Did Stannis honestly ever have a chance?

[Ruby Chevrolet]

Great leader, tactitian, and even lets people move through the ranks of society. which is quite a reform for westeros.

Not sure I agree that Stannis is on the cutting edge of social mobility.

As far as I remember, the only person who was promoted by Stannis was Davos, who is a special case. Davos had to be rewarded for keeping Storm's End alive during the Rebellion and a knighthood plus some lands would probably be considered appropriate by the other lords. This is no more than Tyrion and Tywin did for Bronn after the Blackwater. And Davos became Stannis' Hand when Stannis basically had no other choice -- he had run out of other lords by that time. Stannis' whole "we will make new lords" speech seemed pretty hollow to me, since he was going to have to make new lords if he wanted to have any at all -- whether Davos was Hand or not.

In contrast, note that Robert and Jon Arryn raised Littlefinger from virtually nothing to the Small Council when there was a lot of competition for that post, and he later became Lord Protector of the Vale; Cersei raised up Aurane Waters, a bastard; bastards have served as Hand (Orys Barratheon, Bloodraven); Egg raised Dunk from Flea Bottom to be Lord Commander of the Kingsguard; and Aerys raised a Pyromancer to the position of Hand.

It is also possible to be cast down. Tywin disinherited Tyrion; Randyll Tarly disinherited Sam; Barristan Selmy was thrown out of the Kingsguard; Lolys Stokeworth was married to Bronn; and Queen Jeyne is set to be married off to a bastard.

[Ahura Mazda]

He started off in a bad spot since he only had Dragonstone, no popular support and the Stormlands declared for Renly.

COK- After he has Renly killed and gets the Stormlands under his control, he loses them again after Blackwater in addition to devastating damage to his fleet which was his strongest asset at the time.

SOS/AFFC- Davos convinces him to sail northward to aid the Wall against the Wildlings, but abandons his two remaining fortresses in the South with only a token defense garrison. Dragonstone falls to the Crown shortly after he departs and Storm's End appears to be easy pickings for (F)Aegon and the Golden Company.

DWD- Now Stannis is effectively trapped in the North and the only reason that any Northern House is allied to him is for revenge against the Frey-Bolton Coaltion and if we take the GNC into consideration, the best case scenario doesn't look to benefit Stannis too much. The Northmen are using Stannis for their own goals and as soon as they no longer have a common enemy, they most likely won't bend knee and pledge themselves to Stannis as King. In fact, Jon refused his offer of being legitimized as a Stark/Lord of Winterfell and denied Stannis of his best chance of uniting the North under his banner.

In hindsight, the only thing that gave him a realistic chance in the first place was that an act of god caused his brother to die which fragmented his very large army, a part of which declared for Stannis. Could Stannis have taken King's Landing with just his fleet? He could cause severe damage assuming that ships in asoiaf have canons and if the crews of the ship were trained for combat, but he wouldn't be able to take or hold the city.

Sure, he's lawfully Robert's heir. But even that's put into doubt by public opinion because there's no proof that Cercei's children aren't Robert's apart from an old genealogical book and an appearance comparison to Robert's bastards who are all either dead or in hiding. He had no real power base starting off and has yet to procure a mutually beneficial alliance.

So is he just a Red Herring? Is he even more doomed than Robb was? Sure, Robb made a few critical mistakes, but at least he still had two regions to fall back on and he can't be held accountable for the bad luck that the North suffered through the Ironborn invasion.

Stannis on the other hand, has only had a maximum of one region fully supporting him tentatively and they quickly abandoned him after Blackwater.

Well, it depends.

Stannis has been in position to have a really good chance if you take into account Melisandre's help, but he has never had any chance to win.

His position could have been successfully exploited by a ruler keen on establishing new alliances, compromises, pacts and bribes.. a friendlier person, ready to abjure his own wife to take a new one (es: Margaery), to tell the Onion's Knight that he really wants power more than justice thus burning Edric asap instead of keeping him prisoner where he could become friend of his own child..

..but Stannis lacks all those "qualities", a man like him will (almost) never win because he is not ready to create (ethically disputable) winning opportunities asap, while his competitors are. Yes, he did do blood magic.. but a Littlefinger would have done MORE blood magic and faster, and MORE compromises and treacheries..

..he could even avoid clashing with Renly and temporarily "recognize" him, only to get him dead later on after the war was over.. the easiest win ever!

So no, Stannis has never really had any chance because of the man he is.

[Iona]

I've been thinking that if Cersei is found guilty in her trial and her children are announced to be abominations, Stannis' star will shine a little brighter. The Faith will still be against him and his new demon god, but Stannis will jump to being Robert's lawful heir which could very well gain him some popularity among the crowds.

[Laime Jannister]

To the OP: No. Stannis did not have a chance. I have to agree with most of the posters here.

I dont know if anyone plays Crusader Kings II, but there is a mod that simulates ASOIAF and the Wot5K. While its not canon, the mod (in my mind) accurately depicts the relative troop strengths of the Seven Kingdoms. I enjoyed playing as Stannis, but when you begin, you have around 5k men against Renly's 20k. Your cause is literally hopeless unless you submit to or kill your brother.

In the Feast for Crows scenario, Stannis starts at the wall with 10,000 troops he buys with the loan from the Iron Bank. Even then, his situation is hopeless. Once you kill the Boltons, you can hold the north (under a foreign culture and God, which doesnt sit well with the Northern lords, and they will revolt quickly), or you hand the north off to a lord paramount and he joins your war for the Iron Throne. Now you have around 7k troops against the might of Lannisters, Tyrells, or Aegon (Whoever holds Kings Landing).

Its very hopeless, but part of the enjoyment out of Stannis' campaign (in Crusader Kings II or in the books) comes from overcoming those obstacles.

[Matoro]

Stannis had real chances when he assaulted KL. Only if there wouldn't be Tyrion leading defenses he would have took the city before Tyrell-Lannisters arrived. It would have been siege, then, but he had naval supermancy.

But Stannis is really badass. Every time we think he is beaten (after BW, after Wolfswood) he rises again, harder and stronger. He might not win, but at least he don't surrender.

[Mad Monkey]

He's only attainted if he loses lol

Fair enough, but my point was that Myrcella's family would not let him inherit her lands and titles if/when she died. If he takes them, it's because he overthrows her family, not because he inherits directly from her as a result of succession.

Although I will point out that Dany hasn't actually attainted Stannis either. Maybe she just forgot, or maybe she doesn't want to rule anyone out.

[Blutraven]

There never was much hope, just a fools hope.

Seriously though, Stannis being such an underdog is part of what makes me like him.

[MotherAnduin]

There was never any chance for him. No POV, barely any information about his family and house contrasted with the almost useless descriptions of age old Starks and Targaryens and POVs on their families.

Stannis never had a chance in the long run. Even appointing Davos instead of Imry wouldn't do any good because Tyrells were coming to capture King's Landing. The only way he could have won was if he started assassinating everyone with shadow babies. But can't let Baratheons get too much luck now, can we?

[aceluby]

I'd say he did have a chance. He had a chance to gain the IT w/ Robb's help, but he wouldn't because of his pride. That decision was crucial on BW.

He has a chance after taking WF (Bolton's are screwed...), but with how the North is treating his army and letting them die as they survive, he's a means to an end and as soon as he starts commanding them as their king he'll be booted w/ almost no support since so many died on the treck to WF.

But I don't think any of that will matter when the Others invade, Stannis will come down all AAR style with his cool magic sword, the first Other he goes after will laugh as the sword is destroyed the very first time it hits the Others magic ice blades and the Stan man will fall. Hope will be lost and an opportunity for someone to step up will be available.

At least that's how I see it. He's a means to an end.

[The Fallen]

` Stannis might have had a chance if he had acted quicker instead of sitting in Dragonstone for so long. He was the one who knew why Ned had been arrested. He should've sent out those damn letters sooner and gathered support. Before Renly could have made his move.

[The Broke Howard Hughes]

Renly's ambition ruined any chance Stannis had of taking the throne. He basically ended the Baratheon reign. Ironically enough he would have likely ruled anyway seeing as Stannis wasn't going to leave his wife and she wasn't having any sons.

[Tetrarch42]

Did he have a chance? Yes. When he assaulted King's Landing. After that? Not really. But he does seem to be beating the odds.

[Roose The Weddingcrasher]

At least that's how I see it. He's a means to an end.

What end, may I ask?

One problem I see with the scenarios in which the Northerners turn on Stannis, is that his story would have been pointless if he dies at this point. Because if Stannis has no importance in the "distant" (second half of WoW) future, than what was the point of him getting to the Wall at all? We could have gotten to know some other northern Lord saving the Wall, one who would be important in the distant future, so that getting to know him would actually matter.

The Karstarks could be written as saviors of the Wall, instead of being ruthless schemers. Or what's about the Umbers? The Manderlys? I understand that most of the lords went south, but there are still plenty of (potential) men at arms in the North, there must be men who lead them.

Stannis wasn't necessary for bringing Davos and Mellisandre to the North with him either, he just could have died at the Blackwater, and it would be totally convenient way if getting rid of him. Davos could have reached Manderly in some kind of smuggler-storyline, directly after the BW, and Mellisandre only needs her fires as reason, and her Queen's Men as a means to get from Dragonstone to the Wall.

Chekov's guns swords apply here: If a king sails half the length of the continent to save the day and then goes on a quest to get rid of the bad guys, he can't just leave the stage as if nothing happened. [Maybe I think of a better way to word this :D ]

But to answer to the op - no, I don't think he ever had a chance. That's what makes him awesome. No Great Lord wants him as his King, because he is a man out of his time, in a way. I think he is the "prototype" of a "modern" kind of monarch, one that would rely less on complex diplomatic relationships with every individual lord (what Renly called "having friends"), but rather on commonly accepted law (including a constitution, for example...).

[K26dp]

He lost his best chance when he failed to win the Tyrells to his side after Renly's death. He lost another chance when he failed to ally with the North.

He couldn't be flexible enough to negotiate anything other than "you should be loyal to me because of my rights". That's not really how feudalism worked.

[Djinn]

Well, it depends.

Stannis has been in position to have a really good chance if you take into account Melisandre's help, but he has never had any chance to win.

His position could have been successfully exploited by a ruler keen on establishing new alliances, compromises, pacts and bribes.. a friendlier person, ready to abjure his own wife to take a new one (es: Margaery), to tell the Onion's Knight that he really wants power more than justice thus burning Edric asap instead of keeping him prisoner where he could become friend of his own child..

..but Stannis lacks all those "qualities", a man like him will (almost) never win because he is not ready to create (ethically disputable) winning opportunities asap, while his competitors are. Yes, he did do blood magic.. but a Littlefinger would have done MORE blood magic and faster, and MORE compromises and treacheries..

..he could even avoid clashing with Renly and temporarily "recognize" him, only to get him dead later on after the war was over.. the easiest win ever!

So no, Stannis has never really had any chance because of the man he is.

Yep, his lack of political ''flexibility'' really doomed him, just like it did Ned, Robb, Jon and in a way Daenerys. Also he had a very stacked deck against him, courtesy of Robert, Renly, LF and Varys. Notice that Varys doesn't really offers much to defeat Robb or Balon or Renly, but he does help alot defeating Stannis, just like LF.

[Queen Alienor]

I think if he had overcome his pride and took the offer of alliance Catelyn brought he might have had a chance. This way, nope, I think he was doomed from the beginning. What is a shame, that's true, because I really do like him and he would have made a fine king.

[aceluby]

Renly's ambition ruined any chance Stannis had of taking the throne. He basically ended the Baratheon reign. Ironically enough he would have likely ruled anyway seeing as Stannis wasn't going to leave his wife and she wasn't having any sons.

Totally disagree, after Renly died he could have gone to Robb and joined to kill their mutual enemy. Instead he says he's coming after Robb after he's done w/ the Lannisters. That decision, which was solely his, is directly responsible for his loss on the BW, and would have prolonged the war even if he had won. It was an awful decision that did nothing but breed more enemies. Stupid.

[aceluby]

What end, may I ask?

A literary end. It's pretty evident that he's not AAR, who is supposedly the hero. Many in-universe people who follow him believe him to be the hero, which is why they follow him (Queen's men). The battle against the Others is iminent. You have the 'hero' with a fake sword, going all heroic on them only to die a horrible death. At that point the story can either go into a horror story of the Others killing all of Westeros, or another hero will be born out of his failure and arrogance. Either way it will be a major plot moving device, IMO.

[Born Sinner]

Well, it depends on the North if he will get the throne. If Rickon comes back to WF and Stannis declares him Lord of Winterfell/King in the North the northmen would probably fight under his banner.

[Mad Monkey]

Totally disagree, after Renly died he could have gone to Robb and joined to kill their mutual enemy. Instead he says he's coming after Robb after he's done w/ the Lannisters. That decision, which was solely his, is directly responsible for his loss on the BW, and would have prolonged the war even if he had won. It was an awful decision that did nothing but breed more enemies. Stupid.

I don't get it. How did threatening Robb make him lose the Blackwater? The Starks couldn't have helped him with that, could they?