Who is the best military commander in fire and ice?

[James Arryn]

Saying Robb shouldn't have sent Theon because he would sack Winterfell is hilariously clear logical fallacy.

Consequentialism FTW.

[LucionLannister]

Saying Robb shouldn't have sent Theon because he would sack Winterfell is hilariously clear logical fallacy.

Consequentialism FTW.

We're not saying Robb had to exactly predict what would happen, but history should have taught him not to trust the Greyjoys. He had nothing to win from their frienship (the Lannisters were no great sea power, and Balon says that the Ironborn would never conquer Casterly Rock or hold Lannisport) but had everything to loose if Balon went rogue on him. Again, Ned Stark did play a large role in the war that killed both Balon's oldest sons; someone should have suspected he would be POd at the Starks.

[James Arryn]

We're not saying Robb had to exactly predict what would happen, but history should have taught him not to trust the Greyjoys. He had nothing to win from their frienship (the Lannisters were no great sea power, and Balon says that the Ironborn would never conquer Casterly Rock or hold Lannisport) but had everything to loose if Balon went rogue on him. Again, Ned Stark did play a large role in the war that killed both Balon's oldest sons; someone should have suspected he would be POd at the Starks.

He didn't trust the Greyjoys.

Not behaving as though they will imminently invade is not trusting them.

I mean, in that vein Ned trusted the Greyjoys when he marched off to Robert's Rebellion. Robb also trusted the Skagosi, which was clearly a bad command decision. Right?

Etc.

A smart commander is an illustration in strategic paralysis, IOW. No one anywhere should do anything in case something happens.

[Erkan12]

Robb was bad politician. Sending Theon was one of the bad politic move. It is nothing to do with his commanding skills.

[Gneisenau]

Stannis and Bolton are pretty good, since they are alive. Tywin and Robert were pretty good too in that they managed to secure the throne while they were alive.

[LucionLannister]

Robb was bad politician. Sending Theon was one of the bad politic move. It is nothing to do with his commanding skills.

It resulted in his loss militarily; the two aren't mutually exclusive.

He didn't trust the Greyjoys.

Then he has interesting way of dealing with people he didn't trust.

[rivergirl]

Can i put in a vote for Mance Rayder? Sure, his invasion didn't go too well, but he gets a whole lot of brownie points for rallying all those Wildlings under a common cause AND managing to recruit freakin' giants and mammoths.

Aside from him, Robb was great. I think Robb had quite a bit of the Mance Effect going for him too, in that his army actually liked him and didn't just support him because they had to. Being a people-chosen King and a military leader is, i imagine, pretty difficult, and those two did it very well. If you can lead an army without anyone trying to kill or depose you, you've got to be doing something right. The reason i think Mance is better than Robb, however, is that Mance is alive and Robb isn't. Underestimating the douchebaggery of Balon was a very bad choice indeed.

Oh, and Randyll Tarly seems impressive, as does (eep) Victarion, in his own piratey way. I suppose he's hard to directly compare to land-faring commanders, but he's very good in his domain.

[Erkan12]

It resulted in his loss militarily; the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Then he has interesting way of dealing with people he didn't trust.

Nothing to do with 'his skills'. This topic for 'military command skill' not for 'resulted in loss military'

Stannis and Bolton are pretty good, since they are alive. Tywin and Robert were pretty good too in that they managed to secure the throne while they were alive.

And now 'being alive' is another norm ? I think everyone in next book is better than Robb since they are alive.

[James Arryn]

Then he has interesting way of dealing with people he didn't trust.

He does?

He offered a strategic alliance and otherwise treated them as any other neutral party.

How is that trust?

[Ingelheim]

He didn't trust the Greyjoys.

Not behaving as though they will imminently invade is not trusting them.

I mean, in that vein Ned trusted the Greyjoys when he marched off to Robert's Rebellion. Robb also trusted the Skagosi, which was clearly a bad command decision. Right?

Etc.

A smart commander is an illustration in strategic paralysis, IOW. No one anywhere should do anything in case something happens.

If you don't trust someone, you don't try to make an alliance with them. That's the first lesson you have to learn in politics.

I know the thing about keeping your enemies closer, but you do that with some kind of enemies. With the ironborn, no.

[LordFirkraag]

Based on the CVs we have to date...either the Young Wolf or King Robert.

If Stannis actually manages to turn the Battle of Winterfell around, that will be an incredible and unprecedented feat of strength as a commander...and he will thoroughly deserve his title as the greatest general in Westeros. But let's wait and see, because none of us know what the outcome of that battle will actually be.

[James Arryn]

If you don't trust someone, you don't try to make an alliance with them. That's the first lesson you have to learn in politics.

I know the thing about keeping your enemies closer, but you do that with some kind of enemies. With the ironborn, no.

Slogans don't make for effective campaign strategies. As an ally the iB would have been a huge asset, and Robb almost certainly defeats the Lannisters. There's no cost. If they say no you are exactly where you would be anyway. It was a smart move.

Also, the first rule in politics is also said to be 'trust no one'. Ergo make no alliances. Just kinda sit there. Maybe send out for coffee, but by god, don't drink it!

[Ingelheim]

Slogans don't make for effective campaign strategies. As an ally the iB would have been a huge asset, and Robb almost certainly defeats the Lannisters. There's no cost. If they say no you are exactly where you would be anyway. It was a smart move.

Also, the first rule in politics is also said to be 'trust no one'. Ergo make no alliances. Just kinda sit there. Maybe send out for coffee, but by god, don't drink it!

It's not only about "they say yes" or "they say no". What if they say yes and, later, Robb gets betrayed? Was it a smart move to send Theon Greyjoy there? Robb lost the North with your smart move.

[David Selig]

We're not saying Robb had to exactly predict what would happen, but history should have taught him not to trust the Greyjoys. He had nothing to win from their frienship (the Lannisters were no great sea power, and Balon says that the Ironborn would never conquer Casterly Rock or hold Lannisport) but had everything to loose if Balon went rogue on him. Again, Ned Stark did play a large role in the war that killed both Balon's oldest sons; someone should have suspected he would be POd at the Starks.

It's the other way around. He had nothing to lose and a lot to gain. Balon could've attacked the North at any time anyway.

Now sending Theon of all people wasn't smart, but attempting the make a deal was certainly the right thing to do.

If you don't trust someone, you don't try to make an alliance with them. That's the first lesson you have to learn in politics.

In war you make an alliance with anyone you can, unless the price is too high. Trust is not much of an issue.

The US and UK certainly didn't trust the Soviets during the WW2 (and vice versa), but they all knew knew that the alliance is necessary and beneficial for them.

[James Arryn]

It's not only about "they say yes" or "they say no". What if they say yes and, later, Robb gets betrayed?

How does your offer affect any of this?

"what if something happens" is an eternal question. Inaction is not the answer.

Was it a smart move to send Theon Greyjoy there?

Yes. Potentially high gain; no real loss to speak of.

Robb lost the North with your smart move.

Balon's fleet was already gathered when Theon hit Pyke. Balon's idiotic motivations were already in place. Robb sending Theon did not cause or allow the IB invasion. Balon's idiocy did.

And what should Robb have done to reasonably account for that? Should he have stayed at home in the North like Ned did? Oh, wait...Ned also chose to lose the North. I forgot.

[The Frosted King]

The saddest aspect of the ironborn fiasco, is that if Balon really looked at his goals, and then used critical thinking in regards to the other players, he would've accepted Robbs offer.

And it would've been a huge win for Robb, and a feather in his cap, ala Tyrion snatching up the Tyrells.

It made so much sense that it couldn't be allowed to happen, akin to Renly brilliantly waltzing his way to surefire victory in the south.

I really wonder what a lords council scene on Pyke would look like, as Balon explains to his high lords that he plans on conquering the north.

[Buckthorn]

Robb was shortsighted in that he did not see the consequences of his marital folly and his decision to free Theon. This however does not discount his bravery in leading his men in battle and his tactical flexibility. He kind of reminds me of Alexander the Great who also led his own men during battles and had his own personal guard, The Companions, that was made up of noble-born men much like King Robb's personal guard. However, Ramsay Gimp and I are probably the only people who appreciate Roose Bolton's more results oriented and low casualty war philosophy, in short Roose had better more effective plans.

[Ramsay Gimp]

He didn't trust the Greyjoys.

Not behaving as though they will imminently invade is not trusting them.

I mean, in that vein Ned trusted the Greyjoys when he marched off to Robert's Rebellion. Robb also trusted the Skagosi, which was clearly a bad command decision. Right?

Etc.

A smart commander is an illustration in strategic paralysis, IOW. No one anywhere should do anything in case something happens.

For all Robb knew, Theon was the only thing preventing Balon from attacking the North. We know Balon didn't give a shit about Theon, but Robb didn't know that. So he gave up a potentially huge piece of leverage, against Cat's good advice, and suffered drastically for it. Hard to see how Robb isn't to blame here

[Ramsay Gimp]

It's the other way around. He had nothing to lose and a lot to gain. Balon could've attacked the North at any time anyway.

Now sending Theon of all people wasn't smart, but attempting the make a deal was certainly the right thing to do.

In war you make an alliance with anyone you can, unless the price is too high. Trust is not much of an issue.

The US and UK certainly didn't trust the Soviets during the WW2 (and vice versa), but they all knew knew that the alliance is necessary and beneficial for them.

Right. Reaching out to Balon wasn't a bad move, sending Theon was.

However, Ramsay Gimp and I are probably the only people who appreciate Roose Bolton's more results oriented and low casualty war philosophy, in short Roose had better more effective plans.

There have been some great threads about his pros and cons as a military commander. Another poster once made the case much better than I that of all of ASOIAF's military leaders Roose and Tywin are the ones most in line with Sun Tzu's guidelines

[Buckthorn]

Right. Reaching out to Balon wasn't a bad move, sending Theon was.

There have been some great threads about his pros and cons as a military commander. Another poster once made the case much better than I that of all of ASOIAF's military leaders Roose and Tywin are the ones most in line with Sun Tzu's guidelines

Yeah I read that post, I think it was TheWingedWolf who started that thread.