why does everyone blame Renly for Stannis's mistake

[Minsc]

9 hours ago, Darkstream said:

Either that, or he just wanted to insult Stannis again. 

 

How is Ned being named Hand an insult to Stannis and not in weird petty entitled Stannis sense?

[Darkstream]

18 minutes ago, Minsc said:

How is Ned being named Hand an insult to Stannis

It was a joke. If you haven't noticed, I had just conceded this very argument - in relation to Dragonstone - that I've been making for the last couple of pages.

Thus this little dude  running away after the comment.

 

[Darkstream]

I would add however, that I do lean towards Ravenous Readers thoughts on Stannis being named hand. I feel that a lot of people are putting to much emphasis on the relationship Stannis has with the rest of the Lords in the Kingdom. Ruling, or administering the affairs of a Kingdom shouldn't be about your popularity and making friends. You need a take no bullshit aproach, and a hard and unrelenting attitude when negotiating with the other Lords. 

Besides, Robert already brings that advantage to the table - the popular, sociable King who can throw tourneys and make friends. Together, if they could have managed to get along, they would have been a formidable team.

And that is the tragedy that befell Stannis and Renly as well. I'm sure there are peaches aplenty throughout the Seven Kingdoms; If only they could have found a way to share them.

[Minsc]

54 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

 Ruling, or administering the affairs of a Kingdom shouldn't be about your popularity and making friends. You need a take no bullshit aproach, and a hard and unrelenting attitude when negotiating with the other Lords.

Well if you want a lot of rebellions and other conflicts with your nobles.  Under feudalism it was important for the king to have good relationship with their lords. 

[Darkstream]

3 hours ago, Minsc said:

Well if you want a lot of rebellions and other conflicts with your nobles.  Under feudalism it was important for the king to have good relationship with their lords. 

Yes, and that is where Robert comes in, he is the King in this scenario - not Stannis - and has the final say. Both Stannis and Robert lack the attributes that the other has, of which are necessary to competently run a kingdom.

[Universal Sword Donor]

16 hours ago, Darkstream said:

But that's not what you replied "I'd imagine quite a few of them" in response to is it?

And what's your point? Like I said, it doesn't diminish what Stannis had to endure through. His character, loyalty, and resolve was still proven, whether others in the past had experienced the same situations or not.

Loyalty to the brother he let be cuckolded and murdered or to the one whom he assassinated because Stannis attacked his stronghold after not proving why he was Robert's true heir?

My point was people holding out in SE -- and dozens of other places in the books -- have endured it all before, but they liken it to the second coming of Jesus' resurrection. 

[Universal Sword Donor]

8 hours ago, Darkstream said:

Yes, and that is where Robert comes in, he is the King in this scenario - not Stannis - and has the final say. Both Stannis and Robert lack the attributes that the other has, of which are necessary to competently run a kingdom.

Right so Stannis just gets overruled on basically everything he wants to do, a la what happened to Jon Arryn and the finances or Stannis and the charges against Janos Slynt.

“Grand Maester Pycelle shook his great bald head, his chains clinking softly. “Lord Arryn was a prudent man, but I fear that His Grace does not always listen to wise counsel.”
 

Robert doesn't listen to Ned about Dany, the Lannisters, or not murdering his f*cking daughter's direwolf. Why would he listen to Stannis about anything? Stannis is not wrong in a lot of situations but his lack of pragmatism pre ASOS / trip to the wall would basically ensure rebellion as minsc mentioned. 

Just one example: Taxes. Stannis will obviously want to raise them because the IT is in debt. What does Kevan Lannister, the acting hand, have to say about raising taxes:

“Half the lords in the realm could not tell taxation from tyranny”

That's right when he's thinking about paying the throne debts with Lannister gold.

 

[John Doe]

On 20.4.2017 at 2:18 AM, khal drogon said:

'Rights' are pointless if no one is there to support his claim. Next in line to the throne doesn't make one a king automatically if he doesn't earn love and trust of his own vassals. Since you talk about feudal contracts that's how feudalism works.

1. Irrelevant, there were people who supported his claim. 

2. Next in line does make you king, Robb even directly said how Bran couldn't be lord before him. 

 

[Traverys]

On 4/21/2017 at 3:04 PM, Darkstream said:

 

Alright, alright. All of you ganging up on me, as it were  have presented a compelling argument as to why Robert decided to alot the seats as he did. I concede that he had legitimate reasons for his decision other than to slight Stannis - although I would still contend that he probably wasn't disappointed in the fact that it would rub Stannis the wrong way.

In my defence, it wasn't my intention to defend these actions, but to present them from Stannis' point of view.

And yes,  I think this sums it up quite well.

If it's any consolation, I actually like Stannis a lot... well as much as he allows himself to be liked. I compare him to Cersei only in that, while they can be repulsive to other people, they certainly add to the entertainment of the read. Of all the remaining candidates for the throne I would prefer to see him on it more than anyone else.

[Universal Sword Donor]

1 hour ago, John Doe said:

1. Irrelevant, there were people who supported his claim. 

2. Next in line does make you king, Robb even directly said how Bran couldn't be lord before him. 

 

Not enough people to support him

He can claim to be a king, but unless an appropriate number of other people accept him as king, it is kind of a moot point

[khal drogon]

1 hour ago, John Doe said:

1. Irrelevant, there were people who supported his claim. 

2. Next in line does make you king, Robb even directly said how Bran couldn't be lord before him. 

1. Who? Nobody who mattered supported his claim. 

2. Next in line could make him king only if others recognize him as a king. Either Stannis should have made a strong case to present himself as the rightful heir. Till that becomes successful nobody is going to care about his claim because others doubts his claim itself.

[Darkstream]

3 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Loyalty to the brother he let be cuckolded and murdered or to the one whom he assassinated because Stannis attacked his stronghold after not proving why he was Robert's true heir?

You're bringing up events that happened forteen years later. Obviously circumstances have changed, and due to Stannis' precieved slights by Robert and their relationship over that time, Stannis' loyalty and allegiances have changed.

And please do explain how Robert being cuckolded was the fault of Stannis - or even his murder for that matter; Stannis didn't know Cercei's plans or intent.

Quote

My point was people holding out in SE -- and dozens of other places in the books -- have endured it all before, but they liken it to the second coming of Jesus' resurrection. 

Well I posit that your point is irrelevant. And there is nothing in the text to back your claim that many in the past had to endure a siege of that length or dire circumstances - and if there was, your point would still be irrelevant. Would you claim that being tortured is no big deal just because people have been tortured all throughout history?

3 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Right so Stannis just gets overruled on basically everything he wants to do, a la what happened to Jon Arryn and the finances or Stannis and the charges against Janos Slynt.

Well sure, like I said, they would have to manage to get along. We are talking about a hypothetical situation here, and for this scenario to be possible in the first place, the relationship and dynamic between the two would have to be hypothetical as well.

Essentially your argument is that nobody could be a competent hand, and with Robert as King, that may very well be true.

[Darkstream]

2 hours ago, Traverys said:

If it's any consolation, I actually like Stannis a lot... well as much as he allows himself to be liked. I compare him to Cersei only in that, while they can be repulsive to other people, they certainly add to the entertainment of the read. Of all the remaining candidates for the throne I would prefer to see him on it more than anyone else.

That's cool. I really don't mind admitting when I'm wrong, when presented with the facts that would prove so. It's all of the arguments that come from a clearly biased hatred for a character, that irks me. I mean half of the fandom hates Stannis, and Danny, and Jon, and Sansa, and Arya, and well you get the point. I really don't understand all of the hate out there. I don't hate any characters, and want to discuss them to better understand the reality of their characterization and motives. Sure I have favorites and root for them, however I'm not going to attempt to twist the text to support my personal feelings or desires.

[ravenous reader]

14 hours ago, Darkstream said:

If you haven't noticed, I had just conceded this very argument - in relation to Dragonstone - that I've been making for the last couple of pages.

Thus this little dude  running away after the comment.

Why have you conceded the argument in relation to Dragonstone?

Cersei quite clearly and matter-of-factly tells Tyrion that giving Stannis Dragonstone instead of Storms End was intended as a slight by Robert:

Quote

A Clash of Kings - Tyrion VI

"They won't," Tyrion said. "They are too different and yet too much alike, and neither could ever stomach the other."

"And Stannis has always felt he was cheated of Storm's End," Cersei said thoughtfully. "The ancestral seat of House Baratheon, his by rights . . . if you knew how many times he came to Robert singing that same dull song in that gloomy aggrieved tone he has. When Robert gave the place to Renly, Stannis clenched his jaw so tight I thought his teeth would shatter."

"He took it as a slight."

"It was meant as a slight," Cersei said.

I don't buy @Universal Sword Donor's argument that all Cersei's words about Robert are automatically invalidated because she is a narcissist who notoriously did not like Robert.  Narcissists and psychopaths are quite capable of telling truth in amongst the lies, e.g. Littlefinger's discussions with Sansa as prime example.  The trick is to sift the lies from the truth.  For example, I do think Cersei lied to Jaime about Joffrey overhearing Robert talking about 'mercy killing' children.  However, in the case we're debating, Cersei had no reason at that point to lie to Tyrion about Robert's relationship with his brother -- and who better to understand that relationship than a wife to whom Robert was often brutally honest behind the scenes?  I also don't think USD's assertion that her words run counter -- 'diametrically opposed' -- to what everyone else in the text says about the brothers' relationship is warranted.  The petty animosity between Stannis and Robert was well known.

43 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Essentially your argument is that nobody could be a competent hand, and with Robert as King, that may very well be true.

Possibly.  However, based on what I've identified as Robert's driving principle -- i.e. maximising his comfort while reciprocally minimizing his discomfort -- I'd venture that Robert would have eventually given in to the laziness of allowing Stannis to basically run the show.  Robert hated having to adjudicate anything; Stannis happens to not only have the discipline for ruling, but to actually be quite good at it.  I think he would have made many fair decisions that probably wouldn't have been popular, but so what; and being Stannis, he would have just plugged on regardless while his brother sated his bottomless desire to 'eat, drink, hunt and whore himself to an early grave.'  Furthermore, if Stannis had proved successful at being Hand, people may have had an easier time accepting him as King later on.  

[Darkstream]

1 hour ago, ravenous reader said:

Why have you conceded the argument in relation to Dragonstone?

Cersei quite clearly and matter-of-factly tells Tyrion that giving Stannis Dragonstone instead of Storms End was intended as a slight by Robert

Perhaps I should clarify. What I concede to is that Robert had legitimate reasons for wanting Stannis on Dragonstone. Clearly the awarding of Storm's End to Renly was an insult, and meant as a slight to Stannis.

As well, I concede to the fact that a potential threat was more likely to be situated around Dragonstone, than from Dorne and the Reach at this point.

The argument that Renly was too young and inexperienced to deal with the issues on Dragonstone is quite condradictory, when still maintaining that he was a suitable candidate to receive Storm's End. Robert should have held on to Storm's End for himself and his future heirs, if this was the case, and he wanted Stannis on Dragonstone for tactical reasons.

[ravenous reader]

48 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

The argument that Renly was to young and inexperienced to deal with the issues on Dragonstone is quite condradictory, when still maintaining that he was a suitable candidate to receive Storm's End

If indeed he was too young and inexperienced to handle Dragonstone, it's a wonder that people still insist he was a suitable candidate to become King, let alone hold Storms End!

[devilish]

43 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Perhaps I should clarify. What I concede to is that Robert had legitimate reasons for wanting Stannis on Dragonstone. Clearly the awarding of Storm's End to Renly was an insult, and meant as a slight to Stannis.

As well, I concede to the fact that a potential threat was more likely to be situated around Dragonstone, than from Dorne and the Reach at this point.

The argument that Renly was to young and inexperienced to deal with the issues on Dragonstone is quite condradictory, when still maintaining that he was a suitable candidate to receive Storm's End. Robert should have held on to Storm's End for himself and his future heirs, if this was the case, and he wanted Stannis on Dragonstone for tactical reasons.

I used to think that it was meant as a slight to Stannis too. In matter I wrote a thread about that too.

However, the more I delved deep into GOT politics, the more I learnt that its not the case.

First of all, let set something clear. Robert owed Stannis nothing. He could have kept him without any lands and titles. Stannis had no one to back him up so if he rebelled against his brother he would have ended up dead. Robert could also kept Stannis as temporary Lord of Dragonstone only for the latter to vacate the place once the true heir (aka Joffrey) comes to age. So, no, Robert's decision wasn't meant to slight Stannis

However, I don't believe he gave his lands freely out of the kindness of his heart either. That include both Renly and Stannis

-------------------------------.

We can presume that Renly took the Lordship at around 16 years of age. That means, Tommen, Myrcella and Joffrey were already born. Robert's relationship with the queen had already soured at that point, so we can presume Robert wasn't planning having more children. Even if he did have more male children, they would have been unimportant in the great scheme of things.

Now we know that the old lion hated his heir dearly. That means that by keeping Jamie as KG, Tywin had no choice but to either gulp his pride and allow an imp to take CR or else rely on the King's justice to sort this thorny issue. I am pretty sure that the Stag would solve that issue out if Tywin agreed to name Tommen as heir.

With Tommen booked we've got 3 lands (Dragonstone, the Crownlands and the Stormlands) and 3 contenders (Stannis, Joffrey and Renly)

Joffrey was Robert's trump card. He was heir to the throne and nephew of the great Tywin Lannister. However Joffrey could only marry 1 person and by marrying Sansa, Robert  was able to put a Baratheon right in the middle of the Northern co-alition (Tully, Stark and Arryn). Renly was way down the pecking order but the boy was extremely charismatic. By giving him the Stormlands Renly was able to get close enough to the Tyrells turning a potential Targ loyalist to a friend. 

Which leads us to dragonstone. The island had no significance for the Baratheons but it certainly had loads of significance for the Targs. First of all its the sea gate to KL. Any fleet trying to capture KL would most surely pass from there. Secondly if the the Targs re-conquered dragonstone than the psychological effect would be devastating. The risk of Lords going to a nostalgia trip is reasonably high. Stannis might have the charisma of dried tomato but he certainly know how to resist a siege and would sell his skin at a very high price. That's something neither Renly nor Joffrey would be able to do.

 

 

 

 

 

[Orphalesion]

17 hours ago, Minsc said:

How is Ned being named Hand an insult to Stannis and not in weird petty entitled Stannis sense?

 

17 hours ago, Darkstream said:

It was a joke. If you haven't noticed, I had just conceded this very argument - in relation to Dragonstone - that I've been making for the last couple of pages.

Thus this little dude  running away after the comment.

 

Well Joke or not, Stannis is the type of person who would interpret almost everything as a sleight against himself.

Now imagine a Stannis/Lysa pairing... t would be an endless cycle of assumed insults...

[Darkstream]

2 hours ago, devilish said:

We can presume that Renly took the Lordship at around 16 years of age. That means, Tommen, Myrcella and Joffrey were already born.

Why can we presume this? Admittedly, it is not clear to me as to the timeline surrounding these events, but I had always presumed that these seats were allotted before the birth of Roberts Jamie's children.

Quote

Now we know that the old lion hated his heir dearly. That means that by keeping Jamie as KG, Tywin had no choice but to either gulp his pride and allow an imp to take CR or else rely on the King's justice to sort this thorny issue. I am pretty sure that the Stag would solve that issue out if Tywin agreed to name Tommen as heir.

With Tommen booked we've got 3 lands (Dragonstone, the Crownlands and the Stormlands) and 3 contenders (Stannis, Joffrey and Renly)

Joffrey was Robert's trump card. He was heir to the throne and nephew of the great Tywin Lannister. However Joffrey could only marry 1 person and by marrying Sansa, Robert  was able to put a Baratheon right in the middle of the Northern co-alition (Tully, Stark and Arryn). Renly was way down the pecking order but the boy was extremely charismatic. By giving him the Stormlands Renly was able to get close enough to the Tyrells turning a potential Targ loyalist to a friend.

While all off this sounds like a good plan in hindsight, it is purely speculative, and would suggest that Robert had the foresight and aptitude to implement this intricate plan forteen years in advance, and have to account for a multitude of variables and circumstances going his way for it to come to fruition. I just don't buy it, especially of Robert who never had asperations or expectations of becoming the King, and who's only goals where to 'eat, drink, hunt and whore himself to an early grave.' He wasn't interested in the politics of the Kingdom, or securing a kingdom wide alliance; All he cared about was the threat that the Targaryens posed to him, and his petty revenge and desire to exterminate the dragon spawn.

Why would he wait forteen years to implement this betrothal to Sansa? 

Did he know that Renly was gay, and would fall in love with Loras? The only reason that Renly was tight with the Tyrrell's. Also the Tyrell´s goal was for Margery to become Queen, not the Lady of Storms End.

And what do you mean regarding Tywin? Was Robert counting on Tywin just giving CR to a Baratheon, in order to prevent Tyrion from getting it? Why Hadn't this plan been implemented already? Besides, Tywin had made it pretty clear that he didn't intend to let Tyrion have CR, no matter if he was the rightful heir or not.

No Ser, don't buy it; Not one bit.

[Universal Sword Donor]

8 hours ago, Darkstream said:

You're bringing up events that happened forteen years later. Obviously circumstances have changed, and due to Stannis' precieved slights by Robert and their relationship over that time, Stannis' loyalty and allegiances have changed.

And please do explain how Robert being cuckolded was the fault of Stannis - or even his murder for that matter; Stannis didn't know Cercei's plans or intent.

Well I posit that your point is irrelevant. And there is nothing in the text to back your claim that many in the past had to endure a siege of that length or dire circumstances - and if there was, your point would still be irrelevant. Would you claim that being tortured is no big deal just because people have been tortured all throughout history?

Well sure, like I said, they would have to manage to get along. We are talking about a hypothetical situation here, and for this scenario to be possible in the first place, the relationship and dynamic between the two would have to be hypothetical as well.

Essentially your argument is that nobody could be a competent hand, and with Robert as King, that may very well be true.

If Stannis is loyal, perceived slights that f*cking enriched him 1000x over shouldn't really diminish that loyalty right? And to be fair, Stannis couldn't have prevented the adultery, but he sure as hell could have told Robert. He wisely gave it over to Arryn, who was then murdered, and then didn't follow up. Sweet job loyal bro!

You're right there is nothing in the text that explicitly says "SE has been held against 14 sieges that lasted almost a year and had defenders eating boots." There's also nothing that says that Aegon the Conqueror didn't have three arms. Some things can be reasonably be extrapolated from canon and semi-canon text. That a pre-eminent stronghold of the SL might undergo a siege or many of significant duration and intensity is hardly a stretch.

Could no one have been a competent hand with Robert? That's putting words in my mouth, incorrect words at that. Tywin, for example, would have made a good hand. Ned would have made a better hand than Jon Arryn insofar as we know because he was actually willing to oppose Robert forcefully.  Hell Jaime might have been an ok hand -- for stopping robert, not being actually good at governing -- given their two similar personalities.