Dany and Stannis: a Comparative Look

[The Sleeper]

They both claim the Iron Throne by right of blood. They both have two arms, two legs and a head. Otherwise, I can't think of two characters more dissimilar.

[starki]

It's worth remembering Daenerys' work is cut out for her after she enters the Seven Kingdoms. Both have their "I should be King/Queen because it's my birthright" speech ready at all times, yet it's only begrudged against Daenerys.

Both did hard work since AGOT - Stannis fighting on the Wall, and now being stuck in Winterfell. Daenerys freeing the cities in the East, and being stuck in Meereen. Both have their advisors - Davos and Mel vs Jonah/Selmy, though I think Melisandre will end up costing Stannis more than whatever Selmy advises Daenerys (which shouldn't be hard considering how much Melisandre already cost Stannis). I think Daenerys would rush out to the aid of the Wall just like Stannis did in ADWD.

Ideally, for me, Stannis would be King and Daenerys would be A.A. reborn. But I have a feeling Seven Kingdoms is too small for the both of them and only one will survive by the end of the books.

[butterbumps!]

I don't think that we can say this is universally true. Daenerys has a strong conception of duty to her clients, people like the freedmen, the Unsullied, and her remaining Dothraki followers. Perhaps also to those who have taken a risk by openly allying with her in Meereen, but her attitudes toward most of the Meereenese show that this isn't true for all people in her power.

I agree with this, and would add that toward the end of DwD, Dany actually stops thinking of anyone in Meereen as "her people" (and says as much- "They're not my people," Dany, 7)- she gives up her responsibilities, stops holding court and turns over running the city to Hiz. But the last chapters of DwD seem like they're her darkest moments, so I'm open to the possibility that this may change, but at present, I don't believe that she has grasped what "responsibility of ruling" quite means.

[Sevumar]

It's worth remembering Daenerys' work is cut out for her after she enters the Seven Kingdoms. Both have their "I should be King/Queen because it's my birthright" speech ready at all times, yet it's only begrudged against Daenerys.

As several posters pointed out in this thread, Dany's views are different for significant reasons. First, she's never lived in the land she wants to rule. She's an outsider and she doesn't seem to care about that fact. Beyond that issue, Stannis has shown that he understands the duty of a monarch to defend his people, while Dany doesn't seem to have a good grasp of any of the practicalities of ruling.

Both did hard work since AGOT - Stannis fighting on the Wall, and now being stuck in Winterfell. Daenerys freeing the cities in the East, and being stuck in Meereen.

There's a huge difference here. Stannis answered the call of a realm in need. Dany inserted herself into the politics of a society that neither needed, nor sought, her interference. She made the mess, destroyed the culture of the region, and now she doesn't know how to put it back together again. Both are "stuck" in a sense, but they couldn't be more different in how they got there.

[brashcandy]

I posted this in the other thread, but it seems like a better fit here.

Here are the main differences between Stannis and Dany:

• Stannis is the legal heir to the Iron Throne. Dany is merely a pretender from a fallen dyansty seeking to reestablish that house's dominance over Westeros.
  

Dany isn't a pretender. She's a legitimate Targaryen heir seeking to conquer Westeros and reinstitute the Targaryen dynasty. Whether she can be successful in her conquest is one thing, but it's hardly a question of "right" or "wrong."

Stannis has already fought in one war of succession (and in a war to put down a rebellion), so he knows what these wars do to the realm. He only decided to enter the war on his brother's side after a difficult decision comparing what loyalty to one's monarch means, versus loyalty to one's family.

If he knows what wars do to a realm why is he so hellbent on perpetrating his ill fated cause? Because he thinks he knows what is best? That is the same kind of arrogant entitled attitude that Dany is often accused of having, whilst Stannis is portrayed as a just man. There's a glaring double standard in these critiques.

Stannis is a man for whom law and order are the all-consuming concerns of the crown. When he asserts royal prerogative or royal privilege, it is usually in the service of upholding the law and safety of the realm. He is not a man who sought the crown for his own aggrandizement, rather he accepts that as the legal heir to Robert, it is his duty to rule. This is a much more restrained view than the ones taken by other Iron Throne claimants.

Stannis has certainly done a good job in fooling others that he's all about duty, but in actual fact he's just as power hungry and entitled as any other claimant. The problem with Stannis is that he uses "duty" to excuse a number of injustices which just happen to further his cause. He continues to fight a war seemingly to prove that by sheer stubborness one can be successful and this is frankly scary. Whatever criticisms we can lay at Daenerys' door, she's at least attempting to end the blight of slavery in that region, and has delayed coming to Westeros to ensure Meereen's stability.

[Garlan Marius]

Dany inserted herself into the politics of a society that neither needed, nor sought, her interference.

It will be stated that the Ghiscari "needed" Daenerys to abolish slavery.

[Été]

Isn't that exactly the same with Stannis? And does Westeros need a ruler who is regarded as stiff, grudge bearing and unable to compromise whose only calm to the throne is based on his lineage?

Aside from those similarities there is also the sense of duty, a rather absolute sense of justice and punishment and a preparedness to take bold moves militarily but otherwise they strike me as rather contrasting figures. The unease middle son schooled to self-denial, all his emotions so tightly locked down that even his anger he can express only through teeth grinding while Daenerys can come across as more open and relaxed - certainly a far more approachable figure (on a good day).

You make a valid point about personalities, which points to another difference between Stannis and Dany. Dany wants to be loved by her subjects; Stannis doesn't care whether they like him or merely tolerate him, provided they respect his authority. Dany places too much faith in people who seem to like her (e.g. Brown Ben Plumm, Daario).

Stannis does need to work on his PR though, especially where the lords are concerned. But if Dany felt she wasn't commanding the respect or regard to which she feels entitled, do we have reason to believe she would be any less self-righteous? (Genuine question, not loaded.)

[Know Face Man]

Stannis and Roberts claims to the throne, was only because of their Grandmother, who happened to be a Targaryen. So the same blood runs in both Stannis and Dany.

Dany is a little girl trying to figure out how to rule, Stannis is trying to figure out why no one wants him to rule

[Garlan Marius]

Stannis and Roberts claims to the throne, was only because of their Grandmother, who happened to be a Targaryen. So the same blood runs in both Stannis and Dany.

This was the reason that Robert was chosen as the figurehead of the rebellion, but their claim is by right of conquest. If it is by right of "claim to the throne," then there is no question that Stannis comes before Daenerys in the line of succession.

[Dr. Pepper]

I'm glad you started this thread, bumps!. Due to the many thread derailments with the Stannis/Dany debate, I have been thinking a lot about the type of loyalty Stannis and Dany garner. I can't decide if the loyalty of their most leal subjects/servants is similar or different.

So, I've said multiple times on this forum that what other characters say about Stannis (that he inspires no love or loyalty) is a false view as we see that he does have intense love and loyalty of his men. They follow him against all odds, even into a blizzard with few provisions, and without the assurance they will receive any sort of specific riches as their reward. They are not bound to them with an oath similar to a Kingsguard or bloodrider vow nor were they originally bound to him in the form of slaves. And, well, Davos....self-explanatory.

Then we have Dany. Three of her closest subjects/servants came to her as slaves - Irri, Jhiqui and Missandei. Another three are bound by a specific type of blood oath - her bloodriders. The Unsullied came to her as slaves. Then there is Barristan (who came late to the game) is bound to her by a queensguard oath. She has picked up the Stormcrows via Daario and he appeals to be very loyal to her, though it's unclear if he does so based on a specific reward (sex with a dragon queen), and the Brazen Beasts' loyalty is also a bit unclear. At this point, her khalasar has been the only group that has followed her since her beginnings.

I admit I'm probably looking at this with a certain bias which is why I offer it for consideration. My question is, what does the loyalty of their subjects say about their character? Who inspires more or better loyalty? Does it matter? Upthread, Lummel brought up the difference in their approachability -namely that Dany (on a good day) is much more approachable. Does approachability and charisma mean much when considering questions of loyalty?

[Sevumar]

Dany isn't a pretender. She's a legitimate Targaryen heir seeking to conquer Westeros and reinstitute the Targaryen dynasty. Whether she can be successful in her conquest is one thing, but it's hardly a question of "right" or "wrong."

She is the heir to Viserys's pretense. At the time that Viserys became the heir to the leadership of House Targaryen, their dynasty had seen its end on the Iron Throne. The kingship was recognized by the Lords Paramount as passing to the Baratheon cadet branch. Dany's desire to rule carries with it a denial of that reality

[The Sleeper]

Character wise I find stannis very one dimensional and boring whereas dany is more interesting and multi dimensional.

At the moment dany's leadership style is a bit iffy. I reserve judgement of it until we see how and if she resolves conflict in meereen. Stannis is a good leader but easily manipulated by mel. But I am sure he would be a good king. He will probably die soon tho if not already as he is nowhere near a main character.

Somehow, somewhere most arcs are influenced by Stannis. Even though he was absent from the first book, Ned's fight was about delivering him the throne and before that he knew the secret Ned was looking for. In the second book, by having Renly killed and losing on the Blackwater he turns the whole war around on its head. In the third book he stops the seemingly unstoppable wildling invasion. Even with Dany. He is the only one alive of the block that dethorned her father (Robert, Ned, Jon Arryn, Tywin) and the one who chased her off Dragonstone. That is without accoutning his indirect influence. He is the character with single the greatest impact on the storyline.

[Sevumar]

Stannis does need to work on his PR though, especially where the lords are concerned. But if Dany felt she wasn't commanding the respect or regard to which she feels entitled, do we have reason to believe she would be any less self-righteous? (Genuine question, not loaded.)

This is an issue, but as I mentioned in a previous post, the person of Davos can go a long way to solving this problem. Stannis needs to learn to sit back, play king from a distance, and let Davos be his voice and face as Hand. You can see Davos's difficulty with how he should make the case for the man he loves in the chapter at the Merman's Court.

Davos has the skills that Stannis lacks, and his humble origins could be a bridge to gaining the support of common people once the rule is settled.

[starki]

As several posters pointed out in this thread, Dany's views are different for significant reasons. First, she's never lived in the land she wants to rule. She's an outsider and she doesn't seem to care about that fact. Beyond that issue, Stannis has shown that he understands the duty of a monarch to defend his people, while Dany doesn't seem to have a good grasp of any of the practicalities of ruling.

There's a huge difference here. Stannis answered the call of a realm in need. Dany inserted herself into the politics of a society that neither needed, nor sought, her interference. She made the mess, destroyed the culture of the region, and now she doesn't know how to put it back together again. Both are "stuck" in a sense, but they couldn't be more different in how they got there.

Well of course she didn't live there. She was forced to flee Westeros as a little child ! The duty to defend his people by the Wall in ADWD ? Daenerys would have done it too. True, otherwise it's all "they will bend the knee or I will destroy them" (including his own brother). Just like anyone else in the books wanting to be King or Queen.

Could have sworn people in the East were quite happy to be freed from slavery ("Mother! Mother! Mother!" scene comes to mind). Just because it was always around doesn't make it right. It's a ruler's job to empose just conditions for living. The easier route would be to run off on ships and sail away to Westeros. Mess only came about because the slave masters rebelled. Once she gets back to Meereen and activates the dragons she will fix it quickly.

[Chaircat Meow]

She is the heir to Viserys's pretense. At the time that Viserys became the heir to the leadership of House Targaryen, their dynasty had seen its end on the Iron Throne. The kingship was recognized by the Lords Paramount as passing to the Baratheon cadet branch. Dany's desire to rule carries with it a denial of that reality

I'm curious as where in the books its ever said that the Lords Paramount can 'legitimize' a new line or house as the royal line.

I get they've done this in practice but that doesn't mean Dany can't say they acted wrongfully, no? They would presumably have to be 'within their rights,' to do this, and I've no idea what their rights are regarding succession changes. There was no Great Council for instance (and I don't know whether they have this power either).

Mace recognized Renly as king, not Stannis and that doesn't mean Stannis was not rightfully king of the Reach, certainly not in the eyes of his supporters on these boards.

So, I'm a bit confused.

[LuisDantas]

Personality-wise they are very different indeed, as are their circunstances.

Daenerys is very young and inexperienced even for her age, yet she keeps finding herself in influential positions - basically because she does not know what else she could do with her life. It does not seem that she even wants to return to Westeros, much less westle the Iron Throne from the Lannisters or anyone else.

In that respect she couldn't be more unlike Stannis, who just can't accept that he is not King.

That difference has some effect on the significance of one of their few similarities, namely their recourse to ethically questionable means of obtaining soldiers. Both of them acted on bad faith (Daenerys in Astapor, Stannis at Storm's End), but while Daenerys simply does not understand how dangerous that is, Stannis must be assumed to know full well how much he shamed himself by killing Renly and later Cortnay Penrose.

Daenerys' tale is the story of a girl who just couldn't know better yet had to try - and pretty much blew it.

Stannis' tale is the story of a man who should have known better and probably did, yet succumbed to his own cravings for power and importance. He never deserved to succeed, yet he has been incredibly succesful all the same.

Stannis' corruption has been impressively quick and, according to some, may even be healing as of late (I disagree). Daenerys' is a far more gradual and helpless affair, driven by the circunstances around her.

[Garlan Marius]

The duty to defend his people by the Wall in ADWD ? Daenerys would have done it too.

Where is the evidence for this statement?

[brashcandy]

She is the heir to Viserys's pretense. At the time that Viserys became the heir to the leadership of House Targaryen, their dynasty had seen its end on the Iron Throne. The kingship was recognized by the Lords Paramount as passing to the Baratheon cadet branch. Dany's desire to rule carries with it a denial of that reality

Calling her a pretender implies that she is someone like Aegon, purporting to be a true Targ descendant who would have been eligible for the throne. As I noted, she has a right to try to reclaim the throne that she views as being usurped by Robert Baratheon. She plans on doing so by conquest and isn't naive like her brother to believe the realm will rise for it's "rightful" ruler.

[Sevumar]

Well of course she didn't live there. She was forced to flee Westeros as a little child ! The duty to defend his people by the Wall in ADWD ? Daenerys would have done it too. True, otherwise it's all "they will bend the knee or I will destroy them" (including his own brother). Just like anyone else in the books wanting to be King or Queen.

Maybe Dany would have gone to the wall to answer the call of the Night's Watch. Maybe she wouldn't have. We can't know for certain since she wasn't in a position to know about the realm's problems or to answer. Stannis did and he deserves recognition for it.

When reading Stannis's remarks about others, it's clear that he doesn't want to have to kill those who follow other claimants, but he will fight if he has to. His choice to use sorcery against Renly rather than fight a bloody battle against him shows that he tries to preserve the lives of people whenever possible. He has the option of not pardoning those who were sworn to other claimants, but he accepts them into his ranks without punishment. Pragmatism and a desire to avoid bloodshed guide Stannis's decisions when possible, but he is not afraid to wage war against those who would try to put the realm in the hands of a king with no claim.

Could have sworn people in the East were quite happy to be freed from slavery ("Mother! Mother! Mother!" scene comes to mind). Just because it was always around doesn't make it right. It's a ruler's job to empose just conditions for living. The easier route would be to run off on ships and sail away to Westeros. Mess only came about because the slave masters rebelled. Once she gets back to Meereen and activates the dragons she will fix it quickly.

Some are glad to be free, while others try to sell themselves into slavery. Xaro makes an excellent point about this in Dance. The situation in Slaver's Bay is a direct result of Dany's actions in Storm and beyond. She made the mess and now she has no idea how to clean it up.

[Knight]

Great thread, thanks for starting this.

Apart from the fact that both their claims on the Iron Throne can be seen as legitimate, what I think is the most important similarity between Dany and Stannis is their ability to enforce power through some form of magic - Dany through her dragons, Stannis through Melisandre. In terms of power politics I think this is quite significant, especially because both characters seem to act from a utalitarian view - each perceives their claim to the Iron Throne as most beneficial for the whole of Westeros. Such a stance justifies morally dodgy actions in order to reach the goal both are striving to.

Who then, is more aware of the consequences of one's actions in regard of morality? Or, in other words, who is willing to push the limits the most in order to reach his or her goal? These are some questions I'd love to expand on in this topic. I'd like to re-read the Davos and Dany chapters before I dare analyzing their assumptions of morality though. Maybe another poster can shed some light on this?