[Game of Thrones] Why did Stark need to cross over the Twins?

[pffh]

I got the books for christmas and have been studying the map in them and the best I can tell from it is that going over the Twins is a fairly large detour when going from Winterfell to King's Landing. So unless I'm missing some urgent business he had in the Riverlands on the way why not just send Theon on his own to the Iron Islands while the rest of them continued south on the Kingsroad?

[0Megabyte]

...he did, in fact, have urgent business. And that business would be the Lannister armies besieging Riverrun and romping across the Riverlands.

[pffh]

...he did, in fact, have urgent business. And that business would be the Lannister armies besieging Riverrun and romping across the Riverlands.

Ah right that must have completely slipped past me.

Still bypassing the Lannister army and skipping the Twins would have meant he'd been at King's Landing weeks earlier and with it barely guarded. It would also have forced the Lannisters to move back south-east to protect the city.

[cucchulainnn]

yes, he did need to cross the river. my only problem was that armies have been crossing rivers, large rivers, for thousands of years with out access to bridges. and find it to be a plot hole on martin's part. especially since he is into military history. forgivable sure, a big deal not at all, but tisk, tisk mr martin.

caesar crossed the rhine by building a bridge in ten days. of course that was ceasar and not robb.

there are several options on how to cross that river. raft the men across. commandeering boats. i even read about one army that used their shields like boogie boards to help swim across. i can not think of any historical campaign where a river was a uncrossable or that big of a deal with or with out bridges. although, there must be a few. and i have never read about any that took more then a day or two, even with direct opposition. with a little work i can list hundreds of battles and or campaigns with river crossings.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Ah right that must have completely slipped past me.

Still bypassing the Lannister army and skipping the Twins would have meant he'd been at King's Landing weeks earlier and with it barely guarded. It would also have forced the Lannisters to move back south-east to protect the city.

You mean kinda like how he sent his foot under Roose and they got Roflstomped by Tywin on the way.

Even assuming he pulled some trick to avoid battle with both the Lannister armies in the field at the time they'd still be there, he'd be busy besieging King's Landing and/or the Red Keep (two distinct separate tasks mind) and get the distinct honor of being buggered from behind by Jaime, Tywin, and probably more literally by Mt. Rape's A Lot sword.

Of course that way the delightful incest baby on the throne would have sent Robb his father right off. A true benefit!

[Flickerdart]

To get to the other side.

[Kato]

Mt. Rape's A Lot sword.

Wow. I shouldn't but I really had to laugh at that. :smallbiggrin:


To get to the other side.
Same here but I shouldn't laugh for other reasons. (Just because it's so old)


Defending Robb, the river was said to be pretty hard to cross. The Twins supposedly are at a high cliff and it takes quite a while to get anywhere where it would be easy to cross the river and turn to Riverrun. So while, yes, he would have surely been able to cross but it would have taken days to do so or weeks. And why he couldn't just follow the river south and attack King's Landing has been explained.

[Tavar]

yes, he did need to cross the river. my only problem was that armies have been crossing rivers, large rivers, for thousands of years with out access to bridges. and find it to be a plot hole on martin's part.

caesar crossed the rhine by building a bridge in ten days. of course that was ceasar and not robb.

there are several options on how to cross that river. raft the men across. commandeering boats. i even read about one army that used their shields like boogie boards to help swim across. i can not think of any historical campaign where a river was a uncrossable or that big of a deal with or with out bridges. although, there must be a few. and i have never read about any that took more then a day or two, even with direct opposition. with a little work i can list hundreds of battles and or campaigns with river crossings.I can think of several. The battle of Fredericksburg, Harper's Ferry, and Antietam from the American Civil was all had key parts decided by a river. It was also important in WWII, during the D-day invasion.

Hell, did not you just give an example of Caesar taking 10 days?

Rivers and mountains can be massive barriers for an army.

[Killer Angel]

Hell, did not you just give an example of Caesar taking 10 days?

And I'm pretty sure roman's logistic was far better than the one at Robb's disposal.

[cucchulainnn]

and yet, washington was able to cross first the east river then the hudson with the british navy patrolling the rivers during the battle of new york wile retreating both at night and both only took one day.

we will never know how many unbridged rivers hannibal crossed on his way from spain to italy. but i am willing to bet it was more then a few.

yes bridges are important, yes they make a armies life easier, yes crossing an unbridged river is a pain the but, but it by on means as difficult as implied. the only time they make that big a difference is with incompetent commanders.

for instance with battle of Fredericksburg, wasn't the union lead by burnside. hey diddle diddle right up the middle dose not make a general good. it wasn't the river it was lee being entrenched and burnside being incompetent.

the battles of harper's ferry and antietam. lead by the wonderful organizer but lousy general mc clellen. actually harper's ferry was lead by hill, who refused to leave the town. if he had taken maryland heights maybe he might have won. yes rivers where a big deal but not the deal breaker often portrayed.

yes, i understand that at that moment robb was untried as a commander and his bannermen wanted to go right to siege, and that his mom took control pretty much dictating the terms to him.

the funny thing is i wasn't bothered by it, as very few authors know what they are talking about, much like hollyweird. until i went to martins web site and read that he is interested in military history, war gaming, painting miniatures and panoramas. he should know better and i was disappointed, but still not a big deal. with all the nonsense i've read in novels or seen in movies this a such a small issue it hardly rates.

but it is fun debating it. :)

[dehro]

To get to the other side.

my thoughts exactly

[Soras Teva Gee]

And I'm pretty sure roman's logistic was far better than the one at Robb's disposal.

Well Robb isn't noted to be all that ill-supplied at any point.... however when Caesar bridged the Rhine he had 40,000 men to Robb's 25,000. And very probably an edge in engineering ability. And Caesar was crossing to discourage raiders, not to evade enemies.

[cucchulainnn]

Well Robb isn't noted to be all that ill-supplied at any point.... however when Caesar bridged the Rhine he had 40,000 men to Robb's 25,000. And very probably an edge in engineering ability. And Caesar was crossing to discourage raiders, not to evade enemies.

you are completely right he was making a statement of look at how impressive we are. we can do this any time we want on a whim and there is nothing you can do about it.

[Soras Teva Gee]

you are completely right he was making a statement of look at how impressive we are. we can do this any time we want on a whim and there is nothing you can do about it.

You're missing the point, that if Caesar had 10 days to discourage some raiders... he had 10 days and wasn't on a hurried campaign. We can infer from history that he could have done it in say 15 or 20 and still gotten the message across. And the Rhine remained a significant border marking the end of Roman authority long after him.

If you really buy the "we can go anywhere" message of it I have a bridge in NYC to sell you. Caesar did not cross the Rhine to engage in a campaign, he stayed 18 days and never did battle. He conquered Gaul not Germania.

Even more importantly you are not thinking like an engineer. You are arguing more or less the logic that Caesar as a famous general could build a bridge over any river, so Robb couldn't have been that smart because he didn't just build a bridge.

When from an engineering standpoint, every river and bridge is different. How deep is the water? How wide is the would-be crossing? How calm and/or likely to flood is the river? What sort of material and tech is available? How many skilled versus unskilled craftsmen are there to do the work? How much time is available? Every single one of those answers is going to be different each time. (The same consideration is there for boats)

You can take all the historical examples you like, because they mean exactly jack to every case where it couldn't be done and you don't remember it.

So if you want to argue that Robb Stark should have just crossed the Green Fork you need to argue specifically why he could in his situation. Which the mere lack of crossing on the Green Fork are perhaps the best evidence against attempting it. Followed by Tywin Lannister in the field. And that time was of the essence with Riverrun besieged and Ned captured. Finally on sight a bunch of Robb's bannermen are all dismayed at trying to cross the Green Fork without going through the Twins.

Maybe if Robb and Westeros maintained dedicated military engineers in bridging. Which unless I missed we haven't seen sign of. And there's something to be said for that, but then again worth remembering Westeros does not have professional armies. Should they, sure, but they don't.

[dehro]

building a bridge or crossing a ford when the enemy is camped on the other side and ready to shoot arrows at you or cut you down as you struggle to get to shallow water/out of the mud/up the riverbank is much harder than it is to write about it.
I haven't read the books recently but.. do we know how deep the river was, how wide and cold, how strong the current, how solid the riverbed, the conditions of the riverbanks and what lies beyond?.. and wether there were opposing forces waiting for them, posibly armed with long range weapons? all these things would determine if a river is "crossable" by an army or not

[Tavar]

Do you know why Lee was entrenched there? Because he wasn't at the start. Lee entrenched when Burnside was delayed because the materials for the pontoon bridge did not arrive in time(burecratic mixup). In fact, this battle was part of a campaign to cross the river. And was followed bay another campaign to cross the river. Yes, two major campaigns where a significant step was crossing river.

Yes, the commanders in question were not the best tactically(at least not on the scale of an army), but the tactics involved are not the issue. The fact is that Crossing a river is simple only with unlimited skill, unlimited supplied, unlimited time, and no enemy. None of those conditions truly apply to war.

Here are the difficulties involved. First off, if you are using atrifical crossing g means, then you need to gather the materials, and then take them with you, something that can easily massively slow an army down. Secondly, you have to build the structure, which requires a fair amount of engineering knowledge, as well as more time. You may have to get more supplies at this point too. Now, if the enemy is chasing you, it may well catch you. If the enemy is on the other side, it has time to build fortifications(Fredricksburg, anyone?) and generally make the crossing difficult.

Now, it is possible to cross at natural crossing points, but those are limited to certain known places, and could very well be defended.

Finally, not that I am not talking about victory or defeat here. I am talking about Rivers and the means of crossing rivers being key parts of a campaign. In Harper's Ferry, it determined the methods of attack, as well as determining how soon the battle could take place. At Antietam, it played multiple key roles in shaping the battle.

[Dr.Epic]

Because Stark hadn't perfected the miniature arc reactor in his Iron Man armor yet.

Luckily he was later able to BUILD IT IN A CAVE!...WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!!!

:smalltongue:

[Kato]

Because Stark hadn't perfected the miniature arc reactor in his Iron Man armor yet.

Luckily he was later able to BUILD IT IN A CAVE!...WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!!!

:smalltongue:

If any Stark was able to do that it surely would not be Robb. (But I'd love to see Iron Arya)



As others said, building a bridge is hard, depending on the circumstances. But most of the time it's really hard to build even a simple bridge and rafts just don't cut it when you need to cross a river.

[TheWombatOfDoom]

If any Stark was able to do that it surely would not be Robb. (But I'd love to see Iron Arya)


To do that, Marry Arya to Theon. Then you have an Iron Arya.

[The Succubus]

The other things you'd need to factor in are even if Robb had managed to bypass the Lannister army in Riverrun, he'd be assaulting Kings Landing with Tywin's army in the rear. King's Landing would take some time to fall, even if you factor in that Ceresei would be as much use during the siege as an exploding chocolate kettle. There's the large number of gold cloaks, the wildcards of the brothers Baratheon and the local populace still believes Joffrey to be the rightful king, despite being a gargantuan [redacted].