of his grandfather Henry V. But sadly he died fighting at the battle of Tewksbury.

Henry Tudor and his namesake Henry vi were the only ones that didn’t bother fighting much. And guess what? They weren’t as loved as Edward iv was. 

6 hours ago, Thandros said:

There are plenty are examples where you could point to medieval forces having discipline to varying degrees. Do you think that William the Conquer would have been able to pull of feigned retreats at Hastings without a lot of discipline among his forces. Should I point how tricky it is to get and infantry line to hold firm in the face of charging cavalry and how often they could actually pull that off. 

No one knows if it was feint. It seemed more like a rout because they thought their duke was dead.

And how did they feint a retreat if William was charging alongside his knights? Because according to you he should’ve been leading from the rear and if his too busy fighting than he couldn’t give orders.

6 hours ago, Thandros said:

No they would have had money lenders for sure but not Banks.

They would have had. It’s just speculation at this point. A bank was a business if a man wanted to open one they would if they had the money. Essos is filed with banks, but Westeros is not. 

6 hours ago, Thandros said:

You seem to not understand the difference between a bank and a guy who lends people money.

Where did I say this? Did I say someone can’t lend money To whoever they want? Is the act of lending the only thing a bank does? Because it’s obvious its done by lords and merchants. The iron throne alone owns to a couple lords and some local merchants in kings landing.

First you said Westeros has a bank in oldtown which is arguably true or not. Now you mention money lenders which is basically a profession on its own. Lords and merchants did lend money but we dont see a class or people that actually do this as a main profession.

So no don’t put words in my mouth, because at this point your grasping at straws.

6 hours ago, Thandros said:

You literally restrict yourself to the one twentieth of Tywin's army which is deliberately filled with ill disciplined men and raw recruits so that it will break as a tactical plan.

A vanguard isnt just one twentieth of its army. It’s the main thrust. An army of tywins size would consist of a vanguard around 3k minimum.

And as you said most of tywins army is professional but we have no evidence it was simply because it’s a typical feudal army which was called upon during times of war.

6 hours ago, Thandros said:

And then you claim it extends to the entire army which is clearly described elsewhere using terms implying a much better trained and equipped force.

No where did I say that

10 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

These trained men are knights (with ill discipline). The lannister army isnt drilled yearly, they dont have platoons or regiments (whatever it is called). Ghengis khans Hordes has a closer shot at being called professional.

Does this sound like me claiming tywins army is full of useless beggars?

again putting words in my mouth.

I gave you evidence of why their army was no where near professional. An army that consists of chivalric knights will never be considered professional or disciplined. 

6 hours ago, Thandros said:

Maybe but I don't seem to see many Westerosi nobles being exceptionally disgusted by the merchants.

You quoted this on my comment of how our real life nobles disliked the merchant class but you didn’t address it. Instead you switched the topic towards westeros.

6 hours ago, Thandros said:

Lyonel Corbray marries a merchant's daughter the wedding is well attended even by unexpected members of the Lords Declarant. The main issue seems to be common birth requiring a large dowry.

You mean this wedding.

Petyr Baelish was clear across the Vale, though, attending Lord Lyonel Corbray at his wedding. A widower of forty-odd years, and childless, Lord Lyonel was to wed the strapping sixteen-year-old daughter of a rich Gulltown merchant. Petyr had brokered the match himself. The bride's dower was said to be staggering; it had to be, since she was of common birth. Corbray's vassals would be there, with the Lords Waxley, Grafton, Lynderly, some petty lords and landed knights . . . and Lord Belmore, who had lately reconciled with her father. The other Lords Declarant were expected to shun the nuptials, so Petyr's presence was essential.

Which was specifically attended by petyrs supporters. And brokered by petyr himself so he could make an ally of lord corbray.

"Lord Lyonel Corbray is well disposed toward my rule,"

There are several branches of House Arryn scattered across the Vale, all as proud as they are penurious, save for the Gulltown Arryns, who had the rare good sense to marry merchants. They're rich, but less than couth, so no one talks about them. 

And with this quote it’s clear to see merchants are also looked down upon in Westeros.

6 hours ago, Thandros said:

One I assume by most european kings that excludes Poland, Scotland, Hungary, Bohemia and Scandinavia who didn't have any by the start of the 14th century and most of them either only got one in the 14th century or none at all.

And already by that century Europe had more universities than Westeros.

Your argument of the citadel being the university of Westeros falls flat when compared to our own world.

Trying to switch the argument won’t change that.

6 hours ago, Thandros said:

Also setting up such an institution I don't think is as simple as you think it is. You need to find a large number of educated men. You need to organize a system of teaching and certificates to demonstrate progress and capability and you need to be able to convince people that those certificates are worth something. Not an easy thing given the Maesters control of higher learning to pull off. You'd probably need to get contacts with the Free cities which runs into other problems as well.

Never said it was easy, and It’s really not our problem how hard it is. If Europe could do it, and Westeros can’t than they are far away from being called a renaissance  society.

We also don’t know how hard or easy it can be pulled off. Maybe the king does have a pull and can attract many intellectuals. But we won’t know.

6 hours ago, Thandros said:

Two things to note here. One you seemed to have mistaken the Renaissance for the Enlightenment which are about 200 years or so apart. No one was talking about freedom of religion or bills of rights in the Renaissance.

Ehm no. If I seem to remember the time during the 30 years war and rule of Elizabeth was during the renaissance era. If you think I’m talking about the American revolution than no your wrong.

6 hours ago, Thandros said:

Secondly I don't think anyone was burning people as heretics for discovering how to cure disease. You'd be burned for witchcraft which is actually If I understand correctly more of a Renaissance thing than a medieval thing.

A women would be likely branded a witch for doing it a man can get away with it because at the time nobles and rulers started to put less weight on religion and focus more on matters of state and money.

In the middle ages it’s legit all down to whatever nonsense your local priest says out of his mouth. During those times a priest word carried more weight. Whilst by the reformations it didn’t so much.

6 hours ago, Thandros said:

A bunch of fools caught up in stories. An extreme optimist trying to convince herself they can still win. A king trying to convince his men he is worth following clearly because some might have been having doubts. Melisandre making a comment I'm not sure is relevant. Catelyn making probably a distorted impression of him and his success in gathering loyal followers. Right guards doing their most basic job. Manderly showing loyalty to the Starks a trait we already know he possesses.

You asked for a quote and you probably didnt think I’d find any. But here they are. And you still throw it away just to show face.

Your bias is showing.

6 hours ago, Thandros said:

At best you could argue from this is that Robb had a good enough work ethic to encourage loyalty. That doesn't explain why he had to be charging off into danger with every battle.

Robb was known as a charismatic boy, and if you read his chapters where he deals with his lords it’s clear to see how much of a good job he does it.

I will say this again you saying he shouldn’t charge into battle is the most stupid thing to say. It’s normal for the time, and it shows off your martial prowess. In the end robb didn’t lose a battle or die in battle. So your argument of “Meh he shouldn’t have charged off” is just bias hate towards the character which is clearly showing.

6 hours ago, Thandros said:

Right and you say this about a series which suggests that Honour is something to be careful and chivalry is a pile of garbage said by knights to make themselves seem batter.

Men like petyr believe this, and how many battles or tourneys has petyr participated in? Whilst most knights in Westeros believe chivalry and honour to be the most important thing.

Just because some important characters say it dosent mean the rest of the continent believes it.

6 hours ago, Thandros said:

Two things. One Rodrick and Luwin explicitly say they are asking about this to give information so Robb can make a decision. 

Probably and maybes. Don’t help your argument.

By the time Theon leaves to pyke robb is already marching west.

The hornwood crisis only escalated after the harvest feast, and in said feast they toasted to robbs victory at oxcross.

6 hours ago, Thandros said:

Two when the Harvest feast was going on Robb probably wasn't in the field and even if he was he wasn't in the Westerlands and out of contact he was probably only just beginning to probe the borders looking for passage into the Westerlands so he could still have time to make a decision.

Maybes and probably too.

Maester Luwin sent Alebelly away and closed his door. "My lords," he said gravely, "we have had a message from His Grace, with both good news and ill. He has won a great victory in the west, shattering a Lannister army at a place named Oxcross, and has taken several castles as well. He writes us from Ashemark, formerly the stronghold of House Marbrand." Bran V his harvest feast chapter.

So clearly by the time of the harvest robb was already doing his stuff.

6 hours ago, Thandros said:

I never said they'd rebel

On 12/5/2021 at 2:21 PM, Thandros said:

Robb undoubtedly faced more disloyalty and defections if he'd survived the Twins but he didn't because the first act of open treachery was enough to end him completely.

 

Clearly you said they’d defect which literally means rebel or switch sides.

6 hours ago, Thandros said:

THe Dustins already sent as few men as they dared and others might have done the same. If Robb wants to launch a second southern campaign who's to say more might take the opportunity to hold men back from the actual campaign.

Might’ve and again were presuming what would happen at this point. We don’t know whether he planned to spend the winter in winterfell or if he planned to raise a new host.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Um yes, These armies were literal a large number of men that were called upon. You don’t know maybe you never campaigned with them before. 

A leader could do what he wanted and absolutely no one would criticise him for taking the same risks as other men.

They could and they should and they at times probably did. No leader is ever truly absolute.

31 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Yes, Edward iv and Richard iii were warrior kings. Edward was a 6 foot 6 giant that gained the admiration of his men because he fought alongside them. He won the largest battle fought in English soil (battle of towton). All while fighting in the front amongst the confusion and the massive blizzard that was present. You know why he won? Because his nobles acted independently and didn’t require him to sit back and sit on his arse trying to give orders even tho you couldn’t see anything within 50 meters due to the blizzard.

Richard iii also famously fought in the front. Betrayed at bosworth field when the earl of percy betrayed him by not committing his left flank.

The lancaster didn’t have a martial king. Prince Edward (son of Henry iv), was looking like a remake of his grandfather Henry V. But sadly he died fighting at the battle of Tewksbury.

Henry Tudor and his namesake Henry vi were the only ones that didn’t bother fighting much. And guess what? They weren’t as loved as Edward iv was. 

Edward IV was beloved not because of his martial nature but because he gave England something more valuable, peace. After over 15 years of chaos, infighting and open civil war his second reign gave England more or less twelve years of peace in a period otherwise marked by numerous wars. That he was also charismatic and good at winning people to his side didn't hurt. He won the battle of Towton for a bunch of reasons, he had the wind behind him so his arrows hit the enemy and the sudden arrival of the Earl of Norfolk and his men allowing him to flank the Lancastrian line and force a rout.

Richard III was highly unpopular among most of England. His support from the North was because of his successful campaigning against the Scots not because he was some great warrior. He had a curvature of the spine so great he would be considered disabled now days. His charge at Bosworth was an opportune attempt to assassinate Henry Tudor after he and his bodyguard exposed themselves to his attack. It's also unclear whether the Earl of Northumberland was truly disloyal or simply was not signalled properly or was unable to advance meaningfully in support of Richard III.

Henry VI was unpopular because of military defeats and his own inability to actually rule and the fact his reign was a downward spiral into internal conflict and civil war. Henry VII was disliked because he was a miser who levied harsh fines from the nobility and employed lawyers to find and charge nobles with crimes to extract more money from them. Their unpopularity has little to do with their lack of martial prowess.

35 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

No one knows if it was feint. It seemed more like a rout because they thought their duke was dead.

And how did they feint a retreat if William was charging alongside his knights? Because according to you he should’ve been leading from the rear and if his too busy fighting than he couldn’t give orders.

Because it is said that the Normans used two feigned flights after the real one gave them the idea to pull it off.

35 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

They would have had. It’s just speculation at this point. A bank was a business if a man wanted to open one they would if they had the money. Essos is filed with banks, but Westeros is not. 

Everything is speculation because we aren't there to directly see the evidence. You can't know what life in 1450 actually was like. All you can do is guess based on the sources you have access to and any other information you can gather. Speculation is the cornerstone of what we are doing.

39 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Where did I say this? Did I say someone can’t lend money To whoever they want? Is the act of lending the only thing a bank does? Because it’s obvious its done by lords and merchants. The iron throne alone owns to a couple lords and some local merchants in kings landing.

First you said Westeros has a bank in oldtown which is arguably true or not. Now you mention money lenders which is basically a profession on its own. Lords and merchants did lend money but we dont see a class or people that actually do this as a main profession.

So no don’t put words in my mouth, because at this point your grasping at straws.

Your one whose grasping at straws. Plastic straws soon to be illegal. I make a comment based on your seeming lack of understanding and you prove it by making a whole bunch of commentary with no connection to the original statement. 

Of course we don't see a class of dedicated money lenders. We barely see the lower classes at all.

40 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

A vanguard isnt just one twentieth of its army. It’s the main thrust. An army of tywins size would consist of a vanguard around 3k minimum.

And as you said most of tywins army is professional but we have no evidence it was simply because it’s a typical feudal army which was called upon during times of war.

The left flank was a thousand men. The text literally says that Tywin's army is twenty thousand and the numbers given for the battle of the Green fork in the other detachments add up to nineteen thousand which leaves a thousand on the left. Thirteen hundred if you include Tyrion's clansmen.

We have evidence. The right flank is all cavalry mostly knights but given the percentages given it most also include other armoured lancers. Some of them will be their under feudal obligation and the rest will most certainly being paid to do so. that makes them professional. The centre is archers (given their rate of fire they'd have to be professional), pikeman (almost certainly professional proper usage of pikes requires training and discipline) and men at arms (professional to a point at least, many of them are likely on someone's payroll).

41 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Does this sound like me claiming tywins army is full of useless beggars?

again putting words in my mouth.

I gave you evidence of why their army was no where near professional. An army that consists of chivalric knights will never be considered professional or disciplined. 

A feudal army can be professional. Fighting is their job which makes them professional to a point and they equally can be disciplined. Your own bias are showing.

41 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

You mean this wedding.

Petyr Baelish was clear across the Vale, though, attending Lord Lyonel Corbray at his wedding. A widower of forty-odd years, and childless, Lord Lyonel was to wed the strapping sixteen-year-old daughter of a rich Gulltown merchant. Petyr had brokered the match himself. The bride's dower was said to be staggering; it had to be, since she was of common birth. Corbray's vassals would be there, with the Lords Waxley, Grafton, Lynderly, some petty lords and landed knights . . . and Lord Belmore, who had lately reconciled with her father. The other Lords Declarant were expected to shun the nuptials, so Petyr's presence was essential.

Which was specifically attended by petyrs supporters. And brokered by petyr himself so he could make an ally of lord corbray.

"Lord Lyonel Corbray is well disposed toward my rule,"

There are several branches of House Arryn scattered across the Vale, all as proud as they are penurious, save for the Gulltown Arryns, who had the rare good sense to marry merchants. They're rich, but less than couth, so no one talks about them. 

And with this quote it’s clear to see merchants are also looked down upon in Westeros.

Lord Corbray was already his ally. Baelish mentions it earlier when discussing his own military ability compared to that of the Lords Declarant. All the later quote implies is that the Gulltown Arryns have no manners or refinement so no one mentions them when discussing the Arryns more broadly.

44 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

And already by that century Europe had more universities than Westeros.

Your argument of the citadel being the university of Westeros falls flat when compared to our own world.

Trying to switch the argument won’t change that.

I was making a counter point. You the classic tactic in a debate to provide counter factual evidence to oppose an opponent's argument. I apologise if this simple debating technique is too hard for you to understand.

44 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Never said it was easy, and It’s really not our problem how hard it is. If Europe could do it, and Westeros can’t than they are far away from being called a renaissance  society.

We also don’t know how hard or easy it can be pulled off. Maybe the king does have a pull and can attract many intellectuals. But we won’t know.

Europe has advantages Westeros lacks. For one the Maesters maintain such a controlling monopoly on more advanced education that efforts to form a rival institution would probably struggle to acquire teachers of a suitable skill. For another westeros lack the figures who in the real would give a nascent university it's credibility either the Holy Roman Emperor or more often the Pope. The High Septon seems to have no interest in education at all which would be good evidence of imperfect world building.

45 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Ehm no. If I seem to remember the time during the 30 years war and rule of Elizabeth was during the renaissance era. If you think I’m talking about the American revolution than no your wrong.

The Renaissance is between roughly 1450-1550 so the century before those two events.

45 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

A women would be likely branded a witch for doing it a man can get away with it because at the time nobles and rulers started to put less weight on religion and focus more on matters of state and money.

In the middle ages it’s legit all down to whatever nonsense your local priest says out of his mouth. During those times a priest word carried more weight. Whilst by the reformations it didn’t so much.

If a priest during the middle ages called a woman a witch in Europe. The person punished would be the priest not the woman since the Catholic church didn't believe in witchcraft or magic. Almost all of the big witch trials took place in Protestant regions such as Northern Germany or Britain. Also most witch trials happen in the Renaissance onwards because progress is not a straight line.

50 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Robb was known as a charismatic boy, and if you read his chapters where he deals with his lords it’s clear to see how much of a good job he does it.

I will say this again you saying he shouldn’t charge into battle is the most stupid thing to say. It’s normal for the time, and it shows off your martial prowess. In the end robb didn’t lose a battle or die in battle. So your argument of “Meh he shouldn’t have charged off” is just bias hate towards the character which is clearly showing.

Right he's charismatic and persuasive so why does he need to charge off into battle to win the loyalty of his men then.

50 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Men like petyr believe this, and how many battles or tourneys has petyr participated in? Whilst most knights in Westeros believe chivalry and honour to be the most important thing.

Just because some important characters say it dosent mean the rest of the continent believes it.

I'm pretty sure Tywin would scoff at Honour and Chivalry as well.  Also in the Hedge Knight Ser Duncan is thank by a number of people for being a knight who remembers his vows implying most don't and when he tries to use the justice of his cause to find another knight to fight with him he receives silence from the crowd of knights. Even prince Baelor who does join him suggests the use of a dubious tactic to gain an upper hand in the trial. One could easily suggest that honour and chivalry are much less respected among the nobility the than you would imply.

51 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Probably and maybes. Don’t help your argument.

By the time Theon leaves to pyke robb is already marching west.

The hornwood crisis only escalated after the harvest feast, and in said feast they toasted to robbs victory at oxcross.

When Theon arrives at Pyke he thinks Robb is at the Golden Tooth and that's weeks after he left Riverrun. Theon doesn't have a clue. The Harvest feast is also weeks before Oxcross.

50 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Maybes and probably too.

Maester Luwin sent Alebelly away and closed his door. "My lords," he said gravely, "we have had a message from His Grace, with both good news and ill. He has won a great victory in the west, shattering a Lannister army at a place named Oxcross, and has taken several castles as well. He writes us from Ashemark, formerly the stronghold of House Marbrand." Bran V his harvest feast chapter.

So clearly by the time of the harvest robb was already doing his stuff.

Bran V comes two chapters after the Harves feast which is Bran II and III. Weeks have passed by this point at least until we get to this point. The Lords Luwin is refering two are Bran, Rickon and the two Walders

50 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Clearly you said they’d defect which literally means rebel or switch sides.

Exactly switch sides from Robb's to their own side and hide in their castles. They wouldn't have been the only ones.

50 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Might’ve and again were presuming what would happen at this point. We don’t know whether he planned to spend the winter in winterfell or if he planned to raise a new host.

Which means we can say nothing about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thandros said:

They could and they should and they at times probably did. No leader is ever truly absolute.

You still gonna argue this point? Their is tons of evidence that point towards leading from the front on a show of bravery is completely normal thing to do and that you wont be shunned for it. If 

2 hours ago, Thandros said:

Edward IV was beloved not because of his martial nature but because he gave England something more valuable, peace. After over 15 years of chaos, infighting and open civil war his second reign gave England more or less twelve years of peace in a period otherwise marked by numerous wars.

How did he manage to raise an army of 20k for the battle of towton if not because of his fame as a martial man and his likeable personality. When he named himself king it was his battle prowess that also helped attract warriors.

2 hours ago, Thandros said:

He won the battle of Towton for a bunch of reasons, he had the wind behind him so his arrows hit the enemy and the sudden arrival of the Earl of Norfolk and his men allowing him to flank the Lancastrian line and force a rout.

And did he lead from the rear? because according to you all these tactical movements that occurred need a leader sat in the rear leading.

2 hours ago, Thandros said:

Richard III was highly unpopular among most of England. His support from the North was because of his successful campaigning against the Scots not because he was some great warrior. He had a curvature of the spine so great he would be considered disabled now days. His charge at Bosworth was an opportune attempt to assassinate Henry Tudor after he and his bodyguard exposed themselves to his attack. It's also unclear whether the Earl of Northumberland was truly disloyal or simply was not signalled properly or was unable to advance meaningfully in support of Richard III.

Henry VI was unpopular because of military defeats and his own inability to actually rule and the fact his reign was a downward spiral into internal conflict and civil war. Henry VII was disliked because he was a miser who levied harsh fines from the nobility and employed lawyers to find and charge nobles with crimes to extract more money from them. Their unpopularity has little to do with their lack of martial prowess.

Edward was an idiot but he was still respected despite his lack of interest in ruling. Martial prowess is an absolute bonus on nullifying those negative traits. And Richard usurped his nephews which made him disliked.

Had both the Henrys been more successful on the field they would be more tolerated. Especially Henry lancaster whos humility and kind nature made him likeable to a degree.

3 hours ago, Thandros said:

Because it is said that the Normans used two feigned flights after the real one gave them the idea to pull it off.

Im not taking your word for this because nowhere have i read this fact. I might be wrong but never encountered it. And its pretty heavily documented that is a mistake and they thought william was dead, but their also good arguments for it being a feint. But im not gonna just say with my chest is one or the other because people that have invested their lives on that battle dont even know.

3 hours ago, Thandros said:

Everything is speculation because we aren't there to directly see the evidence. You can't know what life in 1450 actually was like. All you can do is guess based on the sources you have access to and any other information you can gather. Speculation is the cornerstone of what we are doing.

But you just guessed that money lenders existed in westeros. Whilst i can open some book or find sources that say banks existed and how they operated during the middle ages. So if anything your the one speculating because your inventing things which in westeros we have not seen happen.

3 hours ago, Thandros said:

A feudal army can be professional. Fighting is their job which makes them professional to a point and they equally can be disciplined.

No it cant. Professional armies are literally standing armies that are kept even during peace times. The only thing id say is professional during the middle ages is lords retinues and they fought the same way as any other knight.

3 hours ago, Thandros said:

Your own bias are showing.

How comes? Because from what i can see your the one trying to pin robbs heroism on the death of his honour guard. This is bias dislike towards him. And whatever qoute or evidence i bring you shut it down by repeating the same thing again and again. "He shouldnt have charged", "Its his fault".

3 hours ago, Thandros said:

Lord Corbray was already his ally. Baelish mentions it earlier when discussing his own military ability compared to that of the Lords Declarant.

Yes and he furthered this friendship by giving him a merchants daughter with lots of cash.

3 hours ago, Thandros said:

All the later quote implies is that the Gulltown Arryns have no manners or refinement so no one mentions them when discussing the Arryns more broadly.

Ill simplify the quote 

"save for the Gulltown Arryns, who had the rare good sense to marry merchants."

2 hours ago, Thandros said:

I was making a counter point. You the classic tactic in a debate to provide counter factual evidence to oppose an opponent's argument. I apologise if this simple debating technique is too hard for you to understand.

You started with this

On 12/6/2021 at 5:16 AM, Thandros said:

These is also a university, the Citadel which you would have heard of.

On 12/6/2021 at 5:16 AM, Thandros said:

The absence of lawyers and the disinterest of some of the nobility in trade and financial management might be more down to the Maesters doing their best to monopolize power through control of knowledge rather Westeros not being advanced.

than i replied with this

16 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Not really a university more like a monastery (but of higher learning), with the maesters being monks. 

16 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Well thats a westerosi problem. Easily solved by kings/lords building their own institution so that they can receive men trained in certain roles. And all tho maesters do learn what a man had available in a middle ages university (astronomy, engineering, etc.) this is only available at oldtown. Whilst by the 14th century kingdoms throughout europe already had more than one university in their respective kingdoms, and westeros is three times the size of western europe. If this dosent scream stagnation than I dont know what does.

Than you divert the topic towards universities in europe even tho the main topic is arguing whether the citadel makes westeros in par with medieval europe.

12 hours ago, Thandros said:

One I assume by most european kings that excludes Poland, Scotland, Hungary, Bohemia and Scandinavia who didn't have any by the start of the 14th century and most of them either only got one in the 14th century or none at all. Also setting up such an institution I don't think is as simple as you think it is. You need to find a large number of educated men. You need to organize a system of teaching and certificates to demonstrate progress and capability and you need to be able to convince people that those certificates are worth something. Not an easy thing given the Maesters control of higher learning to pull off. You'd probably need to get contacts with the Free cities which runs into other problems as well.

I personally dont care how hard it is to do these things. Its not my problem, the important thing to note is that the citadel dosent bring westeros no where near the intellectual studies of the middle ages. And you changing the topic towards how hard it is to implement or whether these kingdoms did have it, is just trying to save face because you dont want to acknowledge that westeros IS NOT in the early renaissance era.

2 hours ago, Thandros said:

Europe has advantages Westeros lacks. For one the Maesters maintain such a controlling monopoly on more advanced education that efforts to form a rival institution would probably struggle to acquire teachers of a suitable skill. For another westeros lack the figures who in the real would give a nascent university it's credibility either the Holy Roman Emperor or more often the Pope. The High Septon seems to have no interest in education at all which would be good evidence of imperfect world building.

So not Early Renaissance. Its the lack of worldbuilding that makes me put westerosi society and mindset into the early middle ages. Trying to defend your point of westeros being in the renaissance era is pointless right now.

3 hours ago, Thandros said:

The Renaissance is between roughly 1450-1550 so the century before those two events.

100 years?????? Renaissance is clearly from 15th century till 17th century. Thats fact, you can search it if you want.

2 hours ago, Thandros said:

If a priest during the middle ages called a woman a witch in Europe. The person punished would be the priest not the woman since the Catholic church didn't believe in witchcraft or magic. Almost all of the big witch trials took place in Protestant regions such as Northern Germany or Britain. Also most witch trials happen in the Renaissance onwards because progress is not a straight line.

As I said Priests and the clergy were fickle and would do whatever they wanted. 

2 hours ago, Thandros said:

Right he's charismatic and persuasive so why does he need to charge off into battle to win the loyalty of his men then.

Because he wants to? Possibly also for glory. And maybe his sense of honour compels him that his men should see him taking the same dangers as they do. 

2 hours ago, Thandros said:

I'm pretty sure Tywin would scoff at Honour and Chivalry as well. 

Tywin would scoff at anything. And this is just Tywins personal mindset. He is experienced enough to see these things as pointless. And Tywin dosent represent the knightly class

2 hours ago, Thandros said:

Also in the Hedge Knight Ser Duncan is thank by a number of people for being a knight who remembers his vows implying most don't and when he tries to use the justice of his cause to find another knight to fight with him he receives silence from the crowd of knights. Even prince Baelor who does join him suggests the use of a dubious tactic to gain an upper hand in the trial. One could easily suggest that honour and chivalry are much less respected among the nobility the than you would imply.

I think were seeing the wrong sort of honour here. Your talking about justice, but im refering to honour in battle and in matter of politics. Like having the honour of being in the vanguard, or being a personal guard to your liege lord. Same as how walder felt dishonoured when Robb shunned his betrothal. Its quite obvious that these knights care little for the knightly vows they swore.

2 hours ago, Thandros said:

Bran V comes two chapters after the Harves feast which is Bran II and III. Weeks have passed by this point at least until we get to this point. The Lords Luwin is refering two are Bran, Rickon and the two Walders

My bad

If you follow this pretty good timeline https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZsY3lcDDtTdBWp1Gx6mfkdtZT6-Gk0kdTGeSC_Dj7WM/edit#gid=8

3 hours ago, Thandros said:

When Theon arrives at Pyke he thinks Robb is at the Golden Tooth and that's weeks after he left Riverrun. Theon doesn't have a clue. The Harvest feast is also weeks before Oxcross.

You will see when Theon arrived at pyke informing his father about robbs plans etc.

"By now Robb is at the Golden Tooth," Theon said.  ACOK Theon I 

Its quite he clear he set off either some time after theon left for pyke or at the same time because he already told Theon his plans. And Theons arrival at Pyke and the harvest feast has a gap of handful of days.

And saying Theon dosent have a clue wont mean anything. Its just denial.

And tired of arguing this robb didnt bother to deal with the hornwood crisis since its an issue you brought up, and it has nothing to do with topic that OP started with. 

Now had Robb been ruling at winterfell and decided to ignore the crisis, than im in agreement with you, but since he his leagues away from winterfell in some land surrounded by mountains its just typical hate trying to bring it up.

3 hours ago, Thandros said:

Exactly switch sides from Robb's to their own side and hide in their castles. They wouldn't have been the only ones.

This is arguing in bad faith. Although you made some good points on your comment.

You clearly stated they would defect but instead of just acknowledging the mistake you decide to change your stance.

3 hours ago, Thandros said:

Which means we can say nothing about it.

Ah but you see you were the one that started with "he would face troubles when he went north."

So now you decide that speculation is pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2021 at 8:41 AM, Thandros said:

I would avoid it in the first place by ensuring Robb Stark doesn't leap into the middle of battle one against of the best swordsman of Westeros like an idiot.

Bit of an odd thing to hijack the thread with as it has nothing to do with resolving the succession crisis.  And you may as well blame Roose Bolton for getting Lord Hornwood killed on the Greenfork as Robb for getting his son killed in The Whispering Wood.  Neither bear any responsibility for the chance encounters and outcomes of battlefield combats.  And Jaime went looking for Robb not the other way around which is why this is a strange thing to get hung up on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

How did he manage to raise an army of 20k for the battle of towton if not because of his fame as a martial man and his likeable personality. When he named himself king it was his battle prowess that also helped attract warriors.

Because he had the support of powerful members of the nobility such as the  Earl of Warwick, the Duke of Norfolk among others. If that's your arguement how was Henry VI a much less popular figure with no martial prowess to speak able to raise a larger army to fight at Towton.  

9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Im not taking your word for this because nowhere have i read this fact. I might be wrong but never encountered it. And its pretty heavily documented that is a mistake and they thought william was dead, but their also good arguments for it being a feint. But im not gonna just say with my chest is one or the other because people that have invested their lives on that battle dont even know.

There were several flights. The first was genuine triggered by rumour but then he made use of the tactic of feign flights later in the day to weaken the English shield wall by drawing it's warriors out of their strong position. It's said by William of Poitiers who gives our best account of the battle (I can only find a online copy in Medieval latin so I can't actually read the original source).

9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Ill simplify the quote 

"save for the Gulltown Arryns, who had the rare good sense to marry merchants."

That literally says nothing that would support your argument at all.

9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

100 years?????? Renaissance is clearly from 15th century till 17th century. Thats fact, you can search it if you want.

Nothing in histography is fact. It's all interpretation of events and the continuity and change between them. The Renaissance even as a historiographic period is somewhat doubtful since it doesn't exactly universally correspond to changes across a large part of europe at the same time.

9 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

You will see when Theon arrived at pyke informing his father about robbs plans etc.

"By now Robb is at the Golden Tooth," Theon said.  ACOK Theon I 

Its quite he clear he set off either some time after theon left for pyke or at the same time because he already told Theon his plans. And Theons arrival at Pyke and the harvest feast has a gap of handful of days.

And saying Theon dosent have a clue wont mean anything. Its just denial.

And tired of arguing this robb didnt bother to deal with the hornwood crisis since its an issue you brought up, and it has nothing to do with topic that OP started with. 

Now had Robb been ruling at winterfell and decided to ignore the crisis, than im in agreement with you, but since he his leagues away from winterfell in some land surrounded by mountains its just typical hate trying to bring it up.

The thing is we don't know exactly what Robb was doing. Given later events we can assume he was possibly scouting out the area and developing his plans. We know Robb hadn't left Riverrun as early as you suggest. He was only planning his march before Catelyn left to treat with Renly since she'd heard no word of it and she has a much shorter journey than Theon did and was likely making better time. Either way he wasn't beyond the Golden tooth and out of contact at that point. It was probably possible for a rider from Riverrun to find him easily enough and deliver letters too him. Of course we won't know with any certainty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Thandros said:

Because he had the support of powerful members of the nobility such as the  Earl of Warwick, the Duke of Norfolk among others. If that's your arguement how was Henry VI a much less popular figure with no martial prowess to speak able to raise a larger army to fight at Towton.

Henry was king, his blood and authority over others was enough to call upon men. Edward wasnt, until he crowned himself he was able to gain followers, freeriders, knights, and man ata arms. The earl of Warwick was wealthy but him and the duke of Norfolk couldn’t raise an army of that size between each other.

9 hours ago, Thandros said:

There were several flights. The first was genuine triggered by rumour but then he made use of the tactic of feign flights later in the day to weaken the English shield wall by drawing it's warriors out of their strong position. It's said by William of Poitiers who gives our best account of the battle (I can only find a online copy in Medieval latin so I can't actually read the original source).

And still we have no evidence that it was planned. 

9 hours ago, Thandros said:

That literally says nothing that would support your argument at all.

Gulltown arryns arent liked because of their merchants blood. You clearly see in the quote it mentions how they stupidly decided to marry merchants. Merchant class isnt well liked by the nobility. You know it, but you want to keep on arguing it.

9 hours ago, Thandros said:

Nothing in histography is fact. It's all interpretation of events and the continuity and change between them. The Renaissance even as a historiographic period is somewhat doubtful since it doesn't exactly universally correspond to changes across a large part of europe at the same time.

Once again arguing for the sake of it. It lasted till 1550? Thats a joke. My guess is that you said that because that’s around the time Elizabeth I came to the throne and you wanted to invalidate my point of renaissance being more civilised.

9 hours ago, Thandros said:

The thing is we don't know exactly what Robb was doing. Given later events we can assume he was possibly scouting out the area and developing his plans. We know Robb hadn't left Riverrun as early as you suggest. He was only planning his march before Catelyn left to treat with Renly since she'd heard no word of it and she has a much shorter journey than Theon did and was likely making better time. Either way he wasn't beyond the Golden tooth and out of contact at that point. It was probably possible for a rider from Riverrun to find him easily enough and deliver letters too him. Of course we won't know with any certainty.

Gave you your evidence, and you want to keep putting these things into massive speculation when the evidence is there.

Seeing as you havent given me any evidence whatsoever to back whatever your claim is. All in all its just petty arguing at this point. Have a good day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Henry was king, his blood and authority over others was enough to call upon men. Edward wasnt, until he crowned himself he was able to gain followers, freeriders, knights, and man ata arms. The earl of Warwick was wealthy but him and the duke of Norfolk couldn’t raise an army of that size between each other.

A few points. One by Towton Edward was crowned. Two by male preference primogeniture Edward had the superior claim over Henry. Three by this point Henry had so little authority that after the Lancastrian victory at the 2nd Battle of St Albans when the Lancastrian army approached London the Citizens closed the gates and refused them entry and the Lancastrians had to retreat. The Earl of Warwick and Duke of Norfolk were hardly the only major noblemen to support the Yorkists. They're just the ones who command sections of the Yorkist army at Towton.

35 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

And still we have no evidence that it was planned. 

I literally noted a contemporary source who described the use of two feigned retreats by William during the battle of Hastings, after an initial genuine retreat allowed the Normans to destroy a portion of the English advantageously, to gain the upper hand in the later stages of the battle. And you say I provide no evidence. In your view of the world how did William win the battle of Hastings.

35 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Gulltown arryns arent liked because of their merchants blood. You clearly see in the quote it mentions how they stupidly decided to marry merchants. Merchant class isnt well liked by the nobility. You know it, but you want to keep on arguing it.

Baelish wasn't being sarcastic in that statement. I know it's abnormal for him to say something seriously but I think he was. They had the good sense to marry merchants because they are actually wealthy. All the other Arryn branches are basically broke but continue to act like stuck up nobles because they happen to have a famous name despite the fact that I doubt any of them hold a title greater than ser. During the Regency of Aegon III Isembarn Arryn claimed the lordship of the Vale and while he used bribes and sellswords to mostly back his claim he also had the support of the Graftons who likely aren't one of the lesser lords mentioned before and who stuck with him even after he was imprisoned. He was then respected enough to serve as master of coin during the last phase of the regency.This is contain on pages 669,676 and 694 of Blood and Fire if you want me to reference sources.

35 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Once again arguing for the sake of it. It lasted till 1550? Thats a joke. My guess is that you said that because that’s around the time Elizabeth I came to the throne and you wanted to invalidate my point of renaissance being more civilised.

Why would excluding the reign of Elizabeth I make the renaissance less civilized? As I noted the historiographic placement as a general period is somewhat dubious and even if ti wasn't it doesn't really apply to England in the same way it applies to Italy and other places on the continent. Please explain your rationals in more detail so I can understand them well enough to make adequate rebuttals.

35 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Gave you your evidence, and you want to keep putting these things into massive speculation when the evidence is there.

Seeing as you havent given me any evidence whatsoever to back whatever your claim is. All in all its just petty arguing at this point. Have a good day.

Okay let's do this point by point so you can understand.

My claim: Robb was not in hostile territory during the Harvest feast in Winterfell or immediately afterwards. He may even have still been in Riverrun and as such in a position to attempt to formulate a response to the issues of the Hornwood succession as discussed at the feast.

Evidence: 

1. Theon whose chapter according to your timeline would take place 5-8 days after the Harvest feast according to the timeline you presented also believes Robb will be at the Golden Tooth at maximum. Theon can't be certain he isn't in direct contact with Robb at this point but may have some details of Robb's intentions to give basis to his statements. This would still place Robb in friendly territory since the Golden Tooth lies roughly on the Border between the Riverlands and the Westerlands. This sets the lowest benchmark for Robb's advance. Theon I ACOK

2. In Catelyn II which according to your timeline takes place at 1/5/299. They have about five days of travelling without seeing signs of war. Given she notes that the worst of it was over after crossing the Blackwater we could reasonably assume that once she reaches the Reach she has reached this noted point in her journey or is very close to it. This could represent anywhere from a little less than half to maybe a third of her journey's total distance. Assuming the more conservative estimate of a third and that the time taken to cross the areas affected by war was three times due to having to move to avoid armed bands and detours to avoid villages and holdfasts as much would place her total journey time at 35 days (5 days of easy travel through untouched lands plus 30 days (10 times 3) through land ravaged by war). This would mean she was departing Riverrun at the same time that Theon was arriving at Pyke more or less on very conservative numbers. Given that Catelyn had no word of Robb was preparing to march (suggesting if any preparations had been done they were purely behind doors planing meeting rather than the more manual preparation what would cause someone to notice). Perhaps she had at most a week beforehand to prepare for the journey and their is no suggestion Robb had left by the time Catelyn had left. This at the very least implies Robb hadn't left by the time the harvest feast had occurred and was likely still in Riverrun when any raven from Winterfell discussing the Hornwood succession would have reached him. Catelyn II ACOK

3. The third piece of evidence to place Robb in friendly territory in the weeks immediately after the harvest feast is the timing and nature of the battle of Oxcross. It's location is three days ride from Lannisport more or less presumably up the River Road which probably places it closer to the Golden Tooth than to Lannisport. He can't have been in the Westerlands long beforehand since they had no warning and while Stafford didn't have sentries or scouts you can't six thousand men in hostile territory for long even if the enemy isn't locking for him and given Robb's aggression during the Westerland campaign it would out of character for him to hold back too much. It seems doubtful he was in the Westerlands proper for much more than a week maybe two if his goat track took a while to traverse. He may even have been in friendly territory east of the Golden Tooth to hear word of Ramsey seizing Lady Hornwood.  Catelyn is clearly aware of some of Ramsay's crimes when she meets Bolton at the Twins. Either way Robb likely hadn't left friendly territory before he could possibly have received a Raven from Winterfell discussing the Hornwood succession given the probable timing of the battle of Oxcross. Chapters a bunch Though mostly Sansa III ACOK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...