Im With Stannis, on 22 February 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:
In Stannis' mind, Renly was a usurper and deserved death. Lets remember, all characters in asoiaf have flaws, and Stannis is definitely full of them. To win that battle and most of Renlys men, he did what he had to do.
That marks him as a hypocrite, however. "Doing what he has to do" in order to put himself at an unfair advantage is something one wouldn't expect of the supposedly strict and proper Stannis Baratheon.
That he is an experienced general that ought to know better than to sacrifice honor in order to attain a momentary advantage only makes his mistakes worse.
TheTarrasque, on 22 February 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:
From what I understand, Stannins honestly believed that either Catelyn or Brienne killed stannis in that tent. Mel did it herself to avoid a long, bloody battle for Storms End.
Melisandre is indeed corrupt enough to make such a choice, of course; but if Stannis was so out of the loop, how do you explain his decision to ask for Davos' help in killing the castellan shortly after?
Drowsey Dragon, on 23 February 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:
Despite the odds, I am confident Stannis would have handed it to his young and inexperienced brother. Numbers are not everything. Just look back at history. Think of Ceaser and his victory over Pompey.
Really? One can only wonder why Renly's supporters failed to notice that.
Renly would not have accepted Stannis' claim even if there was 100% proof that the King was a bastard. He was too self rightous and contemptious of his older brother.
Of course. In that respect he was not any different from Stannis, either.
Xtopher, on 23 February 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:
Rommel played by the book in WWII and look where it got him, he risked his family and ultimately commited suicide so Hitler doesnt kill them. Yeah, very brave but what did he accomplish? killed by his own men, his supposed allies.
I rather win and live than lose and die. Just look at how honor served Ned Stark.
That goes to show how much we lost track of honor since WW II.
Ramsay Gimp, on 23 February 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:
Well, I find your notions about war very antiquated. I wonder if you've thought them through - what about assasinating Hitler during WW2, or Osama bin Laden today?
Sure, my views are indeed antiquated in these days of drone wars and such. And I'm proud of it, too.
Killing Hitler would not necessarily be a good idea back in the day. Are you aware that even Churchill wasn't always enthusiastic about the idea? Making a martyr out of the fool could well prove disastrous.
Killing Osama Bin Laden was a foolish act, and a dishonorable one as well. It is no more likely to bring peace than, say, the Israeli response to the Munich murders in the 1970s proved to be.
For me, the laws of war should have more to do with reducing suffering (no torture of captives, no killing civilians, etc.) rather than honor and chivalry. Renly wasn't following the rules (the rules require that he follow either a Targaryen, Joffrey, or Stannis) so why should his brother?
What rules? Both the Targaryen and the Baratheons rose to power by sheer military success, not rules. Why would Renly be any less legitimate by following the same path?
And it's pretty naive to imagine Stannis or Renly wouldn't have slain Joffrey, Tommen, and Myrcella. Their claim never would have been safe with those kids around
Do you think so? Plenty of people seem to have agreed with Tyrion when he brought up that ultimately Joffrey was simply a spoiled brat that shouldn't be given too much attention back in ACOK. Cersei's kids are convenient pawns, but I just don't believe many Westerosi really take their supposed birthrights too seriously. Even the Targaryens saw no need to kill the Starks in the North or the Martells in Dorne - and really, how much loyalty can those kids inspire in the first place?