Commanders and their reputations.

[The Fallen]

` One of the aspects that I like about ASoIaF are the battles that are fought. I don't consider myself to be an expert on military history or tactics, however I do like to engage in conversations about the battles, tactics and strategies used in the books. We've all seen the "Best Generals" and "Worst Generals" or the "Most Overrated General" threads and they usually elicit a lot of responses and passionate posts.

What I want to do is go in a different direction. I was reading about Gen. George S. Patton and his claim to fame seems to be the Battle of the Bulge during WWII. Again, I'm no expert, but I would have to imagine that George Patton must have had other great moments in order to garner the kind of reputation that he holds. If we look at another great American general, George Washington, he seems to have lost more battles than he won, but he ultimately won the big one (the American Revolutionary War) and has gone down as one of, if not the, greatest generals in U.S. history.

My question is this. What makes a commander or military leader great? Is it the entirety of a commander's career? Can one great moment in an otherwise good career win you the label of 'great commander'?

If we take the above criteria, does Randyll's victory over Robert Baratheon make him 'great'? Does Tywin, who's armies lost more battles than they won in the Wot5K, fare better because he ultimately "won" the war? Or should the Tyrells be given the majority of the credit, (similar to America during WWII)?

So in closing, I ask again, what makes a commander 'great'?

*We can use real-world comparisons.

[Direwolf of the Starks]

Ability to strategize and use situations to his/her advantage. Ability to rally and inspire love or fear in their soldiers. That's what makes commanders truly great. Randyll, Tywin, Stannis, and Robb all show these skills.

[Lord Flashheart]

Randyll Tarly>Others

This is not a thread about parenting, so Tarly wins this one for me.

[Ti-Guy]

Tarly is surely a good one since he seems to win almost everytime he's in a battle

Mace is awful he have the biggest host but doesn't know what to do with it

I would personnally say that the greatest tactician and warmaster of Westeros is the Blackfish. He looks like the real deal when comes the time to surprise the ennemy and how to do it.

Stannis and Roose also deserve special mentions as well as Barristan which we all gone see in action when the next book will be out.

[The Fallen]

Ability to strategize and use situations to his/her advantage. Ability to rally and inspire love or fear in their soldiers. That's what makes commanders truly great. Randyll, Tywin, Stannis, and Robb all show these skills.

Those seem like good qualities to have and I imagine all good commanders posses most, if not all of those qualities. But what would catapult those guys to 'rock star' status?

I'm wondering what would a commander have to do on the battlefield to be considered great. I see why Robb garnered the reputation he did; he basically beat everyone put in front of him. Lets use Roose Bolton as an example. Had defeated Tywin at the Green Fork, would it turn Roose into a great commander? How about if he loses the way he did, but was able to inflict serious casualties on Tywin's host, would that be considered great? Can someone be considered great for being able to retreat in good fashion while minimizing casualties?

I'm asking more about deeds rather than qualities.

[Minstral]

Those seem like good qualities to have and I imagine all good commanders posses most, if not all of those qualities. But what would catapult those guys to 'rock star' status?

I'm wondering what would a commander have to do on the battlefield to be considered great. I see why Robb garnered the reputation he did; he basically beat everyone put in front of him. Lets use Roose Bolton as an example. Had defeated Tywin at the Green Fork, would it turn Roose into a great commander? How about if he loses the way he did, but was able to inflict serious casualties on Tywin's host, would that be considered great? Can someone be considered great for being able to retreat in good fashion while minimizing casualties?

I'm asking more about deeds rather than qualities.

A reputation like that is the collective opinions of people molded together to form a generic statement of the general. Its kind of like how history is made. Lock a bunch of historians into a room and observe them debate events from different angles and see them form a rough consensus, and in time the process will be repeated by another group that challenges the established consensus and so on. Those truths and "great men" that "stand the test of time" are the ones that have been molded to fit an ideal rather than a good representation of the actual history that took place. (I'm being a bit facetious regarding this, majored in history but was not able to make an adequate living doing it. Still enjoy it immensely in fact).

Anyway, my rambling comes more to this point. The concept of "Great" men is more a fallacy than a legitimate way of identifying men of talent. It was not a single man that went into a war and made his will manifest that shaped his victory, but the machine that he more or less represented. So what criteria does a great commander follow? A lot has to do with a bunch of established opinions forming a consensus that the man is indeed a great commander. Now obviously something has transpired for the man to earn such a reputation and he very well may deserve to be recognized for it, but the concept is misleading. I remember someone arguing what a great man Richard the "Lionheart", King of England, was due to his victories over the Muslims in the third Crusade and how he fought Philip Capet to a standstill. Yet his victories over the Muslims only achieved a stalemate that accomplished nothing and was more a defeat for the Christian Kingdoms. Not only that but Philip abandoned the Crusades to prey upon Richards continental holdings in France, which he would defend much later and achieved the status-quo between the two. He was gallant in battle but about as abysmal a king as his brother, John "Lackland".

[The Fallen]

` It is interesting to see some of the actions that make an individual gain a reputation as a 'great' commander.

I've read posts where Roose and especially JonCon have gotten a lot of credit for being able to retreat in good fashion and I didn't realize that it's considered a really good feat in battle and is actually good for your reputation. That's actually what made George Washington's reputation and got him the generalship of the Continental Army during the American Revolution. And it continued during the revolution where he used it strategically; he wouldn't engage the British unless he had a clear path to be able to retreat if the situation called for it.

Maybe, we're a little too harsh on the commanders in the book.

[The Mountain That Flies]

I've read posts where Roose and especially JonCon have gotten a lot of credit for being able to retreat in good fashion and I didn't realize that it's considered a really good feat in battle and is actually good for your reputation. That's actually what made George Washington's reputation and got him the generalship of the Continental Army during the American Revolution. And it continued during the revolution where he used it strategically; he wouldn't engage the British unless he had a clear path to be able to retreat if the situation called for it.

Connington in particular is given credit there because his forces were engaged in urban warfare duirng the Battle of the Bells, fighting block-by-block and supposedly in alleys and on rooftops. Maintaing any effective form of communication with your troops under such circumstances would require pretty good administartion, so he must have been good at organization and instilled solid discipline in his troops. Both of those are important for any kind of leader, and generally show the signs of a good battle commander

Retreating in good order can be a critical tool when you're facing a larger army than yours, as Washington did during the American Revolution. They had to bleed the British forces bit by bit, as engaging them in a knock-down, drag-out fight would have heavily favored the Brits. Being a good general means sizing up siutations and responding appropriatly, using whatever tactics will best favor you. For Washington, this was often retreating in good order, though under different circumstances its reasonable to believe he would have adjusted his plans to suit the circumstances.

As for Roose Bolton, he generaly gets credit for surprising Tywin's army, which would have required a night march and immediatly going into battle. This would have also required some solid discipline, though in his case since he knew his fight was jus a distraction he would have had a retreat planned out from the begining. On the one hand since he wasn't fighting to win his feat isn't as impressive as Connington's, though since the Battle of the Green Fork helped Roose's side way more than the Battle of the Bells did Connington's, it kind of nullifies a comparison.

Maybe, we're a little too harsh on the commanders in the book.

We're harsh on many commanders becuse few of them show any real care for the lives lost under their orders. Ned and Robb are pretty much the only two people we hear express regret over the men who died for them (and I think that may just be show Robb). Tywin and Stannis care much more about their reputations and claims than the thousands of men they've caused to die in their personal quests for glory, and Randyll straight up executed hundreds of Florents (who could have easily been swayed to be under his command or just arrested) because he was worried about them siding with Stannis. This callous attitude certainly wasn't unique to just medieval warfare, and continued all the way through World War I. But, on the whole, history tends to regard "good" commanders as people who made the best use possible out of their resources (such as men) and didn't just piss them away.

[illrede]

Those seem like good qualities to have and I imagine all good commanders posses most, if not all of those qualities. But what would catapult those guys to 'rock star' status?

I'm wondering what would a commander have to do on the battlefield to be considered great. I see why Robb garnered the reputation he did; he basically beat everyone put in front of him. Lets use Roose Bolton as an example. Had defeated Tywin at the Green Fork, would it turn Roose into a great commander? How about if he loses the way he did, but was able to inflict serious casualties on Tywin's host, would that be considered great? Can someone be considered great for being able to retreat in good fashion while minimizing casualties?

I'm asking more about deeds rather than qualities.

Well what gives Roose status to me is that he kept his host intact through a defeat and went on to take Harrenhal. He's a strategist, and a good pick for an army commander for the Northmen. Pity about the treachery. You see, he might as well have beaten Tywin at the Green Fork. Tywin isn't affecting the Riverrun campaign, and then he went on to take his base of operations. That's just pure generalship.

Tywin won a war in which he lost most of his engagements. Randal Tarley wins fuedal battles by the numbers. Stannis for one seems to come from a military tradition more sophisticated than his setting. They all seem to exist in a network of mutual regard.

[illrede]

We're harsh on many commanders becuse few of them show any real care for the lives lost under their orders. Ned and Robb are pretty much the only two people we hear express regret over the men who died for them (and I think that may just be show Robb). Tywin and Stannis care much more about their reputations and claims than the thousands of men they've caused to die in their personal quests for glory, and Randyll straight up executed hundreds of Florents (who could have easily been swayed to be under his command or just arrested) because he was worried about them siding with Stannis. This callous attitude certainly wasn't unique to just medieval warfare, and continued all the way through World War I. But, on the whole, history tends to regard "good" commanders as people who made the best use possible out of their resources (such as men) and didn't just piss them away.

'A good general must love his army, and must be willing to kill the thing he loves' is the (rough) quote. Too much compassion can invalidate all your other qualities, which is what happened to the guy opposing the person the man who said the quote (McClellan and Lee). World War I gets a bad rap, the confluence of technology, geography, and resources on the western front was unforgiving.

[The Fallen]

Connington in particular is given credit there because his forces were engaged in urban warfare duirng the Battle of the Bells, fighting block-by-block and supposedly in alleys and on rooftops. Maintaing any effective form of communication with your troops under such circumstances would require pretty good administartion, so he must have been good at organization and instilled solid discipline in his troops. Both of those are important for any kind of leader, and generally show the signs of a good battle commander

Retreating in good order can be a critical tool when you're facing a larger army than yours, as Washington did during the American Revolution. They had to bleed the British forces bit by bit, as engaging them in a knock-down, drag-out fight would have heavily favored the Brits. Being a good general means sizing up siutations and responding appropriatly, using whatever tactics will best favor you. For Washington, this was often retreating in good order, though under different circumstances its reasonable to believe he would have adjusted his plans to suit the circumstances.

As for Roose Bolton, he generaly gets credit for surprising Tywin's army, which would have required a night march and immediatly going into battle. This would have also required some solid discipline, though in his case since he knew his fight was jus a distraction he would have had a retreat planned out from the begining. On the one hand since he wasn't fighting to win his feat isn't as impressive as Connington's, though since the Battle of the Green Fork helped Roose's side way more than the Battle of the Bells did Connington's, it kind of nullifies a comparison.

We're harsh on many commanders becuse few of them show any real care for the lives lost under their orders. Ned and Robb are pretty much the only two people we hear express regret over the men who died for them (and I think that may just be show Robb). Tywin and Stannis care much more about their reputations and claims than the thousands of men they've caused to die in their personal quests for glory, and Randyll straight up executed hundreds of Florents (who could have easily been swayed to be under his command or just arrested) because he was worried about them siding with Stannis. This callous attitude certainly wasn't unique to just medieval warfare, and continued all the way through World War I. But, on the whole, history tends to regard "good" commanders as people who made the best use possible out of their resources (such as men) and didn't just piss them away.

Good stuff, The Mountain. So Jon Con should definitely get more respect than he's gotten from readers.

The other thing I've noticed about JonCon and Ned is the confidence with which they carry themselves. They're not cocky. They're just really assured about their abilities and who they are. They seem like men that other would want to follow.

[Erkan12]

Of course winning the battles.

Tywin was very lucky (very very lucky since he lost a battle against Edmure and this turn out great advantage), and i doubt he won the war alone, the credit should go to LF and Tyrells...

[The Broke Howard Hughes]

` One of the aspects that I like about ASoIaF are the battles that are fought. I don't consider myself to be an expert on military history or tactics, however I do like to engage in conversations about the battles, tactics and strategies used in the books. We've all seen the "Best Generals" and "Worst Generals" or the "Most Overrated General" threads and they usually elicit a lot of responses and passionate posts.

What I want to do is go in a different direction. I was reading about Gen. George S. Patton and his claim to fame seems to be the Battle of the Bulge during WWII. Again, I'm no expert, but I would have to imagine that George Patton must have had other great moments in order to garner the kind of reputation that he holds. If we look at another great American general, George Washington, he seems to have lost more battles than he won, but he ultimately won the big one (the American Revolutionary War) and has gone down as one of, if not the, greatest generals in U.S. history.

My question is this. What makes a commander or military leader great? Is it the entirety of a commander's career? Can one great moment in an otherwise good career win you the label of 'great commander'?

If we take the above criteria, does Randyll's victory over Robert Baratheon make him 'great'? Does Tywin, who's armies lost more battles than they won in the Wot5K, fare better because he ultimately "won" the war? Or should the Tyrells be given the majority of the credit, (similar to America during WWII)?

So in closing, I ask again, what makes a commander 'great'?

*We can use real-world comparisons.

I get the impression that after the Rebellion and the War of 5 Kings the Starks are looked at as superior battle commanders. Sure Robb lost the war but not on the battlefield. I doubt Tywin is lauded as some military genuis, Robb wiped the floor with him. He won the war through shrewd politicking but thats not the same thing.

I don't see the Tyrells being looked at as above average either. They showed up at the tail end of the battle of Blackwater Bay totally fresh and with superior numbers, of course they won.

[space]

despite clear cut evidence I could see roose bolton being a brilliant commander...smart, methodical, disciplined, and wouldnt let "moral" or "honorable" judgments get in his way...hes probably more responsible for many of robbs battles then robb himself...

a bit off the subject but his entire "a peaceful land, a quiet people" is creepy as all hell...I picture the bolton lands as a cold, creepy fog ridden sleepy hollow-esque horror movie land filled with acres and acres of woods consisting of dead trees, serial killers, sketchy cabins in the woods inhabited by people who do weird animal sacrifice rituals with a side of rape and incest

[Chaircat Meow]

I get the impression that after the Rebellion and the War of 5 Kings the Starks are looked at as superior battle commanders. Sure Robb lost the war but not on the battlefield. I doubt Tywin is lauded as some military genuis, Robb wiped the floor with him. He won the war through shrewd politicking but thats not the same thing.

I don't see the Tyrells being looked at as above average either. They showed up at the tail end of the battle of Blackwater Bay totally fresh and with superior numbers, of course they won.

Got any textual evidence that after the Rebellion anyone thought Ned was a superior commander to say, Stannis or Tywin, or that he was on a par with Robert Baratheon, the real 'hero' of the war.

And while the northerners think highly of Robb I can't remember any quotes from southerners praising him.

[Victarion Chainbreaker]

If, and only If, you completely forget about the Battle of Blackwater, then Stannis is clearly the best military mind of his generation. He has been on both sides of sieges and won. He held Storm's End for IIRC about a year, and took the besieged Dragonstone in much less time. He defeated the mighty Victarion and his Iron Fleet at sea, a fact I still have trouble wrapping my mind around. He managed to defeat a vast force of of wildings hundreds of thousands strong with about 3000 knights, and he flushed the Iron born conquerors out of Deepwood Motte like it ain't no thang.

Blackwater though, 'loudly sighs.'

Making an amphibious assault against an entrenched enemy is extremely costly. Assaulting fortified city walls without artillery is also extremely costly. Trying to do both at the same time is just suicidal. And yet not a single advisor in Stannis's army said "Hey Stannis, transporting your army across the Blackwater directly in front of the Red Keep so archers and trebuchets can rain down death on them from the safety of high walls might not be the best idea." Hell, Davos even looks down at the chain and thinks that if it were raised, they'd have to pick up the army farther out in the bay and land them north of King's Landing, which is A MUCH BETTER PLAN.

But GRRM had to have the chain to show what a genius Tyrion is, but really? Tyrion's train of thought would have to go something like:

I wonder how Stannis will attack King's Landing? This is the guy who defeated Victarion and the Iron Fleet, so he must have a good head for strategy. He successfully held out Storm's End against the army of the Reach, so he must realize a small force can hold well-fortified walls against a much larger force. He also took Dragonstone, so he knows how to defeat a force fortified behind high walls. You know what? I'm going to gamble that Stannis forgets everything he ever knew about strategy and makes a blunder so obviously stupid that it would be a miracle if his advisors allowed him to go through with it. Which means I should build a chain!

[illrede]

Of course winning the battles.

Tywin was very lucky (very very lucky since he lost a battle against Edmure and this turn out great advantage), and i doubt he won the war alone, the credit should go to LF and Tyrells...

Winning the war- pursuing your strategic options to victory, particularly important in a setting lousy with castles.

Tywin chose to lose against Edmure. Edmure was mounting a full forward defense in detail and had just commited his reserves when news of Stannis's approach reached Tywin. He then decided crushing Tully power utterly for all time in the field was not preferable to losing Kings Landing, and left.

[illrede]

Blackwater though, 'loudly sighs.'

Making an amphibious assault against an entrenched enemy is extremely costly. Assaulting fortified city walls without artillery is also extremely costly. Trying to do both at the same time is just suicidal. And yet not a single advisor in Stannis's army said "Hey Stannis, transporting your army across the Blackwater directly in front of the Red Keep so archers and trebuchets can rain down death on them from the safety of high walls might not be the best idea." Hell, Davos even looks down at the chain and thinks that if it were raised, they'd have to pick up the army farther out in the bay and land them north of King's Landing, which is A MUCH BETTER PLAN.

But GRRM had to have the chain to show what a genius Tyrion is, but really? Tyrion's train of thought would have to go something like:

I wonder how Stannis will attack King's Landing? This is the guy who defeated Victarion and the Iron Fleet, so he must have a good head for strategy. He successfully held out Storm's End against the army of the Reach, so he must realize a small force can hold well-fortified walls against a much larger force. He also took Dragonstone, so he knows how to defeat a force fortified behind high walls. You know what? I'm going to gamble that Stannis forgets everything he ever knew about strategy and makes a blunder so obviously stupid that it would be a miracle if his advisors allowed him to go through with it. Which means I should build a chain!

There's no way to storm a fortified city without storming a fortified city. No points for style, no room for fancy. Tyrion's genius wasn't in getting a chain built- that's a bog standard countermeasure and notable only in that Kings Landing went from not having a chain to having a chain faster than the information could distribute (which is a heck of thing!)- it was combining it with the wildfire trap. A chain is denial, at worst you lose a few ships if its sprung as a surprise and your mobility is altered, though the Florent in charge would ensure that it was the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario isn't that bad. The wildfire is destruction, and the chain was a required component of that.

[E-Ro]

Being a good general is so much more then just "winning the battles." Reacting well to defeats(or your ability to deal with failure), playing to your strengths, negating the enemies strengths as best you can, managing your armies logistical support to keep them in the field(FAR more important then any battle and the biggest part of war, and any commanders job. But this isnt glamorous at all so you wont ever read one bit about it unless its in a military text meant to be as historically accurate as possible) and a variety of other things also play a factor. There are different ways to be a good general, and if you win every battle but lose the war then those battles didn't count for shit, and merely wasted the men who fought in them.

I will be back later, but spoiler alert, I think Stannis is among if not THE best.

ETA:I consider robb, and tywin better then ned. I have yet to see anything that says ned was this great commander, he led one battle(that we know of) that was going badly until robert led a counter charge.

[The Broke Howard Hughes]

Got any textual evidence that after the Rebellion anyone thought Ned was a superior commander to say, Stannis or Tywin, or that he was on a par with Robert Baratheon, the real 'hero' of the war.

And while the northerners think highly of Robb I can't remember any quotes from southerners praising him.

The phrase I get the impression implies this was all just my opinion. And forgive me if I'm wrong but I don't recall much praise for anyone. Sure Robert was 'hero' but we get very little impression of him as a commander. He was a superior warrior but I don't remember hearing he was some kickass general. And hero or not some people still called him usurper. Hero is subjective. Of course few Southerners thought highly if Robb, he was the enemy.