Randyll Tarly is an terrible commander

[Ragnorak]

<snip>

- He's got the power of the Reach in his van, that means armoured lances, heavy horse and experienced knights. Renly's mounted strength (more on that later) at Storm's End numbered give or take 20,000 (including Stormlanders). So let's say Randyll only has around 10,000-15,000. Meanwhile, Robert's host had just won three consecutive battles at Summerhall. In those three battles he would've lost a considerable amount of men, surprise attack or no. And we know the Stormlands can't raise that large a host compared to other areas (like the Reach), so Randyll would have been crushing Robert's thousands with double or even triple his numbers.

...

The problem with this is that it is based on your suppositions about troop strengths and not information provided in the text. We simply do not know the troop strengths. Sure if Tarly had 3 times the troop strength of an enemy that isn't a praise worthy victory-- but it is praised by characters in the book and no one that we see in the text mocks it or fails in any way to credit it as a praiseworthy victory. All we are told is that Tarly beat Robert with only the vanguard of the opposing force. The text presents it as vanguard vs. whole army. Absent any other information in the text to inform us otherwise the reasonable conclusion is that Tarly had the smaller force. Why would people bother to point out that he only commanded the vanguard if the vanguard was three times the size of Robert's whole army? That seems like much the same type of reputation inflation that people are accusing Mace of when they use the Tarly victory to put Mace's martial prowess in perspective..

<snip>

2. aCoK, Catelyn, p. 436

"I say that Stannis is a danger to you," Lord Randyll Tarly declared. "Leave him unblooded and he will only grow stronger, while your own power is diminished in battle. The Lannisters will not be beaten in a day. By the time you are done with them, Lord Stannis may be as strong as you ... or stronger."

Um, what? Am I missing the secret House that can field 20,000 (and more) troops which is just waiting to support Stannis? Cause if so, it hasn't been revealed. Stannis could really use your help now, secret House. There are no troops left who can flock to Stannis. Crownlands are with the Lannisters, Dorne is neutral (or eventually going to support Renly as Renly believes), the Stormlands and Reach have all gone over to Renly. So in the absence of this secret Stannis-loving army, Randyll was just talking bullshit to get Renly to like him and side with him rather than Mathis Rowan (who's plan of just leaving Stannis and moving on to King's Landing sounded much better). Wouldn't the well-being and best possible plan take priority over rather than doing the irrational, more damaging option? Not for Tarly. Most likely he wanted lands and favours from Renly when he came into his throne and that's why he appealed to Renly's impulsive nature. Serving his own selfish ambitions rather than doing the best thing potentially for his king/troops.

<snip>

The most important part of that line is the "leave him unblooded" part. It basically is a statement that people will perceive strength in Stannis and weakness in Renly if he is left unconfronted. Dorne isn't exactly loyal or bound to House Lannister nor are they on especially good terms with House Tyrell. If Renly is bogged down in a protracted and costly conflict with the Lannisters that weakens both Houses why wouldn't that weakness have the potential to make Dorne reconsider the field under the new conditions and take advantage of a rival and a bitter enemy. That Dorne wants Tywin dead isn't a secret. Is there anyone in Dorne who doubts Stannis will give them the justice they are looking for? Storms End is Renly's seat and Stannis is the older brother and by any interpretation of hereditary law clearly in line for the throne before Renly and technically even Storms End. There have to be a number of lords who are inherently uncomfortable with jumping the line of succession without even a pretext of legitimacy (hey, their own Houses work the same way and lots have younger brothers and sibling rivalry.) There will be lords that served under Stannis during the siege and during the Greyjoy rebellion that have respect for him as a commander. If Renly just ignores the siege to his own seat while he's engaging the Lannisters that type of decision can cause defections much the same way that the fall of Winterfell put ideas into Roose Bolton's head that he himself admits would never be an option if Robb kept his seat. We see the same idea in Connington's head after taking Griffon's Roost. Your victories and your enemies defeats change loyalties. The battlefield isn't static and Tarly saw Robert convert Houses to his cause during the rebellion. In general, I don't see how wanting to commit troops, troops that you can spare and still maintain numerical superiority on all fronts, to control an army on the battlefield instead of giving it free reign to act unchecked by you is a bad command decision. Quite the contrary.

[Fassbender]

I think that Tarly is good, but just somewhat overhyped

[The Frost Wolf]

Look, I'm normally not a grammar nazi, but you post a controversial topic which you know will get a lot of responses and generate debate, and you can't even be bothered to check your grammar? It just shows laziness, especially cause the forums are equipped with a spell check. Didn't say I was perfect, I just get tired of these "This person isn't actually this, blah, blah, blah" threads.

Several different POV characters, including Ned, Davos, and Kevan, who are men generally accepted as good and honorable, refer to Tarly as, at the very least efficient and the real victor over Robert. Almost everyone who mentions him brings up his skills as a soldier and commander. What gives you the indication that they're all wrong? It's almost the only description anyone ever gives about him, besides Sam's child abuse stories. What would be the point of setting up everything around this minor character to be a lie? It would be one thing if you said that his skills could be overrated, or that he might be overconfident in his own abilities. But you say he is a "terrible commander" which is a pretty harsh indictment, so you're going to have to really back it up.

The reason I was condescending to your thread is I really don't see what you're getting at. I'm sorry for being rude. Prove to me, besides your own personal doubts, that Tarly is terrible at the one thing everyone says he's good at.

Well you must get tired quite easily --- you've only been here for a month and a bit and have under 100 posts... I really don't mean to be offensive here, but you seem to just be going along with others who say "I hate these types of threads", when you haven't even been here THAT long.

Now to the constructive part. I said previously that I wish I could edit my title --- Not only for the spelling (yes, I know there's a spell-checker, but I first wrote "Randyll Tarly is an awful commander" then changed it to "terrible", so you can see why I made the mistake) but also because I wanted to change the operative word to over-rated, I realised I was being a little harsh on Randyll. But my reasons still stand, he is most definitely the commander everyone says he is.

[The Frost Wolf]

No, Tarlly was leading a military occupation and restoration to a devastated area. The fact that what he did was logical has nothing to do with it- the fact that he did it with aplomb is the more pertinent point in this discussion. As has been pointed out to you several times on this thread, the evident discipline and respect for his command evinced by his charges are exactly the sort of thing that builds his reputation. Being a great commander isn't all about finding magical goat paths through the mountains. It's also about being given a task and doing it well, and by all accounts Tarlly excels at such.

[ETA: for a modern military commander who was lauded for service in a similar situation, see Russel Honoré]

The forces that Tarlly has at Duskendale are unknown, as are the specifics about the results in terms of Tarly's casualties. You assume that he had a large advantage in terms of gross numbers. You assume that the terrain etc. was such that a large advantage in horse should have been decisive. You assume what precise information Tarly should have had as he prepared his attack. You assume that 'heavy casualties' on the part of the Tyrell forces was an unanticipated, avoidable outcome. You assume that smashing the collective Glover/Tallhart forces and killing half of the command and not killing/capturing 100% of the opposition force was a subpar performance. You are welcome to assume anything you want in order to enhance your reading of the books, but none of these assumptions are particularly compelling to me. In particular, Kevan Lannister, who was deep in the counsels of Tywin and certainly knew the setup of the battle (and is an accomplished soldier himself) still holds Tarlly in high esteem, and he's got much greater knowledge of the battle then we get a readers. If the alternatives are that either all of your assumptions are correct and Kevan is an idiot, or some of your assumptions are incorrect and Kevan is exactly the capable judge of character that we've seen in the novels, then I'm picking the latter.

Other posters have answered you on this point repeatedly. Robert was an excellent commander, had battle-hardened soldiers that he had previously led in combat, and against this Tarly had but the vanguard of a green, untested force and Tarly still came out with a decisive victory that for all intents and purposes ended the southern campaign for the duration of RR. You assume that better outcomes were not only possible, but that indeed it is a blight on Tarly's record that he didn't do more. As other posters have pointed out, your line of reasoning isn't all that persuasive to many of us on this point.

What are you referring to here? Greywind? Be a little clearer and to the point. The rest of that^ is riddled with mistakes, work on it.

Although to answer you, the battle of Ashford is famously an indecisive victory (see: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Battle_of_Ashford) and it did not end Robert's campaign in the South. Robert simply retreated to Stoney Sept where he holed up and let Randyll move on to Storm's End.

And you constantly say how people have corrected me and set me right. Examples, names and actual facts, please. Stop trying to sound smart and actually make an argument.

[The Frost Wolf]

The problem with this is that it is based on your suppositions about troop strengths and not information provided in the text. We simply do not know the troop strengths. Sure if Tarly had 3 times the troop strength of an enemy that isn't a praise worthy victory-- but it is praised by characters in the book and no one that we see in the text mocks it or fails in any way to credit it as a praiseworthy victory. All we are told is that Tarly beat Robert with only the vanguard of the opposing force. The text presents it as vanguard vs. whole army. Absent any other information in the text to inform us otherwise the reasonable conclusion is that Tarly had the smaller force. Why would people bother to point out that he only commanded the vanguard if the vanguard was three times the size of Robert's whole army? That seems like much the same type of reputation inflation that people are accusing Mace of when they use the Tarly victory to put Mace's martial prowess in perspective..

The most important part of that line is the "leave him unblooded" part. It basically is a statement that people will perceive strength in Stannis and weakness in Renly if he is left unconfronted. Dorne isn't exactly loyal or bound to House Lannister nor are they on especially good terms with House Tyrell. If Renly is bogged down in a protracted and costly conflict with the Lannisters that weakens both Houses why wouldn't that weakness have the potential to make Dorne reconsider the field under the new conditions and take advantage of a rival and a bitter enemy. That Dorne wants Tywin dead isn't a secret. Is there anyone in Dorne who doubts Stannis will give them the justice they are looking for? Storms End is Renly's seat and Stannis is the older brother and by any interpretation of hereditary law clearly in line for the throne before Renly and technically even Storms End. There have to be a number of lords who are inherently uncomfortable with jumping the line of succession without even a pretext of legitimacy (hey, their own Houses work the same way and lots have younger brothers and sibling rivalry.) There will be lords that served under Stannis during the siege and during the Greyjoy rebellion that have respect for him as a commander. If Renly just ignores the siege to his own seat while he's engaging the Lannisters that type of decision can cause defections much the same way that the fall of Winterfell put ideas into Roose Bolton's head that he himself admits would never be an option if Robb kept his seat. We see the same idea in Connington's head after taking Griffon's Roost. Your victories and your enemies defeats change loyalties. The battlefield isn't static and Tarly saw Robert convert Houses to his cause during the rebellion. In general, I don't see how wanting to commit troops, troops that you can spare and still maintain numerical superiority on all fronts, to control an army on the battlefield instead of giving it free reign to act unchecked by you is a bad command decision. Quite the contrary.

- Like I said, Robert's forces were battered and bloodied, Randyll's were fresh levies. Perhaps Randyll's van was smaller, however the condition of Robert's men would be a huge factor. Now I know that much of my argument is based on assumptions, but are you telling me that after Robert's famous night-time marches and three battles at Summerhall, the men AREN'T tired? Robert's troops would be in no condition to fight, giving Randyll an easy victory.

- Dorne was promising Renly their support. At this point, Dorne is not willing to get involved in tWoFK so they simply decided to go with the monarch most likely to win. Look through the Catelyn chapter at bitterbridge, Renly seems confident that the Dornish will join him in no time. While this is unlikely (even though he has visited Dorne, etc), Dorne seem to just back whoever will win, because this war has nothing to do with their end-game-plan that we learn of later. So you saying that the Dornish joining Stannis would seem ridiculous, just as Randyll saying they need to fight him. Renly on Stannis's army: "I would call them five thousand and be generous - Codfish lords, onion knights and freeriders in boiled leather. They won't stand a chance against armoured lances, your army will break in the first charge of my vanguard." (IIRC) Why would Dorne go with Stannis because he sits outside Storm's End? He has small numbers and taking Storm's End won't do anything for him. He'll have somewhere to hole up once Renly comes back from KL, that's all it'll give him.

The bold --- that made me laugh. What did Robert do in his rebellion? And what was the result? (He left Storm's End under siege, continued the war, and won). Yeah. And Roose Bolton moved against Robb NOT because of the Greyjoys, he saw his opportunity when Robb married Jeyne Westerling. He's lost the Karstark's and the Frey's, that's where Roose sees Robb's downfall. Greyjoys can keep Winterfell warm for Robb all they want, they can't hold it and the Northerners knew that.

[Manderlay]

The governance of a town and simply rebuilding the gates and stables so you can defend it in the case of an attack is just logical. You're not going to just leave it and let yourself be attacked if bandits decide to raid it again. That is governing not commanding.

The forces of Randyll at Duskendale are unknown, but considering that the plan was devised by Roose Bolton, a cold and calculating man, you would think he gave the Lannisters an estimate of how many men Tallhart/Glover had with them. So it's safe to say that his mixed Lannister/Tyrell force had a large force. Tywin had 500 knights at the Green Fork, the Tyrells have a huge mounted force, plus any forces/freeriders still left in King's Landing. Randyll should have smashed them.

His victory over Robert was NOTHING. I explained this in the OP, Robert had already won three battles at Summerhall, his forces were bloodied, battered and depleted when he ran into Randyll. And again, Randyll didn't follow through, Robert escaped! He could've ended the rebellion in one swoop. (Read the OP for the rest, I don't want to re-type it all)

It is logical to look to the defences of a town, I did say it wasn't just governance, you are separating governance and command, but at Maidenpool governance was part of the command as it was not Tarly's own castle, yes I have read your OP, but we do not have any facts about the numbers of Randall's vanguard and is speculation, in the books there is no textual evidence that suggests Randall Tarly is a bad commander, in fact there is enough textual evidence to say Randall Tarly is a good commander.

I agree that the battle between Tarly and Robert did not have any significant impact on the war, but that does not make him a bad commander automatically nor can we discount him. As I said before, you underestimate the significance of Tarly defeating Robert, a man who won the Iron throne against incredible odds and was never defeated, even if the outcome of the battle did not have impact on the war. The battle of Duskendale we do not have the numbers as well, so we cant speculate.

[Tyrell_like_Squirrel]

Well you must get tired quite easily --- you've only been here for a month and a bit and have under 100 posts... I really don't mean to be offensive here, but you seem to just be going along with others who say "I hate these types of threads", when you haven't even been here THAT long.

Now to the constructive part. I said previously that I wish I could edit my title --- Not only for the spelling (yes, I know there's a spell-checker, but I first wrote "Randyll Tarly is an awful commander" then changed it to "terrible", so you can see why I made the mistake) but also because I wanted to change the operative word to over-rated, I realised I was being a little harsh on Randyll. But my reasons still stand, he is most definitely the commander everyone says he is.

I'd be willing to buy that he might be overrated or overconfident. No, scratch that, I definitely think he could be over confident, and that could lead to his downfall. But I really don't see where this is going. If he was truly overrated, or ineffective what direction would that lead? There were solid reasons behind why what Robert said about Rhaegar was untrue, or what Ned said about Jaime. But Tarly is a minor supporting character, in the grand scheme of things, I don't see what would be accomplished by having all these people be wrong about Tarly's skills. What would be the purpose?

I think it would be way cooler to see him being all badass, and effective in battle against someone like Dany, and then suddenly be roasted alive by dragons or something. That way it wouldn't undermine whoever was defeating him, but would still rid us all of a major jerk. Why are you so intent on proving him to be something he's not

[Riptide]

I think both sides are placing way to much emphasis on Ashford. We know almost nothing about the battle except that it was an indecisive victory. We also know little about Duskendale, but we still know a lot more. The north had 3,000 men. The reach had, at Kingslanding after the BotB, 60,000. Even if they only sent 10% (and they probably sent way more; NO ONE would attack kingslanding in the near future and while Mace is dumb he's no jinglebell) they outnumber the enemy 2 to 1 and Duskendale is a fortified town. It should have been the most elementary victory of all time. Heavy casualties? I could to better than that!

[Ragnorak]

- Like I said, Robert's forces were battered and bloodied, Randyll's were fresh levies. Perhaps Randyll's van was smaller, however the condition of Robert's men would be a huge factor. Now I know that much of my argument is based on assumptions, but are you telling me that after Robert's famous night-time marches and three battles at Summerhall, the men AREN'T tired? Robert's troops would be in no condition to fight, giving Randyll an easy victory.

- Dorne was promising Renly their support. At this point, Dorne is not willing to get involved in tWoFK so they simply decided to go with the monarch most likely to win. Look through the Catelyn chapter at bitterbridge, Renly seems confident that the Dornish will join him in no time. While this is unlikely (even though he has visited Dorne, etc), Dorne seem to just back whoever will win, because this war has nothing to do with their end-game-plan that we learn of later. So you saying that the Dornish joining Stannis would seem ridiculous, just as Randyll saying they need to fight him. Renly on Stannis's army: "I would call them five thousand and be generous - Codfish lords, onion knights and freeriders in boiled leather. They won't stand a chance against armoured lances, your army will break in the first charge of my vanguard." (IIRC) Why would Dorne go with Stannis because he sits outside Storm's End? He has small numbers and taking Storm's End won't do anything for him. He'll have somewhere to hole up once Renly comes back from KL, that's all it'll give him.

The bold --- that made me laugh. What did Robert do in his rebellion? And what was the result? (He left Storm's End under siege, continued the war, and won). Yeah. And Roose Bolton moved against Robb NOT because of the Greyjoys, he saw his opportunity when Robb married Jeyne Westerling. He's lost the Karstark's and the Frey's, that's where Roose sees Robb's downfall. Greyjoys can keep Winterfell warm for Robb all they want, they can't hold it and the Northerners knew that.

I understand the temptation and even the fun in trying to speculate and put more detail into the various battles through inference and shed more light the military picture. But the text is the text and in making evaluations on characters it should be an anchor. When Tyrion and Sansa talk about Robb defeating Stafford Lannister, Tyrion lists the caveats to the victory such as the green troops and Stafford's foolish decision to take his safety for granted. When Ser Patrek(?) boasts about not fearing an Umber with a giant on his sigil because he faced a real giant he's told that he ought to fear the Umber because he won't be running away like the giant. There are plenty of examples in the text where certain acts of supposed heroism or greatness are put in perspective by other characters. We don't get any of those with Tarly. One could speculate on the military value of being a combat veteran (since Robert's man are battle hardened and this seems to be the first battle for the Reach in this war) and compare it to the military deficit of varying degrees of hypothetical exhaustion-- it is a pointless exercise unless you feel like doing it for fun while waiting for TWOW to come out. We are not given a single reason in the text to question Tarly's victory. The public story is that Mace takes credit for the victory but the characters are telling us that Tarly deserves the real credit-- all the characters without any character ever giving a single caveat including Robert who lost the battle. There is no reason within the text to question Tarly's praise for this victory and all the evidence available within the text points toward him deserving that credit.

Renly says that he expects Dorne to join him but Renly is clueless in this regard. We get information about Dorne's plans later and Doran is betting on Dany and biding his time. He wants the Mountain dead and he wants Tywin to lose everything and die too. Renly doesn't know this and in fact has no indication of Dorne's intent, he simply thinks his army is so big that Dorne won't have a choice. Dorne didn't bow to actual dragons so this seems to be more of an indication that Renly paid no attention during history lessons than anything else. Tywin thinks Dorne might join Stannis even after the Blackwater and the Red Wedding while the Lannisters and the Tyrells are united. Why would Tarly be so wrong to think it is a reasonable enough threat to address while the Lannisters and Tyrells are at war with the North still on the field as well?

Roose explicitly says to Theon that Winterfell falling was his turning point. Robert was not King during the rebellion. Ned, Robert, Hoster Tully, and Jon Arryn were the united High Lords in the rebellion so a siege at Storm's End was not the same as a siege to the seat of the King. Winterfell was taken and Robb felt he had to head back North. Robb attacked the Westerlands and Tywin felt he had to leave Harrenhal to attack Robb despite it being an undesirable choice at the time. Tarly's advice is to do a similar thing for similar reasons. It isn't like we haven't seen our share of... shall we say malleable loyalties in this story. Leaving an heir with a better claim to throne than you on the field with an army to move about unchecked is just a really bad idea. Suggesting to not do that just isn't a sign of a poor military commander.

[anon76returns]

What are you referring to here? Greywind? Be a little clearer and to the point. The rest of that^ is riddled with mistakes, work on it.

<snip>

Stop trying to sound smart and actually make an argument.

How's this for clarity: you complaining about other posters being condescending is beyond the teapot calling the kettle black.

Regarding Grey Wind- you seem to think that the only way a commander can demonstrate competence is through stunning victories like Robb at Oxcross, when really much of those sorts of victories have as much to do with luck (i.e. finding magical goat trails) as with skill of the commander. Tarly's military occupation and restoration of Maidenpool shows competence as a leader of a military force, but you apparently are unable to recognize the competence because it's not a battle.

Although to answer you, the battle of Ashford is famously an indecisive victory (see: http://awoiaf.wester...ttle_of_Ashford) and it did not end Robert's campaign in the South. Robert simply retreated to Stoney Sept where he holed up and let Randyll move on to Storm's End.

After Ashford Robert never fought another battle in the south (The Reach, Stormlands, or Dorn), and had no apparent army when he retreated to Stoney Sept. It decisively ended the southern campaign, unless you can inform me of a battle fought later in the war between Robert and the loyalists in the South.

And you constantly say how people have corrected me and set me right. Examples, names and actual facts, please. Stop trying to sound smart and actually make an argument.

I assure you I am not trying to do any such thing, and suggestions such as this are exactly why your thread has had more discussions on posting etiquette than on the relative abilities of Randyll Tarly.

And yes, I did provide specifics about all the assumptions in your argument. They're in the large paragraph in the middle of my post which you have conveniently failed to address in your reply.

[Naathi Prince]

Considering the fact that instead of discussing with me or others on this thread about your opinion and why you dispute me, you decided to simply dismiss it outright and make a joke of my thread that I spent some time on. So yes, if you will not act mature and discuss then I will call you an idiot.

Like I said, I didn't come up with this ridiculous idea. We can discuss a million things. I think mice have five legs. Given me time, I am sure I could make a wonderful case. You would still be right to dismiss said case outright. Sorry, fail thread is fail.

[redtree]

He's a competent commander all right, because he has ample provision and backed by great numbers. But most of the battles he fought in, he has the upper hand. Good Situation+Good Commander= Great, maybe overhyped

I'd really like to see him fighting Stannis/Robb, see if he deserve the great label

[Mithras]

I agree that Renly should take the KL and sit on the IT instead of dealing with Stannis. Randyll was wrong there and many people in the forum disregard the importance of the capitol and the throne. Renly's army could easily take KL. Randyll maybe a though guy in the field but he lackes strategy.

[Erkan12]

@OP Things are not simple as you said. You can't just presume Randyll has advantage because his men were fresh, and Robert's were not. Robert's troops were battle-hardened, while Tarly's were summer boys.

There should be tactical variables in that battle. Thats why i never thought that Robert was good tactician or strategist. He was the spiritual leader as Baratheon and talented warrior sure, but i think Ned-Jon-Hoster were determined tactics and strategy.

I presume that Randyll's van and Robert's host were close numbers. I don't think any vanguard would be 20.000 men or more...

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

I wouldn't say "terrible" but certainly overrated, I certainly wouldn't agree with Kevan's assertion that he is the finest soldier in the realm when his accomplishments include: 1 indecisive victory umbers uncertain but he probably had an advantage; one needlessly costly victory, 1 failed (though by no fault of his or any of the other commanders) siege, and seizing one undefended town from its lord, who is widely considered weak.

The fact is the Battle at Duskendale was planned as a slaughter, the Lannisters had 80,000 men in the area, if they gave him less that twice Robetts numbers then they are idiots. If he suffered heavy casualties (I'm guessing high hundreds) then it doesn't say much for his tactical skill, also consider that Robett had no heavy horse.

As for his other military accomplishments I'm not really sure if they exist, his pacification of the eastern part of the Riverlands can be considered particularly impressive, sure it requires some administrative skill, but not really a military accomplishment.

[Logicsbane]

No other thread like this as far as I've searched. Randyll Tarly is constantly noted as one of the best commanders in Westeros, whenever a thread about commanders and leaders of the realm comes into question, this guy always makes the list. Not only that, he's always considered one of the best. But once you cut through the illusion that's built around him and actually consider the facts, his glowing reputation isn't so bright. On the contrary, he actually seems to be all talk and no game. Here's the facts:1. Mace Tyrell's greatest accomplishment, giving Robert Baratheon his only defeat during the rebellion at Ashford. Now we all know that Randyll's van smashed Robert before Mace even got there, so hats off to Randyll for this victory, right? No.- He's got the power of the Reach in his van, that means armoured lances, heavy horse and experienced knights. Renly's mounted strength (more on that later) at Storm's End numbered give or take 20,000 (including Stormlanders). So let's say Randyll only has around 10,000-15,000. Meanwhile, Robert's host had just won three consecutive battles at Summerhall. In those three battles he would've lost a considerable amount of men, surprise attack or no. And we know the Stormlands can't raise that large a host compared to other areas (like the Reach), so Randyll would have been crushing Robert's thousands with double or even triple his numbers.- Randyll has fresh levies. Robert's men are battered and tired (reference to his famous night marches). We know that in aSoIaF and in war, that the amount of troops doesn't mean victory. There are many other factors. This was the Reach's first battle in the Rebellion, so while they're fresh and supplied, Robert is moving further and further away from his power base (Storm's End) and doing so at a fast pace with already tried/blooded troops. - Robert escaped. Then the Tyrells moved to Storm's End. He needed to follow up this victory with something more impacting on the war other than being able to say that they dealt Robert his only defeat. If they had pursued Robert and captured him before he got to Stoney Sept then the war would be over. But no, they moved onto Storm's End instead. While this does cut Robert off from his castle, supplies and fresh troops, it was an odd move. They must've known that the North, Vale and Riverlands had risen in Rebellion too, while they're acting like it's just Robert they should be worrying about. Being one of the Tyrell's main commanders, Randyll most like had input on the decision to move onto Storm's End and to not pursue Robert.- This part is more speculative, but Randyll most like had input to put all the strength of the Reach into laying siege to Storm's End. I've seen that many think this a theory, that the Tyrells wanted to bide their time to see if the Targ's would lose, thus minimalising their own losses and allowing them to join Robert's realm later. But if you don't buy that, then what was going on here? All the troops that could have been used in King's Landing or on the Trident? Yes, the Tyrell's sent some men to the Trident, but not the majority which stayed at Storm's End. They had plenty of time to get men there, Dorne managed to get 10,000 spears to the Trident to fight with Rhaegar. So what's their excuse? 2. aCoK, Catelyn, p. 436"I say that Stannis is a danger to you," Lord Randyll Tarly declared. "Leave him unblooded and he will only grow stronger, while your own power is diminished in battle. The Lannisters will not be beaten in a day. By the time you are done with them, Lord Stannis may be as strong as you ... or stronger." Um, what? Am I missing the secret House that can field 20,000 (and more) troops which is just waiting to support Stannis? Cause if so, it hasn't been revealed. Stannis could really use your help now, secret House. There are no troops left who can flock to Stannis. Crownlands are with the Lannisters, Dorne is neutral (or eventually going to support Renly as Renly believes), the Stormlands and Reach have all gone over to Renly. So in the absence of this secret Stannis-loving army, Randyll was just talking bullshit to get Renly to like him and side with him rather than Mathis Rowan (who's plan of just leaving Stannis and moving on to King's Landing sounded much better). Wouldn't the well-being and best possible plan take priority over rather than doing the irrational, more damaging option? Not for Tarly. Most likely he wanted lands and favours from Renly when he came into his throne and that's why he appealed to Renly's impulsive nature. Serving his own selfish ambitions rather than doing the best thing potentially for his king/troops.3. Randyll's pyhrric victory at Duskendale in aSoS. Randyll has the advantage of more troops, having travelled less distance, being mounted and even the element of surprise. He pens up the Northern foot at Duskendale and wins. Great, except he had HEAVY LOSSES. Is this a good commander? How many more advantages can this guy have and his troops still sustain casualties? And not only that, (Ser Helman Tallhart was slain to be fair) but Robett Glover and parts of the Northern army escapes! The Mountain has to mop up Randyll's mess on Robett's retreat back to the Riverlands. Is Randyll against capturing people or does he just not like to follow through with his actions? Seriously, with one fight he could've taken out a third of the Northern foot with small losses and captured the Highborn commanders. I call that awful leadership and would scold him for Duskendale if I was his superior rather than praise him.So, do you concur? What's your opinion?

I completely disagree.....if Randyll was as mediocre as you think, who should have been leading these charges in his stead and why would expect different results? It's war. Not every battle is a clean and clear victory, and loses, or miscalculations happen on both sides. What next, based on the battles agains Robb Stark, Tywin Lannister is a terrible military commander?