Jump to content

Stannis isn't a religious zealot


AintNoStark

Recommended Posts

Agreed. Quite the opposite actually. If I were Robert I would certainly want someone strong holding Dragonstone, which was a Targaryen stronghold for hundreds of years. If your a Targaryen supporter on Dragonstone, who would you fear more Stannis or Renly?

It's not like Robert didn't have other strong men to hold it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Cercei is not an unbiased or even reliable third party. Nothing she say to Tyrion can be trusted let alone her having any truthful insights WR to her husband.

Still, giving Dragonstone to Stannis and StormsEnd to Renley 14 years ago is hardly evidence that Robert would have mistrusted Stannis completely and/or punished him the way you have suggested.

Still, if he did, then why? Isn't it reasonable that's puts a question mark on Stannis' integrity?

Very poor argument. What does Cercei have to gain through lying about this? She lies. certainly, but not without reason.The burden of proof is on you to explain why this evidence is faulty. And I find it rather funny that Robert's lack of appreciation for Stannis and, at least in my opinion, undeserved disdain, is automatically explained away as resulting from Stannis' own lack of integrity, (as though Robert is the best judge of character lol) yet you bring no evidence to the table to help you. The text makes it clear that Stannis did his duty by Robert, especially during the Greyjoy Rebellion, and that his position has always been a thankless one at court. There's no doubt this culminated in bitterness and resentment, (we see it at the beginning of CoK) but you're so quick to transfer responsibility solely onto Stannis' shoulders, when if anything it seems like this bitterness seems to stem from Stannis' inability to please Robert no matter what duties he fufills or victories he achieves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For one there is this:

"Yet we still must have a Warden of the East. If Robert Arryn will not do name one of your brothers. Stannis proved himself at the siege of Storm's End surely." He let the name hang there for a moment. The king frowned and said nothing. He looked uncomfortable.

...and? Does this show Stannis unjustifiably mistrusted by Robert to be honest and loyal? Maybe Robert doesn't like his ruling style. This (nor the Cercei quote) is not evidence that Stannis would be in any danger from Robert if he can to him with the truth of children or the death of Jon Arryn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very poor argument. What does Cercei have to gain through lying about this? She lies. certainly, but not without reason.The burden of proof is on you to explain why this evidence is faulty. And I find it rather funny that Robert's lack of appreciation for Stannis and, at least in my opinion, undeserved disdain, is automatically explained away as resulting from Stannis' own lack of integrity, (as though Robert is the best judge of character lol) yet you bring no evidence to the table to help you. The text makes it clear that Stannis did his duty by Robert, especially during the Greyjoy Rebellion, and that his position has always been a thankless one at court. There's no doubt this culminated in bitterness and resentment, (we see it at the beginning of CoK) but you're so quick to transfer responsibility solely onto Stannis' shoulders, when if anything it seems like this bitterness seems to stem from Stannis' inability to please Robert no matter what duties he fufills or victories he achieves.

Also his under-rated Siege of Storm's End. He held the tyrells and indirectly won the Trident for him. Had he not held the Castle, the tyrells would have swelled up the Targaryen numbers by a lot and Robert would have lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly the point. He TRUSTED Stannis.

I will say that the relationship between Stannis and Robert is more complicated than some are arguing here. Your position only holds up if you ignore the textual evidence that Robert clearly disliked, and at times, was suspicious of Stannis, despite the relative power that he was given at Dragon Stone. It's made clear in the text by Cressen that Dragon Stone needed to be held by a strong military commander, so there's no doubt that a bit of strategy went into this decision, but it's also made clear that Robert knew giving Storm's End to Renly, especially after the siege, would piss Stannis off. And yet you're right to point out that while Stannis is never given the position he wants, (or in my opinion, deserves), he is still afforded no small degree of power, and this reflects Robert believing his brother to be competent, whatever contempt he might have held for him. The question really becomes, do we think that based on the positions of power given to Stannis, did his brother trust him enough that he would have believed the incest claims? It's honestly hard to say. Robert was always an emotional man, quick to anger, a poor judge of character in many ways, and clearly bore very little love for his brother, as is made evident by the text itself. Whether he hated him enough to ignore these allegations is something hard to make a definitive judgment on. I'd say that "trust", isn't quite the right word I would have used for Robert in relation to Stannis, as it seems that he was always kept at arms length, and he was far more valued by Jon Arryn as an advisor and collegue. Personally, I think that Robert's dislike of his brother, and the fact that the incest claims would have positioned him as Robert's heir, probably would have made his claims seem self-serving and false. The real question is, did Stannis think Robert would believe him about Cersei and Jaime? The answer is a resounding no, and while you might see this as some personal failing or hypocritical abdication of duty,I think it would have been rather silly for Stannis to lead himself to a senseless death, (whether by assasination or execution for treason) just to have Robert dismiss his allegations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say that the relationship between Stannis and Robert is more complicated than some are arguing here. Your position only holds up if you ignore the textual evidence that Robert clearly disliked, and at times, was suspicious of Stannis, despite the relative power that he was given at Dragon Stone. It's made clear in the text by Cressen that Dragon Stone needed to be held by a strong military commander, so there's no doubt that a bit of strategy went into this decision, but it's also made clear that Robert knew giving Storm's End to Renly, especially after the siege, would piss Stannis off. And yet you're right to point out that while Stannis is never given the position he wants, (or in my opinion, deserves), he is still afforded no small degree of power, and this reflects Robert believing his brother to be competent, whatever contempt he might have held for him. The question really becomes, do we think that based on the positions of power given to Stannis, did his brother trust him enough that he would have believed the incest claims? It's honestly hard to say. Robert was always an emotional man, quick to anger, a poor judge of character in many ways, and clearly bore very little love for his brother, as is made evident by the text itself. Whether he hated him enough to ignore these allegations is something hard to make a definitive judgment on. I'd say that "trust", isn't quite the right word I would have used for Robert in relation to Stannis, as it seems that he was always kept at arms length, and he was far more valued by Jon Arryn as an advisor and collegue. Personally, I think that Robert's dislike of his brother, and the fact that the incest claims would have positioned him as Robert's heir, probably would have made his claims seem self-serving and false. The real question is, did Stannis think Robert would believe him about Cersei and Jaime? The answer is a resounding no, and while you might see this as some personal failing or hypocritical abdication of duty,I think it would have been rather silly for Stannis to lead himself to a senseless death, (whether by assasination or execution for treason) just to have Robert dismiss his allegations.

:agree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and? Does this show Stannis unjustifiably mistrusted by Robert to be honest and loyal? Maybe Robert doesn't like his ruling style. This (nor the Cercei quote) is not evidence that Stannis would be in any danger from Robert if he can to him with the truth of children or the death of Jon Arryn.

Still haven't explained why the Cercei claim has no bearing. She has nothing to gain by lying, delights in acts of cruelty, and finds the whole brother dynamic amusing. It gives insight into their relationship. Robert looking uncomfortable when asked to put Stannis in a position of substantial power certainly seems to support the idea which is constantly reinforced by the text that he didn't trust him, or at the very list didn't like Stannis very much. "Maybe he just disagrees with his ruling style?" Seriously? lol. You come up with all these ridiculous explanations to ignore textual evidence without providing any of your own, which is pretty poor form. Still, these instances clearly show that Stannis had very real reason to believe that Robert's personal bias against him would have clouded his judgement when assessing the allegations. This, in my opinion, offers him some justification for not bringing these claims of incest before the court, as it would have likely meant his life if Robert didn't believe him. I also like how you seem to retroactively construct Robert as some paragon of reason and nobility. There are far more examples showing Robert to have his judgment clouded by emotion and selfishness than there are to the contrary. He barely listened to Jon Arryn's counsel, whom he loved, when it came to practical matters of ruling the realm, so please, enlighten me as to why I should think he would have believed his brother, whom he clearly doesn't care for, regarding allegations of incest that would have brought the entire Royal family crumbling into pieces, and conviently positioned Stannis as heir to the throne?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the WOIAF app, here is why Robert gave Dragonstone and not Storm's End to Stannis:





"Robert gives Dragonstone - the traditional seat of the heir to the Iron Throne - to Stannis, noth because the vassal lords of Dragonstone are among the least certain in their loyalty and because Robert intends to declare Stannis his heir until he has children of his own. Stannis, however, only sees the relative poverty of Dragonstone and its vassals when compared to the might of Storm's End, which he considers his proper birthright".


So it seems that Robert intended to give Dragonstone to Stannis because 1) he trusted him to be able to tame the vassals 2) He regarded Stannis as his heir and therefore wanted him to hold the place traditionnally held by the heir to the IT (cf. Rhaegar = Prince of Dragonstone).



However, the birth of Cersei's children nullyfied the hopes that Stannis would be Robert's heir. So basically, Dragonstone was meant as a gift and as a mark of confidence, not as a mark of mistrust or animosity, and Stannis however took it quite badly and Robert's reasons for giving Dragonstone to Stannis became a bit less relevant with the birth of Robert's children and then he had the constant reminder (by Stannis) that he had robbed his brother of his birthright.



As to why Robert didn't name Stannis warden of the East, it seems odd but I doubt it can be explained by a mistrust Robert had for Stannis. If anything, Stannis proved to be very loyal to Robert and served him very well. However, Robert didn't strike me as a very intelligent character, therefore the reasons he had could have been numerous, but it could be that 1) He didn't want to send Stannis away from the small council by naming him warden of the East as it could also have been considered as a way to ship him away to the quite remote Erye 2) His love for Jon Arryn lead him to let his heir keep the title 3) maybe the most likely although we'll never know: maybe Robert had already promised that seat to someone else... As he had fathered Mya Stone, it would not be surprising that he would want another house of the Vale to be the Warden of the East and he'd also dislike Stannis to have his nose in his little business I assume. (but anyway this whole part is just assumptions, we don't know why exactly Robert didn't name Stannis warden of the East but I doubt it could be a matter of trust).



ETA: oh and I don't think Robert "disliked" Stannis. He wasn't very close to the man, for sure, as they grew up apart and they have very little in common. So he didn't "love" his brother but it doesn't seem he disliked them either. I think it is very possible indeed that Robert didn't "like" the way Stannis rules... For example, when the war is done, Robert names Jon Arryn Hand, which might be considered as logical as he was like a father to him and basically raised him, he had confidence in Arryn. But then, when Jon Arryn dies, it is very strange that Robert would go seek for his old friend Ned who he hasn't seen for many years... The best choice for Robert was clearly to name Stannis his Hand imo. But the thing is Robert didn't want to grant Stannis more power imo not because he doesn't trust Stannis, but because he is conscious that Stannis is a harsh man and that he was certainly not going to let Robert being a goof the way Jon Arryn and Ned Stark allowed him to be. It seemed to me that Robert felt "uncomfortable" around Stannis because he was less close to him and because he know that if he had Stannis in an even higher position at his side, it would mean Robert's reign would have taken another direction.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

So first you ask for a third PoV and now you say that person in unbiased. Not really she was really elated in that chapter when she hears Stannis and Renly fighting. If in any moment i expect her to say the truth it will be that moment.

Not really. He did his duty to his brother. It is that simple. He had confrontations with Robert when they were in private.

For the record, I asked for an unbiased one. I can't argue over an opinion of Cercei's reliability to tell Tyrion truths. We differ in opinion not in facts.

Agreed. Quite the opposite actually. If I were Robert I would certainly want someone strong holding Dragonstone, which was a Targaryen stronghold for hundreds of years. If your a Targaryen supporter on Dragonstone, who would you fear more Stannis or Renly?

I don't see this as a slight either. Dragonstone being the trational seat of the heir to The throne is enough to view any squabbling over Storms End as sour grapes. If it had been the other way around then one argue that Robert slighted Stannis by giving Renly the heir's seat.

King Bob being a paragon integrity himself.........Kettleblack?

Idk what you mean by "Kettleblack" but we aren't talking about Robert's integrity, we are talking about the implication of Robert not trusting his own brother on Stannis' integrity.

Very poor argument. What does Cercei have to gain through lying about this? She lies. certainly, but not without reason.The burden of proof is on you to explain why this evidence is faulty. And I find it rather funny that Robert's lack of appreciation for Stannis and, at least in my opinion, undeserved disdain, is automatically explained away as resulting from Stannis' own lack of integrity, (as though Robert is the best judge of character lol) yet you bring no evidence to the table to help you. The text makes it clear that Stannis did his duty by Robert, especially during the Greyjoy Rebellion, and that his position has always been a thankless one at court. There's no doubt this culminated in bitterness and resentment, (we see it at the beginning of CoK) but you're so quick to transfer responsibility solely onto Stannis' shoulders, when if anything it seems like this bitterness seems to stem from Stannis' inability to please Robert no matter what duties he fufills or victories he achieves.

The burden of proof is not on me since I cannot prove the absence of something. I have nothing to bring to table because I am not trying to prove anything. Again, I cannot prove the absence of something, but I can question the validity of the perception that Robert would have mistrusted and punished Stannis for comming to him with the truth. And, if that perception IS accurate (which I'm open to with enough actual evidence), how is it justified to assume that it is solely Robert's misguided perception of Stannis to blame.

Being "quick to transfer responsibility" is exactly what I am questioning here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it seems that Robert intended to give Dragonstone to Stannis because 1) he trusted him to be able to tame the vassals 2) He regarded Stannis as his heir and therefore wanted him to hold the place traditionnally held by the heir to the IT (cf. Rhaegar = Prince of Dragonstone).

However, the birth of Cersei's children nullyfied the hopes that Stannis would be Robert's heir. So basically, Dragonstone was meant as a gift and as a mark of confidence, not as a mark of mistrust or animosity, and Stannis however took it quite badly and Robert's reasons for giving Dragonstone to Stannis became a bit less relevant with the birth of Robert's children and then he had the constant reminder (by Stannis) that he had robbed his brother of his birthright.

ETA: oh and I don't think Robert "disliked" Stannis. He wasn't very close to the man, for sure, as they grew up apart and they have very little in common. So he didn't "love" his brother but it doesn't seem he disliked them either. I think it is very possible indeed that Robert didn't "like" the way Stannis rules... For example, when the war is done, Robert names Jon Arryn Hand, which might be considered as logical as he was like a father to him and basically raised him, he had confidence in Arryn. But then, when Jon Arryn dies, it is very strange that Robert would go seek for his old friend Ned who he hasn't seen for many years... The best choice for Robert was clearly to name Stannis his Hand imo. But the thing is Robert didn't want to grant Stannis more power imo not because he doesn't trust Stannis, but because he is conscious that Stannis is a harsh man and that he was certainly not going to let Robert being a goof the way Jon Arryn and Ned Stark allowed him to be. It seemed to me that Robert felt "uncomfortable" around Stannis because he was less close to him and because he know that if he had Stannis in an even higher position at his side, it would mean Robert's reign would have taken another direction.

This is the most reasonable view I've read explaining the perceived slights and mistrust given to Stannis by Robert, and the general dynamics of their interpersonal conflicts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still haven't explained why the Cercei claim has no bearing. She has nothing to gain by lying, delights in acts of cruelty, and finds the whole brother dynamic amusing. It gives insight into their relationship. Robert looking uncomfortable when asked to put Stannis in a position of substantial power certainly seems to support the idea which is constantly reinforced by the text that he didn't trust him, or at the very list didn't like Stannis very much. "Maybe he just disagrees with his ruling style?" Seriously? lol. You come up with all these ridiculous explanations to ignore textual evidence without providing any of your own, which is pretty poor form. Still, these instances clearly show that Stannis had very real reason to believe that Robert's personal bias against him would have clouded his judgement when assessing the allegations. This, in my opinion, offers him some justification for not bringing these claims of incest before the court, as it would have likely meant his life if Robert didn't believe him. I also like how you seem to retroactively construct Robert as some paragon of reason and nobility. There are far more examples showing Robert to have his judgment clouded by emotion and selfishness than there are to the contrary. He barely listened to Jon Arryn's counsel, whom he loved, when it came to practical matters of ruling the realm, so please, enlighten me as to why I should think he would have believed his brother, whom he clearly doesn't care for, regarding allegations of incest that would have brought the entire Royal family crumbling into pieces, and conviently positioned Stannis as heir to the throne?

I don't necessarily think Cercei is lying to Tyrion. I question her judgement to view any situation from an unbiased perspective. However, even if what she said were true, I do not believe it offers Stannis justification for believing that Robert would have him put to death for bring the awful truths to light.

There is no basis for claiming Robert to be a harsh punisher as you claim. Stannis himself has shown to be..but not Robert. Don't ask me for evidence of this because the burden of proof is on you to justify stating that Stannis' life would be in danger from Robert as a FACT in the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't necessarily think Cercei is lying to Tyrion. I question her judgement to view any situation from an unbiased perspective. However, even if what she said were true, I do not believe it offers Stannis justification for believing that Robert would have him put to death for bring the awful truths to light.

There is no basis for claiming Robert to be a harsh punisher as you claim. Stannis himself has shown to be..but not Robert. Don't ask me for evidence of this because the burden of proof is on you to justify stating that Stannis' life would be in danger from Robert as a FACT in the story.

Oh I agree with this as well. Cersei certainly interpreted Robert giving Dragonstone to Stannis as an insult. Because she is, we know, crual, and not very subtle, and she would have meant it as an insult so she assumes that's what Robert meant. But thanks to the WOIAF app, we are told it was not in fact Robert's intent to hurt Stannis's feelings by giving him Dragonstone, Robert actually saw that as a meaningful gesture as he named Stannis his heir.

As for Stannis believing Robert would not have believed him, it is Stannis's belief, and we see that Stannis didn't really know Robert and misinterpreted some of his brother's actions (like the fact he always considered receiving Dragonstone as an insult while Robert meant it as a huge reward). So once Stannis had accepted the premise that Robert didn't like him and/or didn't trust him - based on the fact Robert "robbed him of his birthright" - , it was easy to jump to the conclusion that Robert would take the opportunity to behead Stan the Man if the latter came with the information that the King was a cuckold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I agree with this as well. Cersei certainly interpreted Robert giving Dragonstone to Stannis as an insult. Because she is, we know, crual, and not very subtle, and she would have meant it as an insult so she assumes that's what Robert meant. But thanks to the WOIAF app, we are told it was not in fact Robert's intent to hurt Stannis's feelings by giving him Dragonstone, Robert actually saw that as a meaningful gesture as he named Stannis his heir.

As for Stannis believing Robert would not have believed him, it is Stannis's belief, and we see that Stannis didn't really know Robert and misinterpreted some of his brother's actions (like the fact he always considered receiving Dragonstone as an insult while Robert meant it as a huge reward). So once Stannis had accepted the premise that Robert didn't like him and/or didn't trust him - based on the fact Robert "robbed him of his birthright" - , it was easy to jump to the conclusion that Robert would take the opportunity to behead Stan the Man if the latter came with the information that the King was a cuckold.

This is exactly why I take Cercei's statement with a grain of salt. Not that she is outright lying, but that she can't be relied upon for other people's truths.

So isn't it fair to consider the idea that Stannis' belief is inaccurate that Robert would kill him if he told him the truth? Could Stannis have assumed Robert would do what he would do? Or simply misjudged his brother? I'm not defending Robert on this, his trust or mistrust of Stannis isn't really the issue. The question is, did Stannis actually have cause to withhold the information from Robert upon a real threat of death or was it his own misguided view that lead him to ultimately do the wrong thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has a track record of doing so if it has guaranteed benefits for his campaign. He will not go around wantonly burning septs. This is just the most ridiculous logic I've ever come across.

I don't recall saying he would go from town to town burning septs for no good reason. He will burn septs and temples for the same reasons he's burned them before: because R'hllor is the one true god. You ignore the fact that he changed his sigil to represent his new devotion. If he claims the throne, R'hllor will be the one true god of Westoros. You think he'd drop the act in the end? Knowing what Melisandre can do? After parading himself as Azor Ahai?

You paint him to be a lying turncloak.

And he is parading himself, or Melisandre is parading him? He hasn't openly stated himself that he is Azor Ahai and is using it for his gain. All these arguments about him being a zealot are just plain stupid and ignorant of obvious fact.

Quick: what has it gained him? Nothing but death and disappointment.

Stannis talking to Jon in Stom:

I had the cart before the horse, Davos said. I was trying to win the throne to save the kingdom, when I should have been trying to save the kingdom to win the throne." Stannis pointed north. "There is where I'll find the foe that I was born to fight."

Stannis to Jon in Dance:

"Don't prate your words at me." Stannis drew the blade he called Lightbringer. "Here is your sword in the darkness." Light rippled up and down the blade, now red, now yellow, now orange, painting the king's face in harsh, bright hues. "Even a green boy should be able to see that. Are you blind?"

Melisandre to Jon in the presence of Stannis: (the IRONY)

"If His Grace is doomed, your realm is doomed as well," said Lady Melisandre. "Remember that, Lord Snow. It is the one true king of Westeros who stands before you."

In bold = The irony. The one true comedy.

Stannis to Davos in Storm of Swords: (in spoiler tags because of length of quote)

"Edric—" he started.

"—is one boy! He may be the best boy who ever drew breath and it would not matter. My duty is to the realm." His hand swept across the Painted Table. "How many boys dwell in Westeros? How many girls? How many men, how many women? The darkness will devour them all, she says. The night that never ends. She talks of prophecies . . . a hero reborn in the sea, living dragons hatched from dead stone . . . she speaks of signs and swears they point to me. I never asked for this, no more than I asked to be king. Yet dare I disregard her?" He ground his teeth. "We do not choose our destinies. Yet we must . . . we must do our duty, no? Great or small, we must do our duty. Melisandre swears that she has seen me in her flames, facing the dark with Lightbringer raised on high. Lightbringer!" Stannis gave a derisive snort. "It glimmers prettily, I'll grant you, but on the Blackwater this magic sword served me no better than any common steel. A dragon would have turned that battle. Aegon once stood here as I do, looking down on this table. Do you think we would name him Aegon the Conqueror today if he had not had dragons?"

"Your Grace," said Davos, "the cost . . . "

"I know the cost! Last night, gazing into that hearth, I saw things in the flames as well. I saw a king, a crown of fire on his brows, burning . . . burning, Davos. His own crown consumed his flesh and turned him into ash. Do you think I need Melisandre to tell me what that means? Or you?" The king moved, so his shadow fell upon King's Landing. "If Joffrey should die . . . what is the life of one bastard boy against a kingdom?"

If he is just pretending for his campaign then he is no better than Varys and Illyrio with Aegon. He's playing an even deadlier game because Azor Ahai is supposed to save the realm from an apocalypse. He knows what's at stake and yet - according to you - he's just pretending?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we should be ok with things just because they are ok in that time period? You know, prostitutes being punished by having their vaginas scrubbed with lye, girls being married off at 13, torture, crucifixion, slavery, burning people, women being treated like 2nd class citizens, bastards and dwarfs being treated like scum.

Why the hell should we just think, well it was accepted back then so we shouldn't judge them. Ridiculous.

Not only an utter disregard for established facts, you also seem to have a complete lack of sense of proportionality.

No we don't accept discrimination and girls being mistreated; these are undeniably bad things from all possible angles in all universes. Using military means to fight a campaign (duh....?) is understandable from many angles.

And wow. Stannis didn't change his sigil because he freaking devotes himself to the red god he did it to show the red god followers in his army he accepts them fully despite their new different beliefs.

I shudder to think how you critics would handle running a public campaign if ever one day you go into politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...