Jump to content

Did Stannis honestly ever have a chance?


LordPathera

Recommended Posts

As apposed to what he actually did, that left Cersie as Queen regent and Joffery as king?

What was his plan before Joffery pissed off the North, wait until Robert died and then all 7 kingdoms with just 5000 men?

Even if you take the idea that staying in King's Landing is a 100% death sentence, he could have gone to Ned Stark, (either in person, via raven, or by sending Davos) gotten there weeks before the king and said he had reason to believe that Jon Arryn was killed be the Lannisters.

What applied to the "talk to Robert"-option applies to the "talk to Ned"-option as well.

I guess he just counted on Ned making the right conclusions and then being successful with his coup. Then, if needed, he would come in with the 5k men and secure Robert's position. It almost certainly would have been like this, if not for a boar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As apposed to what he actually did, that left Cersie as Queen regent and Joffery as king?

What was his plan before Joffery pissed off the North, wait until Robert died and then all 7 kingdoms with just 5000 men?

Even if you take the idea that staying in King's Landing is a 100% death sentence, he could have gone to Ned Stark, (either in person, via raven, or by sending Davos) gotten there weeks before the king and said he had reason to believe that Jon Arryn was killed be the Lannisters.

Tell Ned about the incest? Ned wont act without being 100% certain, and Stannis must already feel responsible for the death of one hand. We dont know what his plan was, maybe to get definite proof, or as close as possible in the absence of DNA testing, land and quickly round up the Lannisters with his own men and present the evidence to King Bob and the council.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell Ned about the incest? Ned wont act without being 100% certain, and Stannis must already feel responsible for the death of one hand. We dont know what his plan was, maybe to get definite proof, or as close as possible in the absence of DNA testing, land and quickly round up the Lannisters with his own men and present the evidence to King Bob and the council.

I never said tell Ned about the incest, I said tell him that he had reason to believe the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn. He could frame it as a prelude to a power grab, kill Jon Arryn, get Tywin to become Hand, then kill Robert while Joffery's still young enough to control. It's clear that the Lannister's sway over Joffery is enormous and add in the fact that Jamie was named Warden of the East and you have a perfectly reasonable scenario that is all technically true and handily skirts around the incest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you, but Stannis himself is in those situations with his men. Ergo he is not asking things of people that he himself would not do, there is a difference between possible death with a chance of success, or even certain death with a chance of success (a sacrifice I think he'll make before it is done) than certain death AND certain failure, which is what returning to KL would've been and its not something I've seen him ask of anybody.

I can't help but wonder - if the tables were turned and Stannis was the king whose life was in danger and Robert was the brother who was sitting at Dragonstone... I'd say Robert would wake up every night and hear Stannis' ghost grinding his teeth at him for not even trying! :D

I liked your point about the crown destroying him but kept quiet because I am trying to reel in the Stannis love lol

My thank you, ser! I love the Mannis, but I want to keep testing him to see what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't help but wonder - if the tables were turned and Stannis was the king whose life was in danger and Robert was the brother who was sitting at Dragonstone... I'd say Robert would wake up every night and hear Stannis' ghost grinding his teeth at him for not even trying! :D

Stannis would have never stuck Robert on Dragonstone, or denied him the Handship or Wardenship of the East. He'd have more of a reason to expect Robert to try for him than the other way around.

I never said tell Ned about the incest, I said tell him that he had reason to believe the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn. He could frame it as a prelude to a power grab, kill Jon Arryn, get Tywin to become Hand, then kill Robert while Joffery's still young enough to control. It's clear that the Lannister's sway over Joffery is enormous and add in the fact that Jamie was named Warden of the East and you have a perfectly reasonable scenario that is all technically true and handily skirts around the incest.

But Ned knows that Robert is coming to name him Hand, not Tywin. All that Stannis' doing what you suggest would accomplish is make Ned do what he did in the book in response to Lysa's message: accept the Handship and come South. He already distrusts the Lannisters, and his warnings to Robert fell on deaf ears even without Stannis' support. To really give Ned an advantage, Stannis needs to tell him about the incest so he can act before Robert's hunting accident, but he knows that there are dangers involved with Ned knowing, since he could end up like Jon Arryn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stannis would have never stuck Robert on Dragonstone, or denied him the Handship or Wardenship of the East. He'd have more of a reason to expect Robert to try for him than the other way around.

It was a hypothetical situation! :D But, to be honest, if the tables were turned I really can't see Stannis making Robert his Hand either, he's way too practical for that and knows his brother too well. Oh, but we could argue that the same goes for Robert making Stannis his Hand. I think the two Baratheon brothers would not have mixed well if they had been put in a King-Hand -situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying that sometimes kin do things that warrant slaying them. Rhaegar was, as far as Robert knew, a tyrannical prince who'd kidnapped his fiancee and supported the murders carried out by his father. Twyin was an abusive war criminal. Daemon Blackfyre was a usurper, as was Renly.

And I ask again, does this makes lawful? Or even ok? Seriously, stop with the all the cool kids are doing it excuse. It has never worked on anybody. And I said before, moral detachment in favor of personal utilitarian purposes is hardly anything admirable.

I'm sure Farlen will be pleased to know that considering that it took Theon four blows to hack through all his bone and muscle. Humane indeed!

Just because Theon botched it doesn't negate that the method is less gruesome or cruel than fire by death. There are plenty of guys like Ned, Jon, or perhaps even Stannis that could make a clean cut of it. One instance does not follow that the whole method is inherently flawed. Unless, of course you are adhering to Mel’s “if part of the onion is rotten then the whole onion is rotten” philosophy.

If someone accidentally botched one execution by lethal injection, does this means that we should take out the old electric chair out of retirement?

How is it hypocritical though? He said he uses Mel for her power and that's the position he's stuck to ever since CoK.

I hate to do this but: Hypocrisy is the state of falsely claiming to possess virtuous characteristics that one lacks. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.

So what does that says about Stannis pretending for others this conversion to the Lord of Light and even allowing burnings for a God he does not even believe him? If he were a religious zealot I'd actually be more lenient. but since he's not, just a person allowing such things to occur as part of a means justify the end philosophy, then I do feel entitled to refer to him as a hypocrite. Mind you. in my latest post I actually used the term subtextual hipocrisy to describe this instance.

How is Stannis' using shadow assassins any different than Varymyr using his warging abilities to scout and kill for Mance? And how are political assassinations any worse than killing people in battle? Stannis' assassination of Renly saved the lives of soldiers on both sides. The entire point of war is to kill your political opponents and further your ambitions for a crown.

Again with this? Shall I spell it out for you? or is it that you just can't come up with a better excuse? J U S T B E C A U S E O T H E R P E O P LE D O W O R S T T H I N G S I T D O E S N ' T M A K E I T O K. I find interesting how the only way you can come up to defend Stannis is by comparing his actions with those of some pretty lousy individuals such as Varamyr. I think it only makes my arguments more credible.

Also, I love it how you are resorting to contradictory arguments to defend Stannis with no intent of irony. On the one hand he did it to save millions, big hearted guy that he is. But in the same argument you are saying that he what he did to further his own ambition for a crown and therefore what he did was right. So which one is it?

The wildlings aren't his men. The reason he did it is because the wildlings need fast-track integration into Westeros. It's one thing to be loyal to a king, it's quite another to be devoted to a messiah. The conversion was supposed to make the new citizens of Westeros personally loyal to Stannis. As usual, he's using a religion he doesn't believe in to further his political ends. There's nothing hypocritical about it, since he's stuck to this position since the beginning.

First, Go back to my above post about hipocrisy. Second, my response was in reply to a post of yours where you claim that Stannis does not care if his people follow the Lord of Light. If he doesn't care, then why he ceremony? By your own statement the point of the ceremony is to make the wildings personally loyal to Stannis. But you wrote before that Stannis doesn't care if his followers follow the Lord of Light. You are contradicting yourself again.

Then why the ceremony? Either he does care or he is just a bog fat hypocrite. Take your pick.

Third. Humilliation + forced religious subjection= fast integration. Kudos to the genius who came up with this math.

The war would have started and dragged on even if Stannis had surrendered, so no, accepting that he was beaten would not have saved anyone.

Care to explain this? 2 contenders for the IT - I contender for the IT= War prolonged. How does this even work according to you

So it would have been more "moral" in your eyes to spare Edric and let the war drag on, killing millions of unknown children in the process? How is that not embracing moral detachment of the sake of utilitarian purposes? And what is wrong with that, anyway? There was no concrete way for Stannis to know whether Mel's plan would work, but he did have some inconclusive evidence, which is why he was so conflicted about the decision. And again, he didn't burn Edric.

Because as I already explained the "dragon" was going to be used to further the war. If the war had been prolonged then more lives would have been lost. But if all that was in Stannis' interest in sacrificing Edric and rasing the dragon was to save millions, by removing himself from the equation the war had not have been prolonged, or at least, not as long as with Stannis in the race, and this "millions" he wanted to save could have been saved all the same. Well, not the same, because Edric need not have been roasted to death and Stannis had not gotten what he wanted. The last part was probaly crucial for the decision.

About the bold part, when did I say that is wasn't?! This has been my point from the beggining. Leaders who willingly and in full conscience of their actions embrace moral detachment for the sake of personal utilitarian purposes are to side eyed. The things is, Stannis had no way of knowing whether Mel was right. He could only made the choice he could live with. The fact that this choice involved roasting a kid alve for the chance that the sorcery might work and gain him his throne (because as I already explained twice the whole "to save millions" is nothing more than BS he tells himself) tells us a lot about the men behind the choice. A choice, he was conveniently save from making by Davos. Applying your logic, I could say that Jaime would have killed Arya in the riverlands but because he was saved from doing it in account on Jory being the one who found her fiirst didn't, then Jaime's intention matters not and he is a swell guy.

And yet, Stannis did not take Davos' head, or even his lands and titles.

I did not know that we should start giving out prizes for NOT beheading a man after he saved an innocent kid from a certain and cruel death. The fact that you feel the need to make this distinction, should be an alert of the kind of character Stannis is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I ask again, does this makes lawful? Or even ok? Seriously, stop with the all the cool kids are doing it excuse. It has never worked on anybody. And I said before, moral detachment in favor of personal utilitarian purposes is hardly anything admirable.

Just because Theon botched it doesn't negate that the method is less gruesome or cruel than fire by death. There are plenty of guys like Ned, Jon, or perhaps even Stannis that could make a clean cut of it. One instance does not follow that the whole method is inherently flawed. Unless, of course you are adhering to Mels if part of the onion is rotten then the whole onion is rotten philosophy.

If someone accidentally botched one execution by lethal injection, does this means that we should take out the old electric chair out of retirement?

I hate to do this but: Hypocrisy is the state of falsely claiming to possess virtuous characteristics that one lacks. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.

So what does that says about Stannis pretending for others this conversion to the Lord of Light and even allowing burnings for a God he does not even believe him? If he were a religious zealot I'd actually be more lenient. but since he's not, just a person allowing such things to occur as part of a means justify the end philosophy, then I do feel entitled to refer to him as a hypocrite. Mind you. in my latest post I actually used the term subtextual hipocrisy to describe this instance.

Again with this? Shall I spell it out for you? or is it that you just can't come up with a better excuse? J U S T B E C A U S E O T H E R P E O P LE D O W O R S T T H I N G S I T D O E S N ' T M A K E I T O K. I find interesting how the only way you can come up to defend Stannis is by comparing his actions with those of some pretty lousy individuals such as Varamyr. I think it only makes my arguments more credible.

Also, I love it how you are resorting to contradictory arguments to defend Stannis with no intent of irony. On the one hand he did it to save millions, big hearted guy that he is. But in the same argument you are saying that he what he did to further his own ambition for a crown and therefore what he did was right. So which one is it?

First, Go back to my above post about hipocrisy. Second, my response was in reply to a post of yours where you claim that Stannis does not care if his people follow the Lord of Light. If he doesn't care, then why he ceremony? By your own statement the point of the ceremony is to make the wildings personally loyal to Stannis. But you wrote before that Stannis doesn't care if his followers follow the Lord of Light. You are contradicting yourself again.

Then why the ceremony? Either he does care or he is just a bog fat hypocrite. Take your pick.

Third. Humilliation + forced religious subjection= fast integration. Kudos to the genius who came up with this math.

Care to explain this? 2 contenders for the IT - I contender for the IT= War prolonged. How does this even work according to you

Because as I already explained the "dragon" was going to be used to further the war. If the war had been prolonged then more lives would have been lost. But if all that was in Stannis' interest in sacrificing Edric and rasing the dragon was to save millions, by removing himself from the equation the war had not have been prolonged, or at least, not as long as with Stannis in the race, and this "millions" he wanted to save could have been saved all the same. Well, not the same, because Edric need not have been roasted to death and Stannis had not gotten what he wanted. The last part was probaly crucial for the decision.

About the bold part, when did I say that is wasn't?! This has been my point from the beggining. Leaders who willingly and in full conscience of their actions embrace moral detachment for the sake of personal utilitarian purposes are to side eyed. The things is, Stannis had no way of knowing whether Mel was right. He could only made the choice he could live with. The fact that this choice involved roasting a kid alve for the chance that the sorcery might work and gain him his throne (because as I already explained twice the whole "to save millions" is nothing more than BS he tells himself) tells us a lot about the men behind the choice. A choice, he was conveniently save from making by Davos. Applying your logic, I could say that Jaime would have killed Arya in the riverlands but because he was saved from doing it in account on Jory being the one who found her fiirst didn't, then Jaime's intention matters not and he is a swell guy.

I did not know that we should start giving out prizes for NOT beheading a man after he saved an innocent kid from a certain and cruel death. The fact that you feel the need to make this distinction, should be an alert of the kind of character Stannis is.

It is not an all the kids are doing it excuse.

Imagine you have a brother/father who is going to cause humanity a very big deal of damage unless you kill him. What do you do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont even know what the fuck this thread is. Umm., yeah, but anyway to answer the question in the title, yeah obviously stannis had and still has a chance at accomplishing his goals. anyway who says otherwise either has an ulterior motive for why they would say this (worship of starks/northmen/dany) or they need to re read the books.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't help but wonder - if the tables were turned and Stannis was the king whose life was in danger and Robert was the brother who was sitting at Dragonstone... I'd say Robert would wake up every night and hear Stannis' ghost grinding his teeth at him for not even trying! :D

My thank you, ser! I love the Mannis, but I want to keep testing him to see what happens.

Hah, that is a good point. Robert must've been a tough case for Stannis, since he just sat there, drunk, whore'd and got fat and allowed himself to be surrounded by enemies, even Renly was trying to push some of these people away from him, and the worst part is whenever Stannis tried to lower the corruption or lesser their influence Robert would just rebuke him, as per the Janos Slynt incident, so its fair to say that any claims coming from Stannis would get laughed out of court, and thats if Big Bob was in a good mood. I can only guess that Stannis didn't fear for Roberts safety so much, since killing a King is a pretty big deal and as long as he remained somewhat of a puppet and was kept ignorant of the incest no one would have a reason to do away with him, especially as Joffrey was still a boy, he probably thought he had a long time to make any move, since Robert was still a fairly young guy.

I am not convinced anybody was trying to murder Robert until Ned said that he was going to tell him.

I never said tell Ned about the incest, I said tell him that he had reason to believe the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn. He could frame it as a prelude to a power grab, kill Jon Arryn, get Tywin to become Hand, then kill Robert while Joffery's still young enough to control. It's clear that the Lannister's sway over Joffery is enormous and add in the fact that Jamie was named Warden of the East and you have a perfectly reasonable scenario that is all technically true and handily skirts around the incest.

Better scenario, and one Eddard might fall for, but it so un-Stannis would you not agree? It involved playing some kind of political game and that just seems like something he would not do, he wouldn't even lie on the declaration letter about Robert being his beloved brother. I'd say not telling Ned and sitting on Dragonstone and gathering swords is just Stannis being Stannis at his best and worst, he didn't know if he could trust Eddard, or how he would react and involving someone else already got them killed, but his sulking about not being made hand and the fact that the lack of trust almost entirely coming from his end are his fault (I know, a Stannis fan admitting a flaw in the character) but on the other hand, one wrong move, trust the wrong person and he's a dead man, as Ned found out to his sorrow.

I dont think for a second that Stannis was waiting for Robert to die, I genuinely think Stannis was at a loss as what to do during the whole incident, for after all, all the while Robert was alive the rightful King was on the throne and Stannis had time to plan something, but when Robert died Joffrey had to be named a Usurper as quickly as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better scenario, and one Eddard might fall for, but it so un-Stannis would you not agree? It involved playing some kind of political game and that just seems like something he would not do, he wouldn't even lie on the declaration letter about Robert being his beloved brother.

It's not a lie, it's not even deceptive, all it does is remove the claim that is most difficult to prove. Stannis doesn't play political games in the same way the Cersei or Littlefinger do, but he is willing to play them in his own way, otherwise he would have never nominally converted to R'hllor nor would he have been willing to release Jon from vows.

This thing with Stannis that makes it so that I will never like him is that he did nothing to stop the Lannister takeover between the time of Jon Arryn's death and Joffery coronation plus handing the Throne to the Lannisters in ACoK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His duty was to do what was best for his king, which sometimes involves not telling him things. Do you think Ned should have been held guilty of treason for not telling Robert the truth on his deathbed? Unlike Stannis, he had no good reason not to. How about Davos, for not telling Stannis about his plan to hide Edric Storm? Or Wyman Manderly for lying about killing Davos?

Ned wanted to spare his best friend's feelings in his last moments, but yes, keep silent and altering the will was treason. As was Davos saving Edric Storm, although that can be excused as it was in order to save the life of an innocent boy, and Wyman Manderly absolutely is a treasonous bastard who failed to do his duty in the eyes of his legal overlords (The Boltons/Lannisters).

And keep in mind, none of them betrayed a brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ned wanted to spare his best friend's feelings in his last moments, but yes, keep silent and altering the will was treason. As was Davos saving Edric Storm, although that can be excused as it was in order to save the life of an innocent boy, and Wyman Manderly absolutely is a treasonous bastard who failed to do his duty in the eyes of his legal overlords (The Boltons/Lannisters).

And keep in mind, none of them betrayed a brother.

Actually I could see a scenario where in telling Robert before Cersei, Ned lets it slip that Stannis knew and Robert calls for his head.

Treason isn't always a bad thing, I'm American which was founded on treason. Albert Goring was a traitor, but no one today cares because he betrayed Nazis. I can excuse the treason of Davos and Manderly, I can understand Ned's treason while still seeing it as a boneheaded move even by Ned's own standards, I personally can't excuse Stannis's treason and I can only understand it if his motivation is cowardice or resentment neither of which lessens the crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stannis ain't done yet. Not by a long shot. I'm not a Stan man not by any measure, but. I see Stannis winning the Battle of Winterfell. At once I see the Northern Lords saying thanks Stan, pointing south and saying sweat, yonder lies your Kingdom. As a sidenote Roose will slip away beaten but not dead yet. The Bastard of Bolton will receive the full wrath of the North.

Just my take. Can't wait for TWoW, the Battle of Merreen and the Battle in the Snow with several chapters. Too cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I ask again, does this makes lawful? Or even ok? Seriously, stop with the all the cool kids are doing it excuse. It has never worked on anybody.

You're missing the point. I'm not saying kinslaying is right because it is often popular, but that it is popular because it is often right. It was right for Robert to kill Rhaegar, for Bloodraven to kill the Blackfyres, and for Stannis to kill Renly. Sometimes your kin ends up doing stuff that warrants slaying them.

And I said before, moral detachment in favor of personal utilitarian purposes is hardly anything admirable.

Why?

Just because Theon botched it doesn't negate that the method is less gruesome or cruel than fire by death. There are plenty of guys like Ned, Jon, or perhaps even Stannis that could make a clean cut of it. One instance does not follow that the whole method is inherently flawed. Unless, of course you are adhering to Mel’s “if part of the onion is rotten then the whole onion is rotten” philosophy.

If someone accidentally botched one execution by lethal injection, does this means that we should take out the old electric chair out of retirement?

My point is that you're splitting hairs. One could easily make death by burning less gruesome as well, perhaps by drugging the victim. Which gruesome death is more gruesome? Is sticking someone in a crow cage to starve more gruesome than burning them? Is throwing someone out the Moon Door at the Eyrie more gruesome than beheading? How many chops before a beheading is no longer "humane"? It took Theon four chops, and Ned one, but what if it took someone two or three chops? When Davos was in jail, Manderly supposedly wanted chop off his head and hands. Would it be less gruesome to chop the head off first, then the hands, as Davos wanted, or vice versa? Would it be less gruesome to behead somebody, or simply cut off his hands and leave him maimed? Was it inhumane for Stannis to take Davos' fingers with five chops, or should he have used one? I don't see how burning and only burning deserves to be scrutinized as extensively as it is without indicting the whole Westerosi criminal justice system as barbaric.

So what does that says about Stannis pretending for others this conversion to the Lord of Light and even allowing burnings for a God he does not even believe him? If he were a religious zealot I'd actually be more lenient. but since he's not, just a person allowing such things to occur as part of a means justify the end philosophy, then I do feel entitled to refer to him as a hypocrite. Mind you. in my latest post I actually used the term subtextual hipocrisy to describe this instance.

But when has Stannis actually claimed to possess virtuous characteristics that he lacks?

Again with this? Shall I spell it out for you? or is it that you just can't come up with a better excuse? J U S T B E C A U S E O T H E R P E O P LE D O W O R S T T H I N G S I T D O E S N ' T M A K E I T O K.

How many times are you going to misrepresent what I am saying? I'm not saying that Stannis' killing Renly was okay because everyone was doing it. It was okay because Renly was a traitor and they were at war, and this method actually saved both armies from losing lives in a battle that would have killed one of them anyway.

I find interesting how the only way you can come up to defend Stannis is by comparing his actions with those of some pretty lousy individuals such as Varamyr.

What's so lousy about him? First Mel, now Varymyr. It would be easier to take your posts seriously if you didn't blindly demonize people who don't adhere to the Seven.

Also, I love it how you are resorting to contradictory arguments to defend Stannis with no intent of irony. On the one hand he did it to save millions, big hearted guy that he is. But in the same argument you are saying that he what he did to further his own ambition for a crown and therefore what he did was right. So which one is it?

They are not mutually exclusive. Stannis' winning the crown ends the war ASAP and saves lives.

First, Go back to my above post about hipocrisy. Second, my response was in reply to a post of yours where you claim that Stannis does not care if his people follow the Lord of Light. If he doesn't care, then why he ceremony?

Because the people in his camp who do follow the Lord of Light like ceremonies like this, and expect a messianic figure to engage in them.

By your own statement the point of the ceremony is to make the wildings personally loyal to Stannis. But you wrote before that Stannis doesn't care if his followers follow the Lord of Light. You are contradicting yourself again.

As I said, he doesn't care if his men follow the Lord of Light. The wildlings are not his men. They aren't even his subjects. They're foreign raiders who he could rightfully exterminate for waging war against the North. But he doesn't, because he needs all the warm bodies he can get to fight the Others. So, he offers to make them his subjects and bring them under his protection. However, the wildlings have a long history of pillaging, rape, and murder which they see as part of their "free" lifestyle. They resent the idea of kneeling to any king. Stannis doesn't have time to mollycoddle the wildlings and persuade them otherwise, because their stubborn adherence to their anarchic lifestyle will bring chaos to the North and could cost everyone in Westeros their lives. They are violent, shortsighted, and defiant, but they are all he has. He needs to force them to submit, and this is how he does it.

Third. Humilliation + forced religious subjection= fast integration. Kudos to the genius who came up with this math.

What would you have him do instead? He doesn't have the time or the resources to babysit all of them and make sure they don't go in a killing spree.

Care to explain this? 2 contenders for the IT - I contender for the IT= War prolonged. How does this even work according to you

Renly, Robb, and the Lannisters would have fought their fight regardless of what Stannis did. Similiarly, Aegon would eventually arrive, and maybe Dany as well, whether Stannis was involved in the war or not.

Because as I already explained the "dragon" was going to be used to further the war.

No, it would be used to end the war by forcing everyone on the continent to bend the knee for fear of being fried.

If the war had been prolonged then more lives would have been lost. But if all that was in Stannis' interest in sacrificing Edric and rasing the dragon was to save millions, by removing himself from the equation the war had not have been prolonged, or at least, not as long as with Stannis in the race, and this "millions" he wanted to save could have been saved all the same. Well, not the same, because Edric need not have been roasted to death and Stannis had not gotten what he wanted. The last part was probaly crucial for the decision.

Removing himself from the race would only ensure that the Starks, Lannisters, and Baratheons bleed each other to exhaustion, killing who knows how many. Stannis' dragon could well have ended the Clegane brothers' trail of corpses, sent the Boltons scurrying back to the Dreadfort, and made Tywin Lannister truly shit gold into his lion-patterned smallclothes.

About the bold part, when did I say that is wasn't?!

If it is, then why should Stannis have spared Edric, in your eyes? Either way, he'd be "embracing moral detachment for the sake of personal utilitarian purposes" which is wrong, according to you.

The fact that this choice involved roasting a kid alve for the chance that the sorcery might work and gain him his throne (because as I already explained twice the whole "to save millions" is nothing more than BS he tells himself) tells us a lot about the men behind the choice.

Again, the dragon was intended to save lives, as Stannis says multiple times when justifying himself to Davos. If it wasn't, he wouldn't consider it. Stannis' entire career has been all about saving lives, whether it is saving them from the Targaryens, the Greyjoys, the Lannisters, the wildlings, the Boltons, or the Others.

I did not know that we should start giving out prizes for NOT beheading a man after he saved an innocent kid from a certain and cruel death. The fact that you feel the need to make this distinction, should be an alert of the kind of character Stannis is.

By sending Edric away, Davos may well have not only killed millions by allowing the war to drag on, he also deprived Stannis of the one piece of evidence he had to prove his claims of incest. I'm not saying that this warranted the death penalty only that, if Stannis really is "the kind of character" you say he is, why didn't he execute Davos? Or even take away his lands and titles?

But, to be honest, if the tables were turned I really can't see Stannis making Robert his Hand either, he's way too practical for that and knows his brother too well. Oh, but we could argue that the same goes for Robert making Stannis his Hand. I think the two Baratheon brothers would not have mixed well if they had been put in a King-Hand -situation.

Were Stannis king, Jon Arryn would be his Hand for sure. He wouldn't have died, because even if Cersei disliked Stannis enough to cheat on him (for different reasons than her cheating on Robert, probably Stannis' icy personality compared to Robert's sexual licentiousness) Robert would be too dumb to notice Stannis' blond kids and investigate them with Arryn as Stannis did. If King Stannis himself noticed, he'd have the power to kill Cersei before Littlefinger assassinated Arryn.

This thing with Stannis that makes it so that I will never like him is that he did nothing to stop the Lannister takeover between the time of Jon Arryn's death and Joffery coronation plus handing the Throne to the Lannisters in ACoK.

How could he? Robert trusted his wife more than his own brother; he allowed Cersei to pack the court with Lannisters, but deprived Stannis of any substantial political power, choosing to give it to Renly, Ned, Jaime, and probably Moon Boy for all I know, anybody but Stannis. Stannis can't save Robert from the Lannisters if Robert gives them both reason to kill him (beating, raping, and cheating on his wife) and the power to do it (Lannisters and their loyalists in important positions ranging from his personal squires to his small council to his Warden of the East).

They already had the throne in ACoK. If you're referring to his assasinating Renly and thereby clearing a path for a Lannister/Tyrell alliance, the blame for that rests solely with the Tyrells. They could have sided with Stannis after Renly died, but chose not to.

I personally can't excuse Stannis's treason and I can only understand it if his motivation is cowardice or resentment neither of which lessens the crime.

Neither makes sense as an explanation. Even Stannis' enemies concede that he's no coward, and he's been resentful of Robert for years, but that hasn't stopped him from doing his duty. The only option left is that he was in fact doing his duty to the best of his ability by marshalling the meager resources Robert gave him.

Ned wanted to spare his best friend's feelings in his last moments, but yes, keep silent and altering the will was treason. As was Davos saving Edric Storm, although that can be excused as it was in order to save the life of an innocent boy, and Wyman Manderly absolutely is a treasonous bastard who failed to do his duty in the eyes of his legal overlords (The Boltons/Lannisters) And keep in mind, none of them betrayed a brother.

Okay, so some treason is excusable. If Ned, Davos, and even Wyman can be excused, why can't Stannis, assuming he was in fact committing treason, which he wasn't.

Robert saw Ned as a better brother to him than either of his own, and everyone knew it. I'm pretty sure Robert would have wanted Ned to tell him that his wife was a regicidal whore. A man of Robert's sexual accomplishments would not want to die a cuckold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not convinced anybody was trying to murder Robert until Ned said that he was going to tell him.

So, you don't think the incident at the Hand's Tourney where Cersei tried to tell Robert he can't take part in the melee was an attempt by her to get him to participate in the fight and suffer "an accidental blow to the head" or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not convinced anybody was trying to murder Robert until Ned said that he was going to tell him.

I suppose you'd have to tell yourself that to justify Stannis' behavior. It is clearly stated in the text that Cersei was trying to kill him well before the boar incident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose you'd have to tell yourself that to justify Stannis' behavior. It is clearly stated in the text that Cersei was trying to kill him well before the boar incident.

Definitely. She tried some reverse psychology on him telling him he couldn't fight in the melee, knowing that's the best way to ensure he would. She would have tried to have him killed during that for sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely. She tried some reverse psychology on him telling him he couldn't fight in the melee, knowing that's the best way to ensure he would. She would have tried to have him killed during that for sure.

I've always been kinda on the fence with this one, so that's why I brought it up. Does anyone have a theory on if Cersei actually had one of the melee participants in her pocket or was she just banking on an accident?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always been kinda on the fence with this one, so that's why I brought it up. Does anyone have a theory on if Cersei actually had one of the melee participants in her pocket or was she just banking on an accident?

The strongwine plot would work just as well during a melee as during a hunt. Thats would be one way, the other is find a sellsword like Bronn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...