Was there any way Stannis could have won Blackwater?

[OwloftheRainwood]

On 2/5/2016 at 4:44 PM, 7-KG said:

Yeah, it matters. There's a difference between you killing your daughter to save the lives of millions and you killing her for political gain.

Yeah, I guess if you're willing to murder your brother it's not a huge leap to daughter. I'm pretty sure Mel has it wrong and Stannis is not AA reborn so the whole "save the millions of lives" supposition is moot. AA killed his lover, not his daughter. Given the Westerosi cultural taboos against kinslaying, Stannis' grip on the IT would be dubious at best, and without a way for the legacy to continue, with Shireen dead...so just more instability right after Stannis dies? It doesn't make much sense. I enjoyed reading Stannis POVs and he's an interesting character, that does not a good king make.

[7-KG]

On 08/02/2016 at 6:29 PM, OwloftheRainwood said:

Yeah, I guess if you're willing to murder your brother it's not a huge leap to daughter. I'm pretty sure Mel has it wrong and Stannis is not AA reborn so the whole "save the millions of lives" supposition is moot.

It is a huge leap if your daughter isn't an usurper and is your only heir left...

"It may be that we shall lose this battle," the king said grimly. "In Braavos you may hear that I am dead. It may even be true. You shall find my sellswords nonetheless."

The knight hesitated. "Your Grace, if you are dead — "

" — you will avenge my death, and seat my daughter on the Iron Throne. Or die in the attempt."

Anyway, it is the intetion that matters. I can't believe we're even discussing this. Asshole Stannis from the show burned his daughter to attain political power, book Stannis might burn her with the intetion to save the realm. So, book Stannis>>>>show Stannis. Simple as that.

On 08/02/2016 at 6:29 PM, OwloftheRainwood said:

AA killed his lover, not his daughter. Given the Westerosi cultural taboos against kinslaying, Stannis' grip on the IT would be dubious at best, and without a way for the legacy to continue, with Shireen dead...so just more instability right after Stannis dies? It doesn't make much sense. I enjoyed reading Stannis POVs and he's an interesting character, that does not a good king make.

Whaaaat? Are you sure you quoted the right post? You're just making random assumptions at me.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

10 minutes ago, 7-KG said:

It is a huge leap if your daughter isn't an usurper and is your only heir left...

 

Hidden Content

 

Anyway, it is the intetion that matters. I can't believe we're even discussing this. Asshole Stannis from the show burned his daughter to attain political power, book Stannis might burn her with the intetion to save the realm. So, book Stannis>>>>show Stannis. Simple as that.

 

That quote is so telling. Nothing about bringing her to safety, making sure she survives. It is all about avenging his death or dying in the attempt.

 

I'm not sure this makes him any better than show Stannis, infact it might actually make him worse as show Stannis is deluded enough to think that her sacrifice is for the greater good while book Stannis just wants to be avenged.

[7-KG]

You jumped the part where he says "and sit my daughter on the iron throne."

[thelittledragonthatcould]

12 minutes ago, 7-KG said:

You jumped the part where he says "and sit my daughter on the iron throne."

Or die trying. What do you think happens to the 11 year old Shireen if all of her protectors die trying to get her the Throne?

Sitting Shireen on the throne has nothing to do with her happiness, or even prophesies (no mention of Shireen being AA) but all to do with avenging him. Yeesh!

[OwloftheRainwood]

2 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Or die trying. What do you think happens to the 11 year old Shireen if all of her protectors die trying to get her the Throne?

Sitting Shireen on the throne has nothing to do with her happiness, or even prophesies (no mention of Shireen being AA) but all to do with avenging him. Yeesh!

7-KG obviously is a Stannis apologist. I don't hate Stannis, but the guy has some flaws that his fans don't admit even when they are obvious to everyone else.

 

2 hours ago, 7-KG said:

It is a huge leap if your daughter isn't an usurper and is your only heir left...

 

Hidden Content

 

Anyway, it is the intetion that matters. I can't believe we're even discussing this. Asshole Stannis from the show burned his daughter to attain political power, book Stannis might burn her with the intetion to save the realm. So, book Stannis>>>>show Stannis. Simple as that.

Whaaaat? Are you sure you quoted the right post? You're just making random assumptions at me.

How is that an assumption? If he kills Shireen, and takes the IT, he will have no immediate legitimate heirs, resulting in instability after he dies. There is plenty of evidence in the books to back up the assertion that succession conflicts lead to wars. You're contradicting yourself...so it's okay for Stannis to kill Renly when he's the usurper and not the only heir...but Shireen is his only heir and not a usurper but it's still justified!?

It's obvious, 7-KG, you're a Stannis apologist trying to redeem him. You're entitled to your favorite characters, but when you make arguments purely based on favoring a character it's not going to have broad appeal.

[OwloftheRainwood]

2 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Or die trying. What do you think happens to the 11 year old Shireen if all of her protectors die trying to get her the Throne?

Sitting Shireen on the throne has nothing to do with her happiness, or even prophesies (no mention of Shireen being AA) but all to do with avenging him. Yeesh!

Great point that getting Shireen on the IT means little if all her father's loyal operatives die in the attempt. A girl with a face like that with no friends wouldn't last long in KL. Most of her mother's family was wiped out by Randyl Tarly and Stannis took care of Uncle Renly. The most hope she would have would be marrying to somebody powerful but with that face and a rebel for a father...that seems unlikely.

[OwloftheRainwood]

3 hours ago, 7-KG said:

Anyway, it is the intetion that matters.

Yes, intention does matter, but so does the act itself. No ethicist would say that "greatest good for greatest number" justifies any atrocity as long as fewer people are killed, and even this is an assumption because we don't really know if Stannis is AAR. I doubt it. You don't get to just wipe away the blood on your hands just because more people may or may not have died otherwise - there are still consequences. If you violate sacred cultural taboos such as not killing your family, I'm pretty sure there are severe consequences. Freys are getting a taste of breaking guest right since the Red Wedding. I know you want to justify Stannis' ambition, but such arguments only work if you especially favor Stannis. 

[7-KG]

39 minutes ago, OwloftheRainwood said:

7-KG obviously is a Stannis apologist. I don't hate Stannis, but the guy has some flaws that his fans don't admit even when they are obvious to everyone else.

What is obvious? Stannis simply wants his soldiers to try their best to put Shireen on the iron throne. Nothing to overblow here.

39 minutes ago, OwloftheRainwood said:

How is that an assumption? If he kills Shireen, and takes the IT, he will have no immediate legitimate heirs, resulting in instability after he dies. There is plenty of evidence in the books to back up the assertion that succession conflicts lead to wars. You're contradicting yourself...so it's okay for Stannis to kill Renly when he's the usurper and not the only heir...but Shireen is his only heir and not a usurper but it's still justified !?

How am i contradicting myself? Are you actually getting my point? I'm not even sure if i'm getting yours, tbh.

44 minutes ago, OwloftheRainwood said:

It's obvious, 7-KG, you're a Stannis apologist trying to redeem him. You're entitled to your favorite characters, but when you make arguments purely based on favoring a character it's not going to have broad appeal.

Ad hominem, much? If you don't have an actual argument, instead of being a jerk and insulting someone, just don't argue. So, you don't get annoyed, no one gets annoyed. Simple.

[7-KG]

On 11/02/2016 at 11:10 PM, OwloftheRainwood said:

Yes, intention does matter, but so does the act itself. No ethicist would say that "greatest good for greatest number" justifies any atrocity as long as fewer people are killed, and even this is an assumption because we don't really know if Stannis is AAR. I doubt it. You don't get to just wipe away the blood on your hands just because more people may or may not have died otherwise - there are still consequences. If you violate sacred cultural taboos such as not killing your family, I'm pretty sure there are severe consequences. Freys are getting a taste of breaking guest right since the Red Wedding. I know you want to justify Stannis' ambition, but such arguments only work if you especially favor Stannis. 

Look, i'm still not sure what is your point. Stannis is a kinslayer for killing Renly and if he kills Shireen. But the thing is, the reason as to why he did/might do those things can be explained, even though it won't change the fact he is a kinslayer. Are you understanding me?

[Sullen]

3 hours ago, 7-KG said:

Look, i'm still not sure what is your point. Stannis is a kinslayer for killing Renly and if he kills Shireen. But the thing is, the reason as to why he did/might do those things can be explained. But it won't change the fact he is a kinslayer. Are you understanding me?

His reasons to kill Renly weren't exactly the most selfless though, in fact they were downright disgusting.

Considering he claims not to believe in Mel's prophecies, him burning Shireen would make a lot of his actions retro-actively hypocritical as hell, besides.

[OwloftheRainwood]

11 hours ago, 7-KG said:

Look, i'm still not sure what is your point. Stannis is a kinslayer for killing Renly and if he kills Shireen. But the thing is, the reason as to why he did/might do those things can be explained. But it won't change the fact he is a kinslayer. Are you understanding me

Yeah, I understand you...you're saying that Stannis' actions can be justified for the "greater good". I'm challenging your assumption that Stannis is AAR, and therefore his kinslaying won't really save anyone, and is not justifiable. Even if he is AAR, which I doubt, you don't get to simply wash away your deeds because more people may or may not have died otherwise. Sure, you can "explain" Stannis' actions, but I read the book so I don't need explanations for his actions.

[OwloftheRainwood]

11 hours ago, 7-KG said:

Ad hominem, much? If you don't have an actual argument, instead of being a jerk and insulting someone, just don't argue. So, you don't get annoyed, no one gets annoyed. Simple.

LMAO. Sensitive, much? I didn't insult you at all. I said you were entitled to your favorite character. Go ahead and defend him, but there are going to be a lot of people who disagree. If you're not ready to support your assertions, it's best not to make them in a public forum.

[7-KG]

8 hours ago, OwloftheRainwood said:

Yeah, I understand you...you're saying that Stannis' actions can be justified for the "greater good". I'm challenging your assumption that Stannis is AAR, and therefore his kinslaying won't really save anyone, and is not justifiable. Even if he is AAR, which I doubt, you don't get to simply wash away your deeds because more people may or may not have died otherwise. Sure, you can "explain" Stannis' actions, but I read the book so I don't need explanations for his actions.

As usual, someone misunderstands me. First of all, i never said Stannis is Azor Ahai, you're putting words in my mouth, i said it is the intention that matters. Stannis believes himself to be Azor Ahai, and he might burn Shireen because he thinks he is doing it to save the realm, so it is justifiable. There's no need to those quotation marks in the word "explain." Get over it.

8 hours ago, OwloftheRainwood said:

LMAO. Sensitive, much? I didn't insult you at all. I said you were entitled to your favorite character. Go ahead and defend him, but there are going to be a lot of people who disagree. If you're not ready to support your assertions, it's best not to make them in a public forum.

Disagree with me on what? That Stannis is Azor Ahai? Certainly. But i never said such thing, you were the one who misinterpreted me. And you called me an apologist. If you don't think that is an insult, i don't know what is.

[7-KG]

On 11/02/2016 at 3:03 AM, Sullen said:

His reasons to kill Renly weren't exactly the most selfless though, in fact they were downright disgusting.

Not really.

But i agree it wasn't totally selfless. Anyway, where did i said something like that? I said it could just be explained.

On 11/02/2016 at 3:03 AM, Sullen said:

Considering he claims not to believe in Mel's prophecies, him burning Shireen would make a lot of his actions retro-actively hypocritical as hell, besides.

He believes himself to be Azor Ahai, though.

[henry phillips]

i believe he could have won or at least escaped with thousands more men than he did,but there are many factors to this.first stannis should have got moving a lot sooner than he did if he had starting his claim sooner renly may have thought twice about crowning himself. stannis had 5,000 men farrings,masseys,velarryons,ect.not enough to hold kl from any other enemy host.

2nd people tend to forget that renly only took 20,000 his knights,lords,freeriders,cavalry to storms end and left the men at arms,levies at bitterbrigde and 90% of them where reachmen,after renlys death tarly,loras,mathis and 4,000 men returned to bitterbrigde. tarly knowing that stannis was a great threat seizes renlys stores,and slaughters hundreds of florent men at arms and the stormland infantry who wanted to join stannis and there lords.while all this was happening stannis waited at storms end for a fortnight for a surrender.if stannis had sailed nearly as soon as he had he new host of 16.000 stormalnders and the florents and fossoways he could have taken kl long before the tyrells and lannisters made a deal.if stannis had moved swiftly the lannisters and tyrells had not even made a deal at this point so the tyrells have no need to do anything becuase they have nothing to gain yet.   or he decides to move to bitterbridge right behind loras if he had done this the men at arms whose lords had joined stannis they  would turn on tyrells and join him causing huge confusion on the tyrell foot.stannis is a better commander than tarly so stannis would be sure of the tyrell host but if he did this he loses the advantage of his powerful navy and opens himself up for attacks from tywin.

3rd. the weather caused the fleet to be delayed .stannis new host had arrived on the south side of the blackwater rush days before the battle took place.at this point tywin and the tyrells where rushing to kl but not close enough. tyrion delayed stannis from taking the city but even if he did it would still be the chaotic mess it was because of renlys shade it was in tuth not the tyrells who broke stannis but renly,if stannis was inside the city with taking his heavy casualties 15,000 men the stormlords may have been more loyal but inside he could not retreat easily.if tywin had showed up alone with his host stannis own men would not have surrendered becuase they still prefer stan to tywin,but the 60.000 from bitterbridge and the 10,000 mace and garlan brought from highgarden made the huge difference.in that scenario it would be a likely be a bloody siege and stannis may kill jofferey but i dont see them bending to stannis during the battle and if he had taken the city weeks before then yes i reckon mace would bend the knee against tywin. stannis should of had monford velaryon leading the fleet then i reckon he would not have lost majority of his fleet. he is still on the south side with the main host.if his outriders had not been slaughtered he could have made a strong defence ready and began getting his loyal men on the ships(more than he had)many of his host wanted to remain loyal but where left ashore and then surrendered due to lack of space.

conclusion: stannis could have only won if he had taken kl long before tywin and tyrells where moving that way joffrey dead robb would most likely attack tywin rear and talk terms with stannis.the tyrells would think again abiut there deal and possibly defect again to stannis.

or if everything had happened the same stannis only hope was better defence against renlys shade and not all his fleet getting burned then he could have escaped with thousands more men and lose but not lose 18,500 men in one day but it all happens so he could go north.

 

[Renly was the true steel]

On 1/29/2016 at 10:16 AM, RobOsevens said:

If Stannis could take KL before Tywin shows up and then hold it and get besieged maybe others would come to his aid, like Robb 

holding it against the Reach and Tywin is not happening his men just went through a battle with literal hell fire and KL was low on food before that point unless he put everyone in the city to the sword or has some other onion knight on his way they starve 

 but its actually in his best interest to sack the city and leave he can kill a few and steal a few important high borns for instance Joffery cersei and maybe Tyrion are all dead lancel sansa and other high born ladies will fetch good ransoms and even some houses loyalty and he could even grab some gold while he's there

if he does this than tywin and kevan are in a tricky situation they have the city and crown tommen but they have no heirs that haven't been captured or killed and they don't know Cat released jaime yet 

[snow is the man]

If he was able to get inside kings landing and then board up the gates then it would be a big deal. If tyrion hadn't have burned his fleet so badly and so many men with it that would have changed it as well. Remember stannis has proper soldiers where as most of kings landing is defended by guardsman and most of those would break. Stannis and friends holding kings landing would be far more formidable then tyrion and guardsman holding it. If tywin would have been tied up in kings landing then rob would likely have taken casterly rock and tywin would have lost. His legend and fear that he inspired would have been smashed. He would have had to make peace with rob and attacked kingslanding to defeat stannis or lose everything.

[snow is the man]

On 5/4/2017 at 11:22 PM, Renly was the true steel said:

holding it against the Reach and Tywin is not happening his men just went through a battle with literal hell fire and KL was low on food before that point unless he put everyone in the city to the sword or has some other onion knight on his way they starve 

 but its actually in his best interest to sack the city and leave he can kill a few and steal a few important high borns for instance Joffery cersei and maybe Tyrion are all dead lancel sansa and other high born ladies will fetch good ransoms and even some houses loyalty and he could even grab some gold while he's there

if he does this than tywin and kevan are in a tricky situation they have the city and crown tommen but they have no heirs that haven't been captured or killed and they don't know Cat released jaime yet 

Tyrion made the difference in that battle. But if the wildfire hadn't happened like tyrion had set it up tywin would have faced a prolong siege and stannis still had  a massive navy (if the wildfire bomb hadn't worked) so a blockade would have been hard.