Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About frenin

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If Shireen was a somewhat adult, healthy male. Maybe. But Shireen's a child, a girl in a sexist society and very sickly in an ableist society. Shireen's simply not a threat, no one in his sane mind would support her over Renly.
  2. It's a good way to say you don't know. People are less likely to rush when in peace and we don't even know Selyse's exact age. It's perfectly likely that they waited both of themto be ready but the war just got in between, The only marriage after the Robellion that was shaped by the politics of it, it0s Robert's and we're told that. The job being hard doesn't mean it's not an honor. Both Cat and Luwin saw it as such and it has been historically viewed as such. Because, he's not married and he form new alliances, he's not a toddler (there is a difference between Aegon and Maegor and Joffrey, there is a reason Daeron inherited just fine). And no one wabt Stannis if they can avoid it. In one instance the paternity of a child had as much weight as his age, in the other instance a mad man would rather his infant son over his toddler grandson... who he was planning to get killed- If Edric was just a bastard sure, a legitimized bastard whose father acknowledged as heir is a different beast. The throne would normally go to him in case of no trueborn children. Hmm it's not. Else young heirs would get passed always. And yet they were supported by half the kingdom, lost the first rebellion by a hair and even after they were losing every rebellion they still counted with support. The Blackfyre argument was that Aegon chose Daemon when he gave him the sword of kings. He was specifically allowed to pick a bride and the only reason the betrothal wasn't overruled was because the regents refused to do so. No, we can expect them to say anything about Stanni's mindset once they appeared. They do thinkabout his mindset quite a bit. But this time. - So, Ned doesn't think the Lannisters are going to kill him. -He still abandons his brothers once he sees he's not going to be made Hand. - He refuses to do his duty, that we all should regardless the risk. - He refuses to contact with Ned even when he was well aware of the bond his brother and him shared. And the Lannisters can build a fleet to meet him there. If the Lannisters were to believe him a threat to be eliminated, they don't lack of the time or resources to try and finish him. Yet, he never shows that he was ever afraid in the first time. So, Ned actually doesn't believe he is going to die by the Lannisters. Cersei tries to bribe him, she doesn't threaten him and Ned does not feel affected by it. At any rate, Ned believes he is going to be murdered even tho he was blatantly following Arryn's footsteps. Ad he was told he was being spied on. There's no difference between them. An established M.O of one instance?? That is not how you draw patterns. Staying when she's there and leaving when she's not in questionable, to say the least. Stannis can't arrest Cersei without Robert's blessing, for none of those actions. The only way he actually can do that is if Robert's out of town. But if Robert and the Hand are out of town, the most senior Baratheon around gets to rule the Realm, as happened with Renly in AGOT, Stannis does not need that. If Stannis is made Hand he can be killed within the hours anyway wihout him ever having the time to bring anything to light. It's not actually. He has the power if the King actually bestows him that power. Tyrion had the advantage of having the power to ignore a minor king and having the power to cow Cersei with the Tywin card. We know from Aerys &Tywin Alysas-Jaeharys & Rogar Baratheon how effective a Hand really is when the King/Regent is not on his side. Even Unwin Peake, who controlled the city, was made completely ineffective once the regents became fed up with him and the only way he had to gain control was to place one of his men as regent. When the king is not around maybe. But the Hand sure as hell cannot order the arrest of the Royal Family without the biefing the king first. Hmmm no, you're cherry picking. Ned's logic didn't have in account many of Stannis's thoughts and actionsand you don't have in account either. Reaching a conclusion based on flawed logic with insufficient data is not a good way of arguing. We never hear him speaking of fear either. Yet both of them were investigating the same thing and the fact that Arryn demanded the book doesn't mean he was not aware of its existence. Unless you're arguing that Arryn for some reason hid info from him. Sure, Ned as Hand preventing Robert from dying actually affects his odds of becoming king greatly. Choosing Edric/Mya ahead of Stannis, or remarrying to produce heirs of his own does not go against any tradional system so, the point is moot. What Stannis says and the truth are different matters, fact is Robert could have prevented Stannis from getting the throne had he actually wanted to. - It doesn't. He still was moved to prove to Robert that his sons were bastards. - Once Arryn died and he felt snubbed by Robert yet again, things changed. - Stannis abandons his brothers expecting to die, refuses to share a valuable info that could not only save their lives but to bring the Lannisters to an end much faster, he steals the Royal Fleet, he calls his banners and starts hirings sellswords. Waiting for Robert's death. - Stannis is fixated on duty as much as he is on ambition, jealosy and avenging past slights. -Had Stannis been fixated on duty he would have tried to inform Robert after he was denied the position of Hand, we know what he didn't do. - The only reason Martin call him righteous is because he is fighing the others which the only advantage he has, giving that Stannis is also fighting for the throne and that only Tyrion and Varys were ever informed about that threat is a meagre advantage. Him going against the Lannisters. Nope, he did only once Ned was given the office of Hand. Yet, Stannis does not mind that. He actually minds Ned. Stannis was 18 at the time and inexperieced, he is not that now. And no, you're not trying to interpret the characters, because there is no reason to assume Stannis would have behaved the same way. Especially when we're given a reason why they might not to. In fact expecting that you will behave the same ways on events that are 15 years apart betwenn them is not a safe bet. We know for a fact that Stannis was very much bothered with that decision. Stannis resents Ned for being close to Robert. The notion that he should have behaved the same is actually a surprising one. Stannis does not crave Robert's bond with Arryn, he craves the one with Ned. Stannis doesn't resent Robert's bond with Arryn, he resents the one with Ned. Stannis doesn't feel entitled to Robert's attention and honors towards Arryn, he does with Ned. How would his reaction not be way worse with Ned? Because the Lannisters were cutting loose ends and the biggest and more dangerous one was Robert? So, he didn't steal them then? Robert doesn't seem to care about Stannis in general. He does not pronounce his name once, Ned does mind about the fleet however. It was their joint investigation however. You spend far more time doing the latter than the former. The former is a simple presentation. What he could've done.* Except in AGOT when he does not do his duty and he's overtly disloyal. How is not a super personal matter?? Do i have to quote you Stannis's rant about Ned's and Robert's bond again? No, but he can try and claim the Stormlands and from there, it's the Blackwater all over again. Especially because Renly was in KL with Robert and was unlikely to survive him, him becoming LP right away. Even if he did survive, Stannis has proven that he sees Renly's allegiance and the Stormlord's as must. So, theoretically, the Stormlords, the Royal Fleet and the sellswords are quite a nice combo to fight the Lannisters. Does Ned also believe that Robert was going to spontaneously combust? Because that's the only way Stannis actually benefits from the succesion crisis. If Robert dies soon enough without trueborn heirs,, or having chosen an heir himself. Jaime also believed that his kids could still keep the throne if he revealed the world the twincest and that nothing was going to happen to him. Cesei was particularly afraid and was trying to get Robert killed. Which he would have never done without Lysa. They hate each other? That's a new one. They don't need to be in cahoot for Petyr to accidentally let him now what was transpiring. Nope, I'm claiming that because Stannis was preparing for his brother's death. That he never shows or hints fears is just the cherry on the top. Pycelle didn't think Cersei was going to kill Robert, neither LF seemed to know, neither did Barri or Renly. Varys did know however. How and why if Robert doesn't know there is something bad going on? Words that are not really meant seriously. Oh, this bit is my bad. In the spanish translation it is indeed translating as curse. But here is just something unwelcome. The Hand of the King has that power if he is on the same page with the King, being Hand did not serve Ned one bit once Robert died. He almost get her and her family killed. How would you describe him? Yet not a threat. When Robert dies, Renly inmediately opts to seize Joffrey to assert Ned's control over the Kingom. Prior to Robert's death Renly wants Robert to set Cersei aside. If he had stuck around his men added to Ned's would have been overrun by the the Lannisters and the Gold Cloaks. He has never given a sign of him minding Joffrey at all. There is no evidence of Stannis ever fearing Cersei, yet you try to disclaim both Renly's and Cersei's words? How so?? Robb's cause is clearly doomed and he still goes by that. You call king to those you acknowledge as such. Robb never acknowledged either Baratheon brothers nor the Baratheon brothers acknowledged him. When Cat actions or words do not favour Stannis you remind she's not a valid interlocutor, when they do you point bring her up. Robb himself wouldn't. And none of them mattered enough. The Martells did. Robert had one defeat and managed to keep most of his army and retreated in good order. Stannis's army was almost wiped out. It's not as if he kept his army orderly enough, is that some of them died so Stannis could flee. Sure, we now have a proper name for them. Stannis broke a camp of refugee. Which were actually the reason Mance's host was so vast. That and the fact that they actually made a proper strategy to counter the French, they did not rely of the experience of months of war. Nope, the reason was able to destroy the new orce raised in the Westerlands was because he caught them unprepared. Sae reason why he defeats Jaime. The visions of Renly's and Penrose's deaths are only discussed in a "she said" manner. And Stannis sure as hell doesn't get to see those very particular visions. Those visions are a blatant code for "I know because i'm going to kill them". So blatant that Cressen and a Davos who has missed half the party are able to tell right away. So is Stannis stupid now or was Maving having him lie when he specifically said that he did not believe in gods? It did actually. We are not told that Ned had to race Tywin to reach KL, only that Tywin reached the city before, it was Rhaegar's death wihich prompted Tywin to join the rebels and Pycelle to allow him get in, it was Rhaegar's death what make the Freys join the rebels. Aerys was a dead man walking. So, he doesn't claim it acually. Viserys is a long regency. And do you know the saying about broken clocks right? You're acting as if an accident could be called a plan. Well, he talked about smell not looks. Sure but he wasn't doing it unto his own children and wife. He actually tried to get his grandsons killed. No it wasn't. The wildfire was planted way before the Trident, they were in fact planted to burn the city down and regarding Tywin and Aerys we have this bit about Rhaegar. He only comes to believe Tywin is there to save him when he is at his gates and Pycelle convinces him he is there to save him. He didn't even know Tywin was moving. And he also had an insane father, which was a no no. Other people being maesters or disable made things easier for them. No, he act like it was a priority for the Lannisters to bleed off. He's not wasting time actually but k. Renly echoes that propaganda as means to hurt Stannis for shaming him for being gay. Renly does not publicly claim that it is true that the fool is Shireen's father. Renly doesn't say that because he's cynical he says that with the objective of being hurtful. He doesn't bring the rumour before or after. Why would he?? He's made clear that he doesnt care about it. Him actually supporting the incest tale actually benefits him. If anything, after the letter came out and Stannis remained just as alone, it should have been proof to him that no matter what, Stannis would not be supported with him around. Yep. marriage can be dissolved and friendship, it's not that he has Loras but that half his army swore to a king, not a lord. In this case it is, since we're not talking about a camp of refugees. Renly was not really caring about the Lannisters preparing themselves for him. He was banking on Robb wearing them down, if not defeating them for him, and him starving the city. I don't really know what Stannis have to do with Renly's mindset but k. The time for negotiation is the exact same for Petyr, which only means that Stannis may take the city just to lose it little after. If Stannis doesn't get entertained with Storm's End, there is no telling whether Tywin would go after him or after Robb, GRRM also set things up so Stannis could have a chance. And Renly doesn't care and where it's said that Renly believed Stannis unlikely to have a son again? It's fortunate then that we have more info than Robb. With the alliance still standing and with a "Baratheon" son of Robert to fullfil his part, Stannis is still screwed. An army that he cannot feed. A navy?? Stannis lost most of said navy thanks to the chains and given that the Redwyne hostage is as good as dead thanks to Cersei, the Redwyne fleet is soon coming for him. Meanwhile he doesn't have neither the Reach nor the Riverlands, he is starving. When did Robb say that he would attack the Tyrells again? Missed that part. It's unlikely thay he can seize the rest of the crownlands before Tywin arrives, even if he does. Joffrey is hidden. He doesn't even know were to look. He can't even know that he wasn't killed and his body simply is not being found. Stannis has been claiming that for a good while and it has been irrelevant. Stannis would like Aegon 2 after the Muddy Mess. Cersei and Sansa and all those fine hostages are going to die before he even gets to the Red Keep. Cersei ordered Payne to kill them all if Stannis were to win. All in all, Stannis is doomed to fail. It was an army of refugees that would simply overrun the the Wall, ditto with the North. If i let 200k refugees in your borders without any type of supervision. their sheer size would mean havoc. When? Renly doesn't have that standing. You know, newcomer, newly proclamed king... He's not taking the throne. Sure, you can make that connection with the Kingsguard, which is the counterpart for the Praetorian. Oh yes, Renly bad becausehe's not an intellectual and he likes sex. So that means Renly is never going to listen to him, yet another slippery slope. Given that Renly does listen to his reasons of why he should defeat Stannis now and that Loras excelled at the van... Moot. Sure and Stannis was calling Robb green and toothless. People make mistakes especially the arrogant ones like Renly, he doesn't really need Stannis anyway No, you said that the fact that he didn't want to submit to Stannis is a sign that he didn't want get rid of Cersei. Which is the same thing. Can you point to me where it's said that Renly wanted to be king since he was a child? That part sure is new. Except that Renly himself says otherwise and so tell us his actions. Do you think so? Did Robb always want to be king because he gets attached to the persona later on? Saying that he'd be a better king than his brothers is not a sign that he always wanted it. How so? A 100k army was coming down to a starving city. Could Stannis have refuse? The minute Stannis refused to tell Robert about the twincest, he asked for it. If Renly's men are helping Ned to stage a coup, then Renly and Ned are in it together, so Cersei has to act against both. That does not mean that Renly continues holding the children once things have cooled down or once Ned's confirmed as regent. This Renly denies and it's completely impossible to guess from that bit. Yet you keep twisting those words to get a b from an x. He doesn't portray it as both him and Ned controlling the children and thus having the power. Yes he does actually, once Selyse puts that idea in his head. Selyse outright calls that act begging in her presentation!! What are you even arguing? As a waste of time and as a child's play. Ofc she thinks that because she actually wants those armies to move against the Lannisters asap. Harsh? Sure but he's harsh with everyone and Selyse especially is accostumed to that, He does not dismiss her right away, in any stretch of imagination, he actually discusses the logistics of the murder and is hooked once he knows that is actually possible to kill Renly. She isn't brought to Renly. Renly dies miles away of her. Yet he still dies in Storm's End. She could have killed Renly in Dragonstone if not. Since when?? Her ability is part of that religion and Stannis is not presented as someone who believes in her. Hell, in his conversation with Davos he makes clear that he doesn't know whether Meli is for real or not but that he's willing to use her because she terrifies grown men, By giving him what he wants? Because Stannis wanted both Renly's army and Edric. Those were established goals to get and hold the throne. Why? Meli can come up with bs excuses anyway ad she certainly and her babies are not an impediment for Stannis to kill people for his goals. I did not say that Stannis ordered it, I said that that was a way she had to show him it was possible, Sure and Cressen has not heard about a battle but about a murder plan. What are the odds? If Stannis were to kill Renly in battle he wouldn't have waited that much wondering about what to do. Unlike Renly, Penrose isn't his brother and a him being assasinated is far less egregious than it is to assasinate Renly, If the Srormlords had have a reason to suspect Stannis had a hand in dear Renly's murder... do you think they would have served him? He attributes the knowledge about Penrose being murdered to Melisandre, yep the man is indeed either stupid or zealot. Why would Renly reject the idea? Renly did not believe Stannis had a chance regardless the hour of the day. Neither he actually had. He sets a time and kills his brother before said time. It says that. Stannis is openly discussing Renly's murder. Stannis wants Renly's army. Stannis is fine with Renly dying if that gets him the army. Stannis is told that Meli's "visions" mean fratricide. There is no discussion whatsoever of a battle. Stannis is sleeping while his men are awake. Stannis is lying about his involvement in Renly's death. Stannis orders an clear assasination with the same code words. Stannis says that Penrose seems hale and hearty... like his brother before his death and that the night is dark and full of terrors. Davos can tell right away that he's being ordered to assist on a murder. Eddard Stark, Barristan Selmy and all of Westeros. Killing a brother in a battle is frowned upon but it's certainly way way better than murdering in his tent because you were too afraid to face him in battle. Except the nights he killed Penrose and Renly, when he did it for lust and murder. She sure was. And Davos is not needed to give it birth to it so... Stannis wants Edric just as much as Melisandre did, albeit for different reasons at the beginning. I think this is obvious enough. Trick to what? Stannis simply rathers to murder him. No, the simple truths that he is unknowingly conspiring to commit murder. Given how easily both Davos and Cressen come to see the truth behind their words you would think that Stannis who isn't stupid would have noticed that something was sketchy, Yet stupidity or zealotry. He didn't expect it to win with the sword. He is simply saying that the sword is just fancy and that's all. But it's not explicitly given as a reason to not avenge Ned Stark. The rant about Ned and Robert and how jealous he is, it's the rcplicit reason he gives for his behaviour. There are two parts of the conversation, in one Robb's is mentioned by Stannis in the other he is completely ommited. No, just that he doesn't feel like avenging Ned. ? No, Stannis says it to get brownie points, just as he lies with Renly and Robert desperately wanting the throne while he's only duty, that's why he says... The Realm knows about the little love there is between either of them, it's not like Stannis has a crowd to kid. And Stannis actually says Jon that he loved Robert anyway. It's only with Cressen when we actually get to see how embittered he is with his brothers, with Ned, with all. This is something we don't get to see again and it's obvious why, Cressen dies. Tarly does tho.
  3. A social role it's not the same as a psychological one, even as of today in western societies eldest brothers continue to give away their sisters in absence of a father, That doesn't mean they are expected to be the father by the siblings. Especially grown ones Hoster is the head of his clan and acts like that, but neither him nor Brynden believe he is some sort of a father to him. We don't even know who married Stannis, for all we knoe both him and Robert were following an earlier arrangement made by Steffon. The Handship is actually both. So, he's actually not making any offer in your own words. In exchange of his massive army and the obvious role of kingmaker... Renly gets... nothing he didn't already have. Nothing. Yet one cannot randomly strip the lands and titles of the other. Yes, that's a point of his favor. I'm sorry i'm not impressed by your two very exceptions. Roose Bolton is the definition of a psychopath, i don't really believe he is the go to in this case yet suit yourself. The Starks, the Arryns, the Lannisters, the Hightowers, the Gardeners, the Baratheons,the Targaryens ,the Tyrells... They all favored regency in one point or another. Bastards are disfavored, legitimized bastards not so much. as the multiple Blackfyre Rebellions would attest. A legitimized bastard kid with the disposition of Renly and Robert, whom evertone loved is still a far better option than Stannis, whom no one likes. Nope, that's not said. Him having grown sons as heirs is indeed an strong argument in his favour, regardless whether it's mentioned or not. Stannis's only heir is a litle girl with an incurable disease. Robert has already picked a regent for his heir and it's up to said regent to choose. They were on Dragonstone precisely because of Stannis. As in Stannis could have dispatched them if he ever wanted to do so, he didn't want to. Davos certainly wasn't Hand material by then, but he was indeed his only confidany by that time, So, Ned actually does not believe the Lannisters are going to kill him even after he tells them that he knows their secret. That doesn't mean that Stannis had the same thought of process Ned did, just to prove that your fight or flight approach isn't the only logical conclussion to draw. Especially not when Stannis never shows being afraid for his life, never says he is afreaid for his live, never hints he's afraid for his life. I don't know what this has to do you with what i said. So i'll repeat myself. You came up with the former before you brought up the latter. But no, i don't believe that you made up the concept rather than just repeating it. ? I think that much is clear but her goons are more inactive once she's not there and her actions can be carried out far more easily when she's there. Besides,Stannis being Hand doesn't magically make him immune to being assasinated. Any member of the Coucil can act with the powers of the King as long as the King is bestowing him that power, Renly was the one ruling the country during Robert's absence. Stannis wouldn't have any more power to act against Cersei as Hand that he would have as Master of Ships, he would have to go through Robert first anyway. Cersei was not afraid of Ned being given that position because he would be acting with the power of a king, she rather specifically feared Ned's possible influence over Robert, especially if the twincest came to light. Stannis was hiring sellswords and calling his banners at that point. Both Varys and Cressen tells us so. Stannis was preparing for war. Not being paranoid over a made up assaination plan. Sure he has. Fear is always a powerful factor that is usually brought up, not hidden under the mat and never talked about it never again. Stannis being afraid for his life yet neither him nor his circled ever bringing that up borders the impossibility. And for us to believe he was under such conditions is more an act of faith rather than any rational conclussion. Actually no, Him being afraid for his life is exactly what anyone would expect to see. What i can't do is assuming what he was feeling, if i don't have any clue, which is exactly what you're doing. No, you claimed that he would distrust Pycelle based on a behavior we have no reason to believe Pycelle displayed before and the conclussions other character came up with. The only time shows himself to be obviously pro Lannister is during Gregor's trial (which not really but whatever) he does not show to be obviously pro Lannister in any other scene prior that, unless we have a reason to believe similar events happened. hen your argument is simply moot. Stannis doesn't need to trust Pycelle for him to send a letter via him, he simply needs to believe him a regular maester. Stannis does never mention Pycelle when he talks about the bad apples of the council. Fair enough. Well, his evidence is exactly the fantasy version of Mendelian genetics. It's the exact evidence that makes Ned understand the truth. Stannis doesn't care whether Ned lives or dies, so yes, he doesn't lose anything. And Stannis actually has a motive for it, It only takes Stannis saying Ned that Jon Arryn was murdered for Ned to be suspicious, especially because Ned's predisposed against King's Landing. And even you have understood that Stannis is only the heir if Robert wants him to be by this point, so i'll simply ignore this bit. Stannis wanted Robert to be killed without having the chance to ruling (properly) over his succesion. Stannis wanted to be king by that point. What?? Ned was already predisposed against the Lannisters by then and Lysa telling his sister about the Lannisters serves just as much. Stannis knows that Ned is going to be named Hand and he is done with Robert, unless ofc you're telling me that Stannis believe Ned could have been killed by the Lannisters... in Winterfell. In which case, this new goalpost is hilarious. Because he didn't want Robert by then. You see people can and do have different thoughts and behaviour depending of the context. Robert ignoring Stannis, yet again, for Ned, yet again, was the straw that broke the camel's back. A point of no return if you will. He decided to leave Robert to his fate, one he knew was almost certainly death, he stole his fleet, he refused to make any contact whatsoever to people that would have solved the conflict and started pre`paring for the war of succesion that would result with his death. He didn't convice Jon Arryn, he convinced him to investigate it, since at that point Stannis only had suspicious, the time and resources required to explain or prove the viability of a theory are certainly less than the time required to determine whether it's viable or not. Stannis could have taken the book had he ever wanted to and he did it. The book is only proof that there is basis for conspirancy, the bastards already confirm the evidence.If Stannis had taken the book to Ned, he would have already read it by the time he reached KL. Because he belives he's being mistreated and neglected yet another time and he's sick of it. Not all drastic decisions require really big changes, a wrong word or action at the wrong time have lead and still lead people to do atrocities. Sure but Joffrey is a bastard and the Lannisters are despised enough for Stannis to sway doubters, option that disappears when both Renly and Robb crown themselves dragging 3/4 of the Realm with them. Unless Robert were to spontaneously combust upon hearing the news and killing Cersei and the kids, that idea doesn't hold any water. Because people were stumbling on the secret. They hadn't kill Robert in all that time because no one apparently knew about the secret, with people starting to suspect them. The only way to protect them all is to kill Robert. Robert is a rather important loose end. Which is stupid on his part, it doesn't change his motives. We know for a fact Stannis was already preparing for the war long before it started. He calls his banners and hires sellswords long before mess started. He was never banking on Ned discovering the twincest so... Ned had no reaso whatsoever to discover the twincest, and it took twelve years and LF for Stannis to start suspecting something was aloof. We know that Stannis was not afraid for his life, that's the pre requisite. Hmm fair enough. Since both are high treason, both serve just as well. He was abandoning his brother to die, Because NOW people are starting to suspect the children, The quickest way to make sure that the Lannister die is for someone to tell Robert, with Joffrey on the Throne, such problem is greatly minimized. The Small Council didn't know or had any reason to believe that Robert's days were numbered, Stannis did. They simply assume Stannis was throwing a fit and would return within time, The latter, we have already discussed about gestures to the gallery and the actual truth. Stannis calls Robert a curse. No, he simply abandoned him to a certain death. So he did do something to him. I don't really believe i have to explain why abandoning your brother to danger is shitty with in world examples, since it's a universal concept but... When arguing whether Ned should go to King's Landing or not, the inmorality about abandoning someone he regarded as a brother in the hands of those who wanted to kill them, is used by Cat to convince him. He doesn't believe Jon Snow as one of her more ravenous enemies, certainly not like Arryn, Ned or Tyrion. She doesn't believe Bronn is and she also plots to kill him. And Stannis says that Robb is a green boy, ie and inexperienced soldier not to be feared in battle. So, what i was saying. ??? There is a difference between a proposition made by the characters and a proposition made by the readers. We know that Renly fears Cersei and we know that Cersei sees him as an enemy. How that started? Why that started? We simply don't know now. This is a fact. You are not arguing for a propsition made, or hinted even, by the characters. You're coming up with your conclussions and believing they should count just as much. This is a theory. No, we don't know. Yes, it's completely pointless to argue it since we know nothing about their relationship and Robert's reign in general. Legitimacy does matter but it's in own context. Legitimacy does not matter more than swords and legitimacy cab be and is bent all the time by simple reality. So, she actually can voice her own opinions but before she didn't care that much... Yes, after both Tywin and Robb invade it. The Riverlands are not a theater in the war before the war starts. No, he said that peace maybe would have been possible with Lords Stannis. None of those words hint that Stannis recognized Stannis, else he wouldn't be calling him Lord, nor hint that he would have bent the knee. Else he would have talked about the certainty of peace, as easy as bending the knee. Not all support is based on swords, acknowledgment is too a powerful weapon. The Martells acknowledging Joffrey meant that he was not only recognozed by his family. That's the definition of support. No one actually claims that Stannis's actions are due to command ability. They all recognized the toughness of it tho. No He raised a navy to attack Dragonstone and he ended up taking an empty castle because the Targs had already fled. Stannis did win the loyalty of the Narrow Sea lords and kept him in check, which is indeed impressive. Oh, that's true. My bad, he wins thrice. No, him bringing ships to sisterton to hang smugglers is not a military victorie. It's embarassing to argue that. He was crushed badly at the Blackwater and even before that, the valyrian chain had alreay left him a Blackeye. Stannis runnin away with his fleet is now a prove of victory? He beat refugees. wow. Yet again winning against severely outbumbered foes. So my bad. He wins four times. We'll not dive in on the hows bur that much is true. Not a good resume tho, Yet he has only won twice before the Blackwater. It is odd that someone who has only fought a handful of times is called experienced. This is an in world practice so i'm not really bothered by it. I simply wanted to prove that the difference between experienced and inexperienced isn't really that great. Nope, he is told that Renly would be killed and he would get his army, later Davos convinces him to go North, Stannis is not a godly man, si he would need reassurances for those plans. This is true even in ASOS, it's true in ACOK. Stannis commands Renly to yield him and he grants him nothing. And then he assasinates him when he doesn't comply. No shit, she had already killed Renly and ordered Davos to assit to perform the same trick. There was no premonitions, there were premeditated murders in which Stannis gladly took a part in. And Stannis does oblige once he gets assurances. Yet the war ended with the latter's death. Which he claims in what moment exactly?? Not wanting this or that regency. We know he dislike his sister because she smelt dornish and we know he actually tried to incinerate him, along with his mother and sister. We also know that Aerys liked Viserys. He certainly was not using them as leverage when he decided to burn King's Landing to theground with them in itm while sending away Viserys and his pregnant wife. The others were not really a competition, Aemon could have been, and a very strong one had he actually liked it, but he did not want the throne. Which would be usefull if one of them was on the throne or if one of them was trying to get another off it. The kids were on the throne and so they were the priority. Because their family would only accept it by force. They were broken after the fact. Renly has said armies and those of the Reach, thus he is far better suited to achieve his plans if he stick to his course rather than bending to Stannis. That without saying that the Tyrells become a very dangerous wildcard that can bite them in the ass, just as it happened to Stannis. That without the fact that the only reason Stannis was ever that threat was because Tywin was heading West and couldn't know that Storm's End would fall so soon, if Tywin knows that the brothers have allied, he goes straight to KL and then the Stormlands alone are certainly not sufficient. Yet and just for the sake of arguing, if Renly and Stannis can take KL and get rid of Cersei with 25k men it stands to reason that Renly can too take KL and get rid of Cersei with 4 times those numbers. Thus Renly does not need Stannis and the only thing he gains by subduing someone who resents him and does not like him at all is fulfill a weird sense of obedience. Why is that the question?? Stannis taking KL doesn't mean he wins by default. While Tommen lives, the Tyrell-Lannister alliance is going to wipe him out. Army of refugees. I wouldn't count them as one would westerosi. Because the marriage has not been consumated and because they swore to a anointed king. If Renly can forgo his vows against the vassalss that swore to him, certainly it goes both ways. The Rainbow Guard is too a guard for the king, not for the lord of Storm's End. The marriage and the annointment means a point of no return, so why would he? Yes and neither he nor his vassals care enough about Stannis for that to be a reason for them to heed. It doesn't mean that. That's just the definition of a slippery slope. An apocalyptic scenario some fans like to pretend it's realistic. Renly has veterans in his army, Randyll Tarly is widely regarded as the best in the Realm. So, he doesn't really need him anyway. Renly believes that his numbers will carry the day and is expecting for both the Starks and Lannisters to bleed themselves out. He doesn't need Stannis, nor he believes he does. He already had that., or as much certainty as anyone can ask in this kind of game. I mean, Renly is indeed an arrogant young fellow but this idea that the only way Renly had to win was allying with Stannis borders hubris. I'm sorry, i'm lost at the part in which Renly or anyone for that matter says that he wanted to be king since childhood. And come on, Stannis lies a lot, to himself and to others, Renly is honest, be it fear or power grabbing. Stannis saying that he the crown is a duty he never asked for is a lie. He did ask for it and he does want it. The kingdom would be controlled by whoever controlled the king and those swords were Renly's and Ned's. So Ned's swords would be not only too controlling the King too but he was also nominally the one in control, never underestimate nominally power, then Ned is indeed in total control and Renly is indeed handing the Realm over to Ned. The rest is just a slippery slope scenario. What happens we see is Renly intending to hand the Realm over to Ned. As dear Stannis says, if is a word for fools, you can't poiny out to a nunber of apocalyptic scenarios. That doesn't change what indeed did happen. Btw, where does it say that Renly's swords would remain to do that even after Ned ascecnds as regent? Sure, it sounds like does not going to beg to anyone, It does sound like him actually agreeing with her and certainly Selyse thinks the same. He already determines his decision about not begging. Nope, Renly puts competitions to raise morale and Cat misinterpret it as such and even then, Cat talks about their behaviour during the dinner. Unblooded, young and naive and hopeful. That's a rather odd way of chiding, then again, Stannis is always doing rather odd things. Stannis genuily asks how Renly can die and how Renly can be killed surrounded by his men. Fair enough. She needed relative access. Renly was near enough, he is not killed at Dragonstone, he is killed in Storm's End, she needed to be nearer Penrose. Yeah she does, Stannis is not a believer and he needs a reason to throw his meagre to a suicide mission. Stannis actually uses her specifically for his political goals!!! She doesn't need to have done it with Stannis, she needs to simply tell him about it and explain him it's possible. Perhaps perfoming it with another person. Nope, Cressen does and he's right, just as Davos says as much and he's also right. Stannis doesn't say that Penrose is going to be killed... is Penrose not to be assasinated? Stannis never alludes to kill him with Lghtbringer... Why?? The best way to cover your tracks is to actually not giving anyone doubts about your behaviour. In fact it is because Davos suspects Stannis's behaviour that we can tell he's not telling the whole truth. Sure which i would believe if i hadn't read the prologue, or Davos's chapters. Even you would understand that killing someone in battle is different than murdering him in his tent. He had sex with Melisandre knowing that she would birth a shadow to kill Renly, just as he did with Penrose. That means Stannis is the culprit. Except that Stannis is guiding him in his sleep. Otherwise i'd agree. And we get Davos explictly thinking that he doesn't believe him. After he had killed him. His words hold like zero value but to each. He could have had him as proof, Stannis wants him just as much. He needs Storm's End to fall as he doesn't want people believing he was defeated and he still wants Edric. As Davos points, Stannis had men that would beat Penrose, he literally chooses to murder him. So Stannis is a zealot and stupid unable to see simple truths. That's a new one. But he does argue that. He doesn't believe in the sword's power. Nor was he needed to answer that. He simply needed to ask whether he wanted to avenge Ned or not and why. Now, you can go on and on but the truth is. Stannis doesn't say, "i won't avenge Ned Stark, i will do him justice". He doesn't say "I won't avenge Ned Stark because i don't want Robb to steak half my kingdom". Stannis states that Ned is nothing to him, that he doesn't feel like doing it and then he goes on a yet another petty rant about Ned and Robert. Stannis response is tied to how he feels about Robert and Ned, not his concept of justice, not Robb, not the current war nothing. Simply that he resented him from getting Robert's love. It has little to do with knowing them with differents amount of time. Is the level of trust he has with them, Stannis tells things to Cressen that he doesn't repeat to Davos, or anyone for that matter. Cressen suggests helping Robb to get vengeance and Davos certainly don't bring Ned up. Why would Tarly stop then?? He's not the one who shuts his mouth to others.
  4. 2) How do you know that those three were the only competent knights again?The Kingsguard may have commanded the men... because commanding the King's armies is a literal part of their job. And last time i checked, commanding an army has little to do with whether they like their commander or not. 3) Maybe maybe not. Maybe they never face each other in battle, maybe other warriors take then out. Maybe maybe maybe... 4) He could've commanded any battle of his army, center is not specific maybe he did maybe he didn't. 5) - I don't know how you know that. Princes and Kings and lords fight all the time. Maekar, Aegon 5, Jaeharys, Daeron, Robb, Steffon, Robb the list goes on. There's no point in marching to battle if he was not going to fight. - My headcanon?? I'm literally saying that we don't know and we simply cannot draw that conclusion. This whole discussion is about you treating your wishes as facts. 6) This is again made up. Why would they want to counsel him to endanger their lives?? One thing is that they had to go along with a bad decision another very different is that it came from them. 7) Maybe because they had seen Rhaegar there?? We don't know. Acting as if those are the only options is simply wrong and a fallacy i have no reason to oblige. 8) -They were ordered to be there. - It's not strongly suggested that they lost due treachery. - They still lose. Ie, not supermen. Very gifted warriors but that's that. 9) All of them are with their armour on, they are waiting for those men and the other literally is sharpening his blade before the battle. 10) I have never said that he was a megalomaniac. I stated that he was sure he was to come back. Which he was. The rest is up to you.
  5. 1) Yeah, I don't know about that. I'm just putting up the numbers. Martin's words are an estimate, he could've changed his mind later and rather than the numbers of the North and Dorne weren't similar. Yet, still the fact that a generation after the First Dornish War the first vulture King could gather an army 30k strong without any serious commitment from the most powerful Houses in Dorne points out that either Doran is lying or Martin changed his mind. 2) Lewyn's levies contributed mightily to the war effort, that's for sure. The only thing that we know about Barri is that he killed several men before being taken out himself and we don't even know how Darry perfomed. It's inmaterial at the end, they were all there and they were all taken out, the rebel leaders still standing even with a smaller army. And why without those three it would've been a rout from the start? 3) Why couldn't i?? War is not science. We cannot tell how they would have affected the battle or if it would've changed anything at all. 4) You're not saying anything, no offense. Army leaders don't just command the center, you have made that unwritten rule up. They may or they may not. It depends entirely of the battle preparations. 5) No, you're telling me what you wish it had happened. Their duel took place in the late stage of a long gruesome battle. I'd be very surprised if Rhaegar kept his lance since the very first charge. 6) I know his resume. What i do not know is why the rest of the vets wouldn't tell Rhaegar they believed he was gambly risking their lives. When someone is a veteran is by definition "seasoned". And your comparison between sargeants and general is really absurd in medieval context. Where command was given to Lords, heirs or great knights. 7) The only way?? Here again talking about your wishes as if there were fact. 8) Half the Kingsguard is just 3 men. Kingsguard doesn't mean super human. Ned and his six companions got there and killed them all the same. 9) ???? I'm saying that we don't know how they were there and what they were up to. The only moment we see them is in a context of them clearly anticipating a battle. We don't know how they were in any other context. The book says they were wearing their armour in one occasion, it certainly doesn't say they were always wearing it. 10) No, it's him believing he was going to come back and acting on said believe.
  6. I'm not ignoring anything. Aerys did use Elia as hostage against Lewyn, he did not use them against Doran so far we can tell. There is no possible coercion, Aerys reminds Lewyn that Elia is in his power, that's coercion. Nope, we are literally told that they needed reconcilement. That's the very definition of estrangement. How is it rumour?? Yandel is retelling historical events and he has a primary source in Pycelle. One thing is arguing that the evidence may be unreliable, don't really think so but more about this down below, another quite different is acting as if there was no evidence in the first place. We are told that literal factions existed within the court. Ofc they were no longer politically on the same side, How could they if the father feared the son was moving against him... and the son was actually moving against him? Daeron II remained the Unworthy's heir for his entire life, he was never disinherited and they both were always on the side of House Targaryen (this one is shocking, which side do you want them to be?) Does that mean that father and son were not political rivals?? Or should we dismiss all the evidence we have just the same? That's a terrible way to see a historical piece, there are for sure adultered parts but those tidbits in particular have no more reason to be adultered than Egg's reign. Robert hates them but he has absolutely no reason to be lied about father and son being on bad terms. He gains or loses little by it. It's stupid to try and lie to Robert, Robert was a grown adult during those times, he knows full well whether they were cool or not. He would be one of the lords invested in knowing about it, especially because they were his cousins and Storm's End is rather nearby. It's a private book, destined to be read by a handful of people, not a full blown propagand book destined to a broader audience. Most of the quotes are actually in time citations. Unless you wanna argue that Pycelle could see the future and knew that the Targs were going to be ousted from power when he wrote those letters, there is no merit on your argument. In summary there is no motive. Perhaps you have not read the quote. You sure you see no evidence of "political estrangement"?? And Pycelle is unreliable in this matter because... Him being Tywin's stooge has little to nothing to do with him lying or misleading at the time, since Tywin is nowhere to be found there. Why would he foment political estrangement?? And how is that "likely"? How do you even know he was? Why in the world would he exaggerate to make it bigger than it was instead of giving his personal opinion on the matter? Why can't it be his personal opinion again? Do you realize how many jumps you have given just to dismiss the argument?? That's simply spurious unless ofc you want to argue that Pycelle is lying because of things he would do in the future. That is simply a very absurd stance to hold. Oh did they now? They saw each other what once? Besides the phrase was purely idiomatic... We know that there were factions, we know that Rhaegar plotted to have his father removed from power, we know that they didn't reconcile at the time. Honesty... Yeah there is good evidence, you simply mislike it because you have decided this is the hill you will die on. Robert and Aerys would have been wonderful besties... Had Aerys not actively tried to kill him and had he not killed the Starks off. Then Robert wanted him dead in return and his best friend who had lost half his family wasn't very pleased either, suddenly father and son found themselves with pissed off rebels who wanted them both dead and half the realm against them. They could have: A) Join forces and become stronger Refuse and become easy pickings for the rebels that wanted both of them dead. I already have, you have decided that you don't like it and therefore it does not count as evidence. What premises?? It is a fact that Aerys distrusted Rhaegar. Rhaegar is still his heir, which is what disowning him is for. And Aerys did not believe him and ally until after the war had broken out. The enemy of my enemy is indeed my friend. Then again, i cannot pretend to rationalize the act of a mad and paranoid man after all. He saw the tree not the forest, too bad for him. ?? Viserys is the pretender in exile, those who believe in him would rally around him. That's what Viserys provides, It's a simple objective by objective game. 1) They want the Lannisters dead -> 2) Robert marries Cersei/The Lannisters become too strong to fall -> 3) If they want the Lannisters they need to go through Robert -> 4) They need to go through Robert's coalition -> 5) They need a figure capable of breaking said coalition and o creating another of similar might -> 6) Only a Targ pretender bring that to the table (potentially) -> 7) They go get that pretender. Ofc it's a risk but if there is no vengeance without risk and they are certainly not giving up on vengeance. There is no quid now. It's quid tomorrow and pro tomorrow. The bethrotal can always be cancelled and it is not about how you call it, it's about what it is. It is simply vengeance. When someone never mentions loyalty but always has revenge on his tongue... it is revenge. You'd expect a chance to profit. Which there is, however small it is. The investment is revenge which is purely emotional so... Well but ofc most of those you have mentioned are already pro Robert, even if they don't like the Lannisters, they are not going to abandon Robert because of it, i would not say that the Tullys were coerced into a coalition more than they were bribed into it, The Reach lords were soon enough bought in so unreliable. And the Reach lords were not beating Robert's coalition after the Lannisters jumped in, not even with the Martells. As i said, whether it's revenge or it's loyalty. They would have needed allies on the land, this bit is something everyone points out. Revenge takes time for Doran and he's a rather... patient man. How's this news to you that he'd choose the path he'd think the ost sure? Yeah and that basket is revenge, everything else, including the Targs? Only supporting. This is not difficult, you show a single time they talk about loyalty and then we can continue. Family not so much. Tywin is not just a faction, he's Robert's father in law. That's nearly impossible to break. That's the point about this dynastic marriages. His motivation is the destruction of the Lannisters, which is not going to happen. Ofc i can i just don't see where it happens, Where do the Targs look down on the Baratheons again?? I don't remember Egg, his sons, Aerys or Rhaegar ever doing it. The only times the Martells have cared about their blood is when it came to stealing dragons. And your point was that the Martells and the Targs were family, as a familiar tie 120 years old meant much for either of them. You mentioned familial ties, on the wrong assumption that either of them care much about, or better said on the wrong assumption that either of them should care about ties a hundred years long. I said other families had too. You changed your tune. No, but supporting policies that go against your interest is. The position of Hand of the King is for his son... who is the Hand of Egg's son. Jaeharys dismantled many of his father's policies so? Yes actually, Had he not been insulted he would have not rebelled. Arrogant asshole? For sure, but the very fact that a great lord like him supported his policies is astonishing. Sure Sure As a price for Dornish allegiance. 2 as a matter of fact. Every great house south of the neck supported the reds. The Baratheons were not crushed and given that Lyonel got a princess out of his entitlemet i don't think he was alineated fot long. Neither Baelor nor his heirs had a Martell bride, neither did Egg's heirs. So there is some 100 years between Daeron 2 (who by that time was not intended to be the heir) taking Mariah Martell and Rhaegar taking Elia. I still don't see why the rights are a factors buut. It certainly seem so, to the point of knowing what the characters are thinking because as of now, no one really cares much about that.
  7. I have literally given you the quote, the population north of Dorne doubled its size and White Harbour grew as well tho not at the same rate as King's Landing. I don't remember any long brutal winters keeping in check the population tho. Except they didn't. Barristan was there, nothing, Lewyn?? A living corpse by the time Corbray finds him, we don't even know how Darry fied except that he was cut down, we don't even know who did, it's inmaterial. That's how your kingsguard went down, unceremoniously, the idea that the other would have turned the tide is a nice what if. But just that. Until they are. This is war not science, an astray arrow, a lucky day from the foe, your horse trampling you... Each of themcould have taken dozens... or not. We have nothing on him and Whent that's how it is. He was surely a more than capable knight... Do you realize that while he hypes up Hightower and Dayne... He just says the name of the others?? Not commanding from the rear=/ especifically commanding the center. You're telling me what you wish would have happened. I find no reason to believe it's likely other than you wanting it to be. Lances are used for initial charges. One thing is clothes the other is a weapon we're never told he even used on the Trident. Only?? Based on... A vet is a vet and people are unlikely to die out of a foolishness. I'm not saying how many people knew about it, I'm stating that some certainly did, since Ned figured it out. Why would it be the only way?? You're assuming your own conclusions. She didn't have it. She had three men with her. That's the literal opposite of heavy guard. Again, some did know where she was. Else, Ned would have never found them. Unless the KG wore their white armour and were just parading around, it's pretty much impossible. Barristan is as famous as any man in Westeros and the only thing he needed to do to go incognito in a city he has live in for ¿40? years was simply taking his armour off. They wore their uniforms for battle, they were about to die and they sure as hell wanted to go put with fanfarre. Arys Oakheart does not wear his uniform in Dorne precisely because it's dangerous... They are incognito in Dorne and the Dornish are realy pissed about the whole fiasco... While would they push their luck? Well duh. That's the point. He thought he was coming back.
  8. Yes, especially during Jaeharys's reign. This is not a revolutionary concept, with more peace there is more grow. Great sure but enough to change the tide of a war? They were not god among men. If you say so. He would have killed several men before being killed, or he would have been killed right away who knows, whether that would have been enough to make a "significant contribution" however is pure wishful thinking. The only thing we know about Darry is that he was a Kingsguard, not that his name on his own had any type of renown. We literaly know about 4 knights that fought for the loyalists on the Trident. Rhaegar, Barri, Lewyn Martell and Darry... We don't know much. You're assuming your own argument as correct to make a point. That we don't know. You know that right? We don't even know if he had a lance, we know nothing, You're simply telling me what you wish had happened. If Rhaegar was making a mistake any veteran would have told him so. The idea that Rhaegar would have taken other step is more wishful thinking. So many ifs... That he didn't want something from happening is very different from him being able to stop it. 3 men are not heavy guard. Unless they are supposed to be demi gods, they are not. In Ned's dream they are waiting for him. So, he is saying that he'll be back?
  9. Huh?? If i remind you that i have your family and you better behave... i'm not using them as hostages?? It sure as hell sounsds like coercion to me. So... There is evidence, You simply don't like them. But we're told they were estranged in the first place, we have no reason to believe it a lie as there is no reason for that lie. The most important bits are those. So there is actual evidence that father and son could not see one another Well ofc. Rhaegar was a rallying figure,, they both had a very dangerous common enemy now in the rebels, Aerys wanted a youth to match with Robert and the rebels wanted very especifically to kill Aerys and Rhaegar. Those are more than enough reasons to reconcile if only momentarily. You know, enemy of my enemy is my friend, lesser evil yadda yadda yadda. Agree. No, every time (one time) they have a common enemy that is set on killing them. They are forced to koin forces. And that's not real evidence, that's simply confirmation bias. When talking about the Rebellion Martin says that there is no "legal way to remove an insane king". So whatever the son was up to regarding the father, it was def not legal. Popular?? Likely. The evidence points towards Rhaegar trying not to start a civil war he (and we for that matter) don't know he could win. As neither he nor us can know what the great lords were thinking about Keeping up with the Targaryens. Well ofc, he dies. And well, Aerys can frame Rhaegar for treason, disown him... I'm still surprised why he opted for actually signing his death sentence instead of taking advantage of the golden opportunity Rhaegar had given by disappearing with Lyanna, Few would have gone to war over him for it. No, actually no. It's purely "what can you do for me". Viserys can give them the vengeance they seek and they can give him the throne he seeks. Quid pro quo. I don't see any loyalty involved, nor we're given any reason that there was any loyalty involved. In Oberyn's and Doran's vocabulary, the word revenge comes and justice for elia and the kids comes out quite a bit. Loyalty is never mentioned. The secret pact is an investment... Indeed, a dead end is a dead end. The Lannisters marry into the new royal family the year after the war ends. It matters little whether many people dislike the Lannisters, the Lannisters are now Robert's family and part of his gigantic coalition. Whether Doran is acting out of loyalty (targ basket) or self interest... He should be looking for alliances within the Realm. Unless he he believes that he can take on the Baratheons by himself. Doing the former means doing the latter. The Lannisters would not go out without Robert's regime following them (in normal circumstances ofc). So... Aren't they family? Seems cherrypicking to me. The Baratheons have been staunch supporters of the Targs, in fact Lyonel Baratheon is the only great lord we're told that supported Egg's policies out of loyalty and not because he was promised a reward. he only rebelled when he was screwed over. His son served loyally as Hand of the King and so was about to his grandson. The Martells have not been more or less supporters than the average lord that was not screwed over by the Targs. -Honestly, you're giving that 150yrs of connected family history more fuzz than the characters have ever done. - Oh yes, the pact of Sand and Fire, more commonly now as "I scratch your back, you scratch mine".
  10. That we know of. I myself doubt it however, the only people the Martell had a reason to a have a grudge with are the eldest Targaryen and they died pretty badly in the war, hating children is always silly. I would not be surprised if there still is some guilt by association tho. Jaime too believes that. Doesn't he? I don't know if that's a proof of them not being estranged with one another or simply both of them acknowledging that they had bigger enemies than either of them that were very especifically aiming for both their heads. They had a common enemy in the rebels and so they joined forces but i don't see the reason to believe they were not on bad terms, all the evidence we have points towards that. And Rhaegar's changes besides, we have little to know about what was on Aerys's mind regarding his own succesion and what we know does not point that he would have been okay with a Martell on the throne. There is no evidence for loyalty either. All the Martells have done regarding the Targlings is based on the old "what can you do for me" instead of any particular loyalty or even affection. The Martell's goal is perfectly clear and even better laid out, they want to destroy Tywin's Robert's regime and the Targaryens happen to be their only and better card to pull that off. Without the Targaryen legitimacy and alledged support, he cannot hope to overcome the Lannister-Barathteons. Means to an end as the saying goes. So are are the Baratheons... As if that meant anything in particular. If he is the real deal. And even then, they would be loving the Elia's son... who just happen to be Targ. It's like saying that Ned loves the Lannister because Joffrey is Robert's son and he loves Robert and is loyal to him. He can love Robert while being indifferent or loathing the Lannisters, they are not in the emotional package. Btw, how Aegon is Doran's grandson?? He is Doran's nephew. About the theory, it's not a bad one actually. Isn't Lemore described asa very attractive woman however?? The best we hear about Elia is about her having a delicate beauty, neither Barri nor Cersei or JonCon are particularly flattering to her, and Tyrion notes that she has more breast than the flat chested woman Cersei describes.
  11. Patriarch can mean father, not in this case, Kevan does not consider Tywin his father, he already has one, nor Bran (who is a child and thus would make far more sense if he did) considers Robb a father figure, nor Brynden consider Hoster his father. Stannis was 14-15 when his parents died, it makes sense that Renly or Rickon would consider their eldest brothers like their fathers. It make less sense for Stannis to do so. And how that ties to Stannis?? So when you were saying that Stannis was negotiating with Renly you mean that Stannis was offering Renly things Renly already had or were in exchange of his massive army. Familial tie is not the same of inheritance. Emmon's brothers could not get Riverrun instead of Emmon's own heirs. He's young, he's a bachelor and he's charismatic enough. People do not dislike him in mass and he wins people easily, he's also in need of a regent but only for four years. Cressen, Selyse, Melisandre, Davos... While Robert lived and actually even after, Ned did not believe that the Lannisters were going to kill him, that confidence is the very reason he actually warns Cersei. That both Stannis and Ned believed Arryn was killed by her doesn't mean that they believed Cersei was after them, that reason is entire one you make up. And honestly, how that means there was not a target against him again?? In the days between Arryn's death and Robert's decision to travel north. Stannis would still believe that there is a target on his back, yet he stays, even when Cersei and Jaime are also there. He only leaves, curiously enough once the Lannisters and their entourage is not on King's Landing, once the ones putting the target aren't there. As Hand he has the same power to act against Cersei really, the ones the king offers him. You were already saying that way before coming up with that Ned quote, that as said you have turned into your bible. A broken clock will tell the hour correctly twice a day, that Ned was right with Lysa does not mean that he is with Stannis, especially because we know Stannis was doing and saying very curious things for an afraid man. Why wouldn't he?? Why wouldn't he or his circle say something as simple as "Stannis feared for his life"?? They do say a lot of things but they are omitting why Stannis was hiding in Dragonstone for an entire year? Not buying that. Logically we cannot tell the majority of what's going on for him. We can only work with what we're given. He goes on about things he's feeling and about things he felt, there is no distinction there and Stannis does that often enough. Almost at every chapter he is alone with Davos or Cressen he does so. He wouldn't. Now, where's your proof that Stannis distrusted Pycelle again? Yes, i did read the books. Again, from Pycelle's words you can't tell he's a blatant partisan, the only time he shows his true face in AGOT is during Gregor's trial. And even that could have been thought of him being ovrely cautious instead of a Lannister man. He thinks ill of the entire family, Cat says that there is little love between him and the Lannisters. Ned thinks the worst of the Lannisters and Stannis (even without the bastards) have enough evidence to mount a solid theory. At least he knows that Ned would investigate it, especially if he's told that the alledged twincest is the reason his surrogate father is dead. He lost absolutely nothing by trying and at least he warned the future Hand of the King o the danger. But Stannis didn't want Ned to find out. Ned wouldn't have died had he been informed from the get go, nor would Robert btw. He would have found the truth right away, he would have his household intact and he would have told Robert even after warning Cersei. That's ofc believing that Ned goes to King's Landing and not, you knowm arrest the twins the minute they set a foot on Winterfell. Ned dies because he finds the truth too little to late and Robert dies hunting. All of that could have been avoided had Stannis opened his mouth, he wanted Robert to die instead. What has that to do with anything? Well yes, he actually has. He has the book and the lineage. It wasn't the bastards what made Ned discover the truth but the sudden revelation of the impossibility of a three Lannister looking children between Cersei and Robert. Except it isn't. It only needs goodwill, which... No, him wanting Robert to die starts the moment he abandons him. After Arryn's death. Robert goes to Winterfell to get Ned and Stannis is fed up, he abandons his brothers to a sure danger waiting for them to die without fixing their own succession, so their titles and claims pass to him. He leaves King's Landing, he steals the Royal Fleet and he starts hiring sellswords and calling the banners, waiting for the moment the good news came. Guilt of feart thingy. Stannis does not believe Cersei is after him. Yep so... She, not Stannis. There was the possibility of her telling her brother in law the new Hand of the King and then punishing Cersei for poisoning Jon Arryn. Lysa is not Stannis, again. We can go on and on about this but correlation does not imply causation. He decides to let his brother die. He feels some guilt. He leaves. I'm indiferent with this however, i do not indeed believe Stannis felt remorse about abandoning Robert. Ah no, you were the one starting this game by asking quotes regarding Renly and Cersei (and dismissing them even i they were given), it's only fair that you do the same. But as i said, i don't believe that Stannis ever regretted what he did to Robert. Cersei thinks of her fallen enemies and then she thinks about the remaining ones. Stannis is not among them even when he's thinking about sending a spy to kill Jon Snow and Stannis being unable to do much about it. Stannis doesn't say that tho. He says he's a green boy. Given that he calls him usurper and that he tells Cat his time will come, it means that he's going to see him sooner or later. We can't tell, we are not shown that. We only know Renly feared her and there was enmity between them. There were insufficient forces working for it, those forces would need... you guess it, swords. Those forces were not working to return them to power because they believe them rightful but because they were means to destroying Robert's regime. Yet she tells Robb to bend the knee after the Blackwater?? Then it's up to her? Except it isn't?? The latter fights in an event unrelated to the war that entangles with the ongoing war, it's not a theater by any stretch of the imagination. Robb isn't even calling him king. He was meaning making peace on his terms (might be able) not submitting to Stannis. I know, i read the books, It's the same. He has only won twice, the latter at the wall, yet no one believes it odd to call him an experimented commander. Ned ends the siege,not Stannis. Which was?? A sign from god? The mere fact thathe was indecisive could cost him his troops. If Stannis could defeat either in battle, it seems odd that he waited until Meli's assasination plan. I wouldn't , Stannis in ACOK would. Stannis is told to ally with Renly, Stannis refuses and plots to kill him. Stannis is told to ally Robb, Stannis uses the leeches to "kill him" Stannis is told to ally Lysa, he refuses. Stannis is told not to waste time trying to capture Storm's End right away and he refuses. Stannis is told not to kill Edric, he again refuses. The only reason Stannis followed Jon's advice was because he was told that he would get men otherwise. "The" battle commander was perfectly fine with walking to the deathtrap the Bolton lands were. Tyrion doesn't know the latter. Both Stannis and Renly point about the weakness of leaving your lands undefended or enemies on your rear. Rhaegar also had more followers than him by that point and was his house only chance to make it. That wouldn't have changed even if he was 13. Oh, you talk as if that was the reason behind his decision. Not as if there were two childs, he disliked one, he adored the other, he moved to save one and he was trying to incinerate the other. Nope, the reason is that he was trying to prevent a very long regency. Egg's only competion was a baby named Maegor whose blood no one wanted on the throne. But the Baratheon brothers were not the closest substitutes for the crown. Joffrey and Tommen were, attacking them is far more useful than attacking a man no one is going to support. No, i think that this civil war does not make for an exceptional circumstance. As it was obvious that the only way Tommen and Joffrey were going to be forced out of the throne, not that there would be a collective decision about them being unable to do so because f their age. No, the choice is really between Joffrey and Renly. Renly had nothing to gain by discrediting Stannis, his support was nonexistent regardless, he had much to gain from discrediting Joffrey, especially before Stannis claimed the throne He should have said the Stormlords then, he said southron lords and then he indeed tried to get the resto f the Reach armies. He is also promised both armies. This is simply silly to argue. No, they are not. Decisive victories are those that decide the outcome of a war. Not the same. Starting with the fact that i disagree with those what if. Why should "magic" factor in Renly's thought process The relief force was always going to come to King's Landing, Stannis was doomed from the moment he killed Renly, as the Tyrells were not going to declare for it and they had every reason to declare for Joffrey and then he would lose. Well, ofc. With a hundred thousand army is difficult not to smash anyone. Except he can't. The marriage with Margaery means the crown, he much like Robb had already crossed the Rubicon and he was set to destroy Stannis. Once taken the decision to get the throne, Renly had no real reason to back Stannis. Why would he?? He gains little by it and he stands to lose his biggest allies. Sure you can understand his actions without that., you don't want to because it doesn't fit your bias. He lays out his reasons quite well. Renly fears Cersei, he escapes King's Landing, he decides crowning himself is his best option, he raises the largest army ever assembled in Westeros and he is set to achieve his goals. You understand that as well since rebuttal for that thought of process was that Renly was killed by a shadowbaby so he was wrong. It will be his AND Ned's swords the one controlling Joffrey and given that Renly's intention was that the Council acknowledged Ned as Lord Regent and Lord Protector. He was indeed handing the kingdom over to Ned. The thing i just emphasized is just fine but you're having a really hard time not reading in a simple text whatever you want. Stannis rebukes her advice about taking the Lord of Light or relying on the Florents, he certainly does not rebukes and dismiss her allegations that he would be begging. He is told that Renly would come to Storm's End and he'd died there, he is not told that Renly would make massive mistakes that would allow him to overcome an army six times his. But they do not think that tho. I have yet to see anyone calling Renly incompetent. I do not dismiss it as hype, it is hype. I'm telling you that those thoughts do not change the likely outcome of the battle and that we know far more than those characters. I don't even know about who you're talking about. I'm not saying that it could not happen i'm saying that stating something as obvious when we have no proof of it (conclusive or otherwise) and there are other facts ruling against it is pure bias Stannis was about to attack the Dreadfort even when it was a suicide. I don't remember the correlation between participating in tourneys and being a knight of the summer. Knight of the summer is literally being young untested and unblooded, which is what Cat is talking about and arguing that war will make them grow. Now, Robert was all that and he was far more succesful than Stannis so... It didn't serve him enough while Tywin was alive, it serves him more once he's dead. What are you even arguing honestly? Nothing like that. We see him arguing how Renly can be killed, since he is being surrounded by a host and his knights. That's him discussing how to kill Renly. She does both actually. She believed the girl was Arya and she was surprised to find out it wasn't her. So again, she's boldly confused? Doesn't say that Stannis knows about it or something similar? Stannis is the one that will ultimately sacrifice Shireen Maybe she thought so? Meli is manipulative but more oft than not she just says what she believes it's going to happen. And Melisandre actually kills Penrose and Renly, she needed relative access to them while she didn't for the others. Davos and Cressen right away conclude that there is a muder plot going on. So the idea that Stannis couldn't hinges on him being either imbecile, simply too zealot to understand the truth behind the words or simply him knowing the truth but refusing to believe it. Why you don't think that Meli would tell them the how Renly would die?? Why would Selyse care?? Stannis can't possibly balk either and Stannis do it again, just fine. There's no reason to think she has done before... because... We never get the battle plans nor the talks about them.In none of Davos chapters. That they existed?? We do get and a lot amount of talk about an assasination that did happen. Why would Devan be told not to bother him?? It's not like he's going to awake anyway and by doing so, Stannis can appear normalcy. Idem, Stannis needs to appear normalcy. Why in the world would Stannis openly made known that he's becoming a kinslayer?? So if i hire a hitman and the hitman kills his target while I'm asleep... i'm not killing anyone? It's a shadow conceived by Stannis, guided by Stannis, controlled by Stannis and that Stannis created with the intention of killing his brother. No, we get Stannis being unable to sleep after the fact. We get Stannis's making bs excuses that not even Davos buys. We get Stannis saying that he loved Renly when he was planning to kill Renly. Stannis saying that he loves Renly has as much credibility as him saying he's not going to try and kill a relative. We get him saying that Penrose was healthy like Renly before he died and all that. You're assuming your own argument to make a point. There is no reason to believe that he was only allowed two magical assasins, Melisandre simply says that Stannis is after the Blackwater in a condition so frail that she doesn't want to kill him by having him birth another shadow baby. Instead we have Stannis with the need to kill both Renly and Penrose. He desperately needs Renly's army if he wants to have a shot and he needs to kill Penrose fast to go to King's Landing. He could have had Edric's blood just the same by killing Tywin, taking King's Landing and then going back to Storm's End, sort of like Davos proposes, he says why he can't have that. Sorry, i forgot the part when he says that it would have totally worked for Renly. What we have is him arguing that his sword is useless in battle. Stannis says that he doesn't want to avenge Ned Stark because he dislikes him or having the personal bond withhis brother he ought to have had. Stannis is not saying, not even implying, that the he's not avenging Ned Stark because the right thing to do is doing him justice. No matter how you twist it, they are not alike, in this world or the other. He tells to Cressen one thing because he knows him the most, he tells Davos other because he knows him less. He says that to Tarly who doesn' contradict him.
  12. I find the latter impossible to believe, neither the Vale is so thinly peopled nor it makes sense that the North, counting with a city, can¡t really raise more men. Especially when we know that the North's population did raise significantly. About them being knightly, Jaime himself speaks of him when in his prime and he has little to say about Whent. Not do i remember saying they were ever slouch in battle. Or that they were taken out by other soldiers at some point of the battle. Robert does not have to personally take them out. Martell is the only one we're actually told was leading anything. These are the only knights we know about who fought on the battle. ? This is why i dislike this arguments. Lances are mainly used in the initial charge and that's about it. But then again, if you want to believe that. Because... Well, i believe that those three were not the only ones who knew. She is in Martell territory , who are pissed at Rhaegar. Heavy guard?? There were literally three dudes. We don't even know if they were disguised... We don't know how Ned tracked them down. - There is thinking there is hope and being certain you're going to win and survive. - People who believe they might die in battle do not promise changes when they return, they do if they return. - I do not remember having called him delusional.
  13. It'd be counter intuitive if they couldn't. The population has done nothing but raise ever since. We know for a fact it isn't. In the 2nd Dornish war, the first vulture King was able to raise 30k troops without no serious commitment from the most powerful Dornish Houses. And this was a generation after the 1st Dornish War which saw the Dornish having massive losing in manpower. We know nothing about the latter and about the former we kept hearing he was past his prime. Or not. Since we don't even know that Darrry or Selmy were leading much. They could've been just as dead by the time Robert or whomever got to him. Lance?? Did he need Hightower to tell him that?? I'm pretty sure there were vets with him. Some certainly did. Ned didn't find the place by accident. Well, people getting wind about her location and wanting to get her. Cannot be more specific we don't know much of the context. So, he's sure he will win. He can say, if i come back, changes will be made. The very fact that he knows he will return means that the outcome of the battle is very clear in his mind.
  14. Sure because he was never actually legitimized. Stannis does act as if Robert was his neglecting father but he's still his brother, Edric is his son. Just as the Handship?? Robert had heirs of his own and he didn't change even when he knew how it pissed Stannis. Iron Precedent is completely irrelevant, it comes down to whether she would have more support than Stannis. I don't think that the Baratheons follow that precedent, else why would Stannis attempt to make Renly his heir if he already was (he was his heir by default because Shireen). Since they are separated by House, it seems that all the members of the House need to die out. Edric is still a far better option than Stannis. We know almost everything that is relevant without him being a POV, either him, his confidants or his men are more than willing to give us some needed insight. Had Stannis been afraid, someone would have pointed out, no one does. It's pure denial. Btw, how him being afraid is not relevant in the present again? We do have evidence of Stannis preparing for the war way before Robert's death. A made up target on his back, he actually stood around until he knew he was not going to be Hand, He was more than happy to "risk his neck" then but he inmediately leaves when Cersei and her cohort leave for Winterfell. And he would have remained had he been named Hand of the King... even when the last Hand had just been killed. So he is actually by priorities, not fear. He never says that he is afraid, his actions are the one of someone preparing for a war. Yet let's take your word for it? You're still not telling me why wouldn't he mention it. You don't need to know when he feels like pissing. Stannis goes on and on about a lot of things he felt before appearing on the page. There are several characters that gives us isinght on Stannis, besides himself. None ever mention fear. Yet not based on your own bias that he felt that. You're the one asking for Renly's quotes and dismissing his actual words, yet you made up Stannis's mind as we speak without actual need of the book. No noble pick their maester, the Citadel does, yet the nobles can fire them or pick new ones. It's prerrogative of the king whether a specifical Grand Maester remains on his council or not, the King can always demand the Citadel for another one or simply arrange his murder and take a new one (especially if Stannis believes him dangerous). As i said, there's no evidence of Stannis ever suspecting Pycelle, so the idea of him doing it because Ned did is... convenient. "Unsubtly". That can mean that Pycelle is trying to protect a woman, that doesn't mean he's trying to protect Cersei... unless you have benefit of hindsight or you're already predisposed against them. Yes, he can. If there was someone ready to think the worst about the Lannisters was Ned. If there was someone who without a doubt had Robert's back was Ned, so even if Ned didn't believe him, the very fact of his surrogate dying because of that affair would spur Ned to take the matter seriously enough. Stannis would get to Winterfell weeks before Robert, he would have had enough time getting Ned's attention just by that. Stannis didn't try because Stannis doesn't like Ned and because Stannis wanted Robert to die without legit heirs so he could get the throne. Nope, you're using Ned's without all the context thoughts and pretending they are the only logical outcomes because one of them suits your thoughts and the other is false. Textbook confirmation bias. Inmaterial because Ned's logic it's not Stannis's. Your proof quote. Lysa is not Stannis. So again... Had Ned had all the clues would he have made the same deduction?? Unlikely. He would have asked himsel why the hell is Stannis calling his banners for if there's no war going on. Stannis didn't flee. He simply stole the Royal Fleet and left. He was waiting for his brother to die. Stannis is abandoning his brother (s) to die and there is some guilt there. No, you simply need to keep reading until where it comes to Tyrion. Knew that was coming. Neither Tywin nor Stannis feared Robb, Stannis was not particularly wary of Tyrion until the Blackwater and... Tywin & Tyrion fear Stannis because they believe that you're an expert military commander by leading troops twice. It seems that the world is divided by Tywin & Tyrion and the fools. He had to fear her influence on Robert, the soon that influence is removed and Robert and the future king are out of her clutch the better. His claim rests upon the Baratheon regime illegitimacy. Irrelevant right?? Since hammers and all that. Yet she still doesn't suggest bending the knee to him, neither ever does Robb for that matter. Saying that that is the initial outbreak of military conflict in the war is as true as saying that the kingswoord brotherhood is just a prelude of the Robellion. The outbreak of military conflict is the Golden Tooth, where two armies clash. Yes, Edmure didn't care about either Baratheon, he didn't consider Stannis an enemy just as no one considered Remly an enemy and that's why Cat was sent to negotiate with him. That certainly does not mean, they were intending on bending the knee to him. They were not intending on allegiance... He doesn't seem so tho. He seems disappointed that the Lannisters still hold it. They tend to bring them at their pace and if they go on and on about the last thing they have said, it's pretty obvious what their intentions really. If someone says to you first that he hates sundays and then he spends 20 minutes talking about whether he has to go to the doctor... What do you think it's on his head? The Lannisters are not nobody. Indeed. We were never discussing ability on command until you strawman it here. We were simply discussing support. I think we all know how it would've gone, not good for Stannis, nothing that implies election would ever go good for him. Ofc he scoffed at the idea, he's the one with the largest army ever assembled. And yet, he's badly beaten whenever he doesn't have superior numbers or facing a camp of wildlings. You seem to have better opinion of him that the man has of himself. Else he would not be rumiating about what to do in the prologue, he would have attacked either Renly or King's Landing right away. Well it certainly isn't. Stannis is desperate enough to kill his nephew later and he's not asking for help either. Stannis is desperate enough to kill his kin, not to "beg". And i don't know how it's at odds, that's exactly how we see him. Stannis. The reason they "feared" Stannis so much is simply because they didn't know what he was up to, after the Blackwater, Tywin says that his sun has set and only briefly worries again after Oberyn's death. - We observe Stannis doing that repeatedly and he is supposed to be "The" Commander. - Cat never thinks that Renly's actions are mistakes, as she was not implying that Robert is a bad commander (which is false) but that Ned's caution made of them an incredible duo. - Tyrion himself says that Renly's strategy is a good one, but then again... Well ofc has changed, now he knows that whatever Stannis is up to, he can't beat him. Perceived legitimacy does matter, it simply does no matter just as much in Stannis's case. Since Stannis doesn't have the tools for it, perceived legitimacy will be whatever those with the tools decide it is. It certainly does not as you're conflating situations that have really nothing to do with one another- 16 years of regency are indeed longer than 9 years of regency but that doesn't mean that 9 years of regency is short by any stretch of imagination. 9 years means a long, contentious regency. The reason why Aerys named Viserys his heir is simply because he liked his son more and liked his dornish smelling grandchildren less. Which is also the reason he decided to use them as hostages and killing them by burning the entire city down. No, you said that child rulers are simply set aside for adult ones, which is indeed false. Your two examples were a child with a name everyone detested with a father everyone was terrified to occupy the throne added to the fact that people disliked the idea of another unstable period and a mad man naming a child his heir isntead of yet another. Acting as if those weird and very specifical exceptions make a law, or even a precedent, for Stannis or Renly superseding Tommen is indeed absurd. It doesn't. Bur he stands to gain all of Renly's army instead of whatever accompanies him to Storm's End. It's not like Stannis's army is huge or Renly was going anywhere. And Stannis goes to coastal areas because he's told his brother would die there. And the swords Stannis is promised are the swords of Storm's End and Highgarden, in fact when talking to Cat he states that he needs to swords of Renly's "southron" lords, not only the Stormlords. That and the fact that Stannis does in fact send mn to take command over the troops left at Bitterbridge, he's simply beat to it. A great victory isn't in or by itself a decisive one. The decisive war victory of the war happens soon after Renly's own death. Months after the war starts. So, they actually do not make the same point at all. He'd laid his plans but he was ready to listen, it's because of Tarly that he actually has the motivation to beat Stannis. He didn't dismiss Tarly on the same grounds he did Rowan. Neither did Stannis. Renly however could not know about how his brother was planning to kill him with magic, had he known about that, he would have either bent the knee or he would ordered an inmediate attack to end Stannis and Mel. That also applies to any other contender for the throne. Are you suggesting that magic should have been a factor in anyone's plan?? As Ned wouls soon understand and Renly predicted, Ned being named regent and Ned actually being regent are two very different different things, Renly offered his help to help achieve the latter. So he would indeed be giving Ned the kingdom. Selyse convinces him that it was a bad idea, Selyse says Stannis is begging and Stannis inmediately balks. That army consists on most stormlords and some reach lords and Stannis simply fails to get the rest. The Stormlords are not the best part of Renly's army. They were simply the ones who had the most reason to stick with Stannis after the latter assainated his brother. So, the answer is not. Ie that he was counting on Renly's at some point of the time. I don't remember Renly ever being angry. Even Mace's van is likely to be superior to whatever the Stormlords could muster after Summerhall... I don't remember those two facts being linked, the battle was not even 20 years ago, most of the protagonistsare still alive and Tyrion knows most of them, he is likelier to have heard the truth from his siblings, the Baratheons or his father and uncle than he is to have read it on a book. Per Stannis himself, Robert didn't care for reading either, so inmaterial. An incompetent man would have botched it regardless the advantages... That's your whole argument. Yes, during a war. He's left as castellan to the house and he can't send daring sorties to rout the Tyrells even if he wants to. He doesn't have the men to do so, neither do the rest of the Stormlands. Sure, it certainly doesn't mean defeat. But that the reality of war would soon hit them. I didn't know that LF was ever a northern lord. Yet Jon talks about the latter. Yes we do know that was Stannis actual plan, we get to see Stannis actually discussing how to kill Renly and profit from it, we get to see Stannis talking to Davos about accepting Melisandre, we nevr get to see him discussing any battle plan whatsoever. Melisandre is both straight forward and honest, she can indeed manipulate, but she hardly does so, When she tells Stannis kill Edric and you get to have dragons, there is no lie there. Is a big risk big reward scheme. When Selyse says that "Melisandre has seen him dead", he is able to understand right away they were talking about murdering Renly and given they are trying to implicate Stannis compels him to say Fratricide, when Stannis says that Melisandre has seen Penrose death, Davos is able to understand right away that they are talking about murdering him. Either Stannis is stupid or the conclussions those two come up with can only be achieved with a third eye or Stannis very much knows what is going and he's simply not saying it openly. We know Davos does not buy Stannis's words and believes there was foul play going on. So we have these things. We have Stannis openly discussing killing his brother and getting his army. We have Cressen hearing about Meli's vision and calling it fratricide. We have Stannis going to the same spot Mel told him Renly would die. We have absolutely zero battle plans whatsoever, before or after. Zero traps, nothing. We have Stannis actually killing his brother in his sleep. We have Stannis not being able to cope with it. We have Davos not believing Stannis's excuses. We have Stannis giving vague instructions to Davos that in reality are clearly assistance for murder We have Stannis stating that Penrose was as healthy as his was brother was before dying. We have the same shadowbaby with his face. Yet we don't know his plans. Well but ofc Stannis has it ready to draw for the battle, it's his sword. Stannis doesn't think nothing unusual of it. In fact this is what he says about it. Derisive. Ah, knew that was going to be the excuse, i was simply waiting how long would it take for you to get there. Stannis himself says that he doesn't want to avenge Ned, not because vengeance is wrong and justice is good, but because he does not like the man and he resents the man's bond with his brother. The idea that Stannis distinguish between them or is making a distinction between then, is entirely made up. Sure, he smashed a huge camp of refugees poorly organized. It was sheer numbers for why he was winning at the Blackwater, Stannis doesn't do anything especial, the royal faction was simply too outnumbered and the quality of their troops was too dissimilar for any tactic they had could actually matter, it was sheer numbers why he lost at the end as he could never withstand an Lannister- Tyrell attack. - Yes and Loras is a better knight, he leads the van at the blackwater. - He assumes correctly that sun will only blind them for the first charge. - He has his infantry with him, he doesn't have most of it. - Sure, if Renly is worried about Loras being captured, he should have him in the rear. It would be a bad decision
  15. They sent a lot of troops tho. Just not all they could muster and i don't really think they believe the children at risk. The North already mustered more than that three hundred years ago and the population has only increased ever since. So it's unlikely to be the bigger number. Or not. Of all of them only Dayne is reliable enough, one know nothing about except he likes to brag a lot and the other is well past his prime. Even if they were there nothing guarantees they are going to face any of the rebel leaders, none of the Kingsguard who were actually did and they were all taken out regardless. And Rhaegar seemed sure he was going to win so it makes sense why he would tell them to stay.
  • Create New...