Will the rest of Westeros ever realize how much they owe Stannis Baratheon?

[Mourneblade]

All hail our precious Mannis!

I don't know if Stannis is the best potential King, or even a good potential King, but I would never judge anybodies ability to rule before they've began their rule. He gets badmouthed by certain people, but it turns out those people all have their own agendas and reasons for not wanting Stannis on the Throne. The R'hlorrism certainly doesn't help, people get funny about religion. Popularity as a factor is overrated, people are more likely to follow a proven winner, but its not unpopularity that led to the lack of Stannis' support in the early going, merely circumstance.

Stannis wouldn't be the first unpopular King that siezed a Throne and ended up doing a bloody good job against expectation though, especially given the hellish situation Westeros is in now, the type of King that implements laws and changes that the system would still be following in a 1000 years time perhaps, even if he'll never be known as Stannis the benelovent. Stannis the just, perhaps.

I can't speak for anybody else, but Stannis just grew on me, when we first met him I thought of him as a bit of an antagonist, but his sheer unrelenting determination, cracking one liners, being a badass, his harsh but fair sense of justice and the fact that he's in this for lawful reasons (which whether I agree with it or not I do consider admirable) and dedication to duty made me realise that he's a human being and not a dark lord figure after all. He has his flaws but so does everybody else, but when the Pink Letter got sent to Jon I was far more devasted by that than I was the Red Wedding. I guess the fact that he's a hard bastard doing a hard job appeals to me, there is no cruelty or malice there, or teenage angst, or greed, not much in the way of affection either to be fair, but he's got a task to do and it'll get done. I like it. Plus all that "I defend my subjects and destroy those who menace them" that sense of duty, it might not be compassion that drives him to protect his subjects, but as long as it gets done and he takes it seriously whats the difference?

I agree with a lot what you are saying here, I would add that he has been ruling ever since he proclaimed himself king. Until he went North I would have considered him a poor ruler, however once you add some more capable advisors around him, like Davos, and Jon, who give him hard truths, and earn his respect, he Listens. Since he has been up North he has shown he is more than capable to rule, with the right people around him.

It's kind of sad though because he will never sit the Iron Throne, everyone south of the neck hates him, and he would never be able to get passed his religious image.

Again I am a fan of the story and all the characters.. I just tell it like I see it, the good and the bad.

[Mourneblade]

Stupid iPad lol.

[Tankbuster]

The ppl of westeros are ingrates, they will later thank Rickon for rescuing them from the others,' the little boy-king/lord who could', but they will forget Stannis.

[Sullen]

Renly-He isn't in long enough for it to sink in; he really is the Stalin of Westeros. He has not only the Stormlands forces which could overwhelm Kings Landing whenever ordered and could only be stopped by the combined efforts of Tyrell and Tywin when Stannis ordered exactly that (this despite the wildfire) but he had the Tyrells with him to. He made a choice that he wanted to starve the peoples of kings landing; without at least putting it under siege so they could know what was going on. He is a truly despicable person; speak to Ukrainians or Jews about being starved to death if you disagree.

Overwhelming King's Landing would have been a stupid move, Renly needed attrition to end the war quickly (and thus saving further lives), that required closing the Roseroad... Which is only natural, why would anyone keep sending supplies to their enemies? Is Edmure Tully a monster because the bounty of the Riverlands is not shared with the South in those times of war?

Putting the city under siege would have also gotten the attention of Tywin, who would have disengaged Robb to deal with him (ensuring both forces were in better shape, prolonging the war and reducing the chances of the North bending the knee), it would have also seriously hurt his PR, which is something a good king needs.

Renly was smart, and was ending the war quickly, and with the least amount of casualties possible. He's far from being akin to Josef "Zerg Rush" Stalin, to the contrary, he's extremely conservative about the well-being of his own party.

[MagnaStulta]

Overwhelming King's Landing would have been a stupid move, Renly needed attrition to end the war quickly (and thus saving further lives), that required closing the Roseroad... Which is only natural, why would anyone keep sending supplies to their enemies? Is Edmure Tully a monster because the bounty of the Riverlands is not shared with the South in those times of war?

Putting the city under siege would have also gotten the attention of Tywin, who would have disengaged Robb to deal with him (ensuring both forces were in better shape, prolonging the war and reducing the chances of the North bending the knee), it would have also seriously hurt his PR, which is something a good king needs.

Renly was smart, and was ending the war quickly, and with the least amount of casualties possible. He's far from being akin to Josef "Zerg Rush" Stalin, to the contrary, he's extremely conservative about the well-being of his own party.

The Gold Cloaks could not have stopped him; it is explicitly mentioned over and over again.

To end the war quickly Renly could have done exactly what Stannis did; attack Kings Landing. He made a choice to prolong the war and to prolong peoples suffering by starving hundreds of thousands of people. Edmure does not have the power to give an order and end the war swiftly the way Renly did.

It is one thing to use hunger as your last resort; using it as your first is an act of a monster.

His uprising was purely for selfish reasons then he made a choice to extend the war while killing people in the most appalling way anyone has so far.

The reason he did it was in order to appear to be saving them when he would finally decide to take Kings Landing; politically motivated starvation which is why I called him the Stalin of Westeros.

[Sullen]

The Gold Cloaks could not have stopped him; it is explicitly mentioned over and over again.

To end the war quickly Renly could have done exactly what Stannis did; attack Kings Landing. He made a choice to prolong the war and to prolong peoples suffering by starving hundreds of thousands of people. Edmure does not have the power to give an order and end the war swiftly the way Renly did.

It is one thing to use hunger as your last resort; using it as your first is an act of a monster.

His uprising was purely for selfish reasons then he made a choice to extend the war while killing people in the most appalling way anyone has so far.

The reason he did it was in order to appear to be saving them when he would finally decide to take Kings Landing; politically motivated starvation which is why I called him the Stalin of Westeros.

Attacking King's Landing means weakening your force while a comparatively intact Tywin faces you and the Northmen get the go back North and fortify (while the losses incurred taking King's Landing and fighting Tywin lower the incentives of giving in).

Cutting the food supplies was the sensible thing to do, anyone would have done it, really. And a slow march was required to weaken both opposing parties, ensuring they will bend the knee when faced with overwhelming odds.

In comparison, Stannis spread the forces around equally when he killed Renly, meaning more war, death, and famine for everyone.

As for Renly's motivation for the uprising, it's to get the Lannisters out of power, it's his goal all along AGoT, and he only crowns himself out of necessity once all of his other plans (Replacing Cersei with Marge, and getting sure Ned was safely installed as regent) failed.

Renly was a sleazy yet extremely efficient politician, he was no more Stalin than any other character is.

[MagnaStulta]

Attacking King's Landing means weakening your force while a comparatively intact Tywin faces you and the Northmen get the go back North and fortify (while the losses incurred taking King's Landing and fighting Tywin lower the incentives of giving in).

Cutting the food supplies was the sensible thing to do, anyone would have done it, really. And a slow march was required to weaken both opposing parties, ensuring they will bend the knee when faced with overwhelming odds.

In comparison, Stannis spread the forces around equally when he killed Renly, meaning more war, death, and famine for everyone.

As for Renly's motivation for the uprising, it's to get the Lannisters out of power, it's his goal all along AGoT, and he only crowns himself out of necessity once all of his other plans (Replacing Cersei with Marge, and getting sure Ned was safely installed as regent) failed.

Renly was a sleazy yet extremely efficient politician, he was no more Stalin than any other character is.

My big problem is from the Tyrion PoV chapters it doesn't seem like taking KL would have given Renly significant casualties. There is nothing that Tyrion sees in KL that he likes; he uses the wildfire effectively because Stannis initially wants to take KL by sea but what if Renly goes for the mud gate (Stannis' second choice)? The force that actually defeated Stannis is with Renly.

Renly and Stannis needed family counseling; they both wanted no Lannisters and couldn't communicate with each other, had Renly tried any tactic besides avoiding battle while using starvation I wouldn't consider him evil and wouldn't consider his kinslaying justified.

[Sullen]

My big problem is from the Tyrion PoV chapters it doesn't seem like taking KL would have given Renly significant casualties. There is nothing that Tyrion sees in KL that he likes; he uses the wildfire effectively because Stannis initially wants to take KL by sea but what if Renly goes for the mud gate (Stannis' second choice)? The force that actually defeated Stannis is with Renly.

Renly and Stannis needed family counseling; they both wanted no Lannisters and couldn't communicate with each other, had Renly tried any tactic besides avoiding battle while using starvation I wouldn't consider him evil and wouldn't consider his kinslaying justified.

The 5K or so Goldcloaks would have still caused casualties, they are in a defensive position, and the wildfire can be used against footsoldiers as well as ships, just not as effectively. The lack of attrition on the city also means that the city doesn't face the same issues originating from the low morale, so not as much mutiny as there was when Stannis tried to take KL.

Renly needs every soldier he can spare if he wants to muscle the Northmen out of independence, why is pretty much his MO all along ACoK, suffer as least casualties as possible and play it extremely safe.

[MagnaStulta]

The 5K or so Goldcloaks would have still caused casualties, they are in a defensive position, and the wildfire can be used against footsoldiers as well as ships, just not as effectively. The lack of attrition on the city also means that the city doesn't face the same issues originating from the low morale, so not as much mutiny as there was when Stannis tried to take KL.

Renly needs every soldier he can spare if he wants to muscle the Northmen out of independence, why is pretty much his MO all along ACoK, suffer as least casualties as possible and play it extremely safe.

But would he have taken loses he couldn't easily replace by virtue of holding Kings Landing? Tyrion while pleased to learn there is wildfire wasn't so pleased with the idea of issuing it to the Goldcloaks as a defensive weapon. Renly also had enough men to threaten more than one point at the same time to force the Gold Cloaks to spread out while he concentrated enough force in one place. Unfortunately it wouldn't have gotten Robb and his allies to lay down their arms, but would have given his cause a massive shot in the arm, in my opinion with low casualties and turned the tide against Tywin.

I liked the idea of a truce followed by a vote after defeating the Lannisters proposed by Cat, but I found nothing unreasonable in Renly's rejecting it because he was winning. My only objection to him was his tactics which I found extreme.

[Tankbuster]

Actually, he could split his forces in two and easily capture KL while his main host waits for Tywin to move. and offer them battle, he had men enough to do that. The gold cloaks were policemen not soldiers, and newly recruited so that they would have enough people to man the walls. That is why their commander says that once they start to break, they will break hard. That is not gonna change with Renly's forces doing the siege.

[Sullen]

But would he have taken loses he couldn't easily replace by virtue of holding Kings Landing? Tyrion while pleased to learn there is wildfire wasn't so pleased with the idea of issuing it to the Goldcloaks as a defensive weapon. Renly also had enough men to threaten more than one point at the same time to force the Gold Cloaks to spread out while he concentrated enough force in one place. Unfortunately it wouldn't have gotten Robb and his allies to lay down their arms, but would have given his cause a massive shot in the arm, in my opinion with low casualties and turned the tide against Tywin.

I liked the idea of a truce followed by a vote after defeating the Lannisters proposed by Cat, but I found nothing unreasonable in Renly's rejecting it because he was winning. My only objection to him was his tactics which I found extreme.

I would have gotten those replacement troops too when slowly marching and cutting the supplies, with less losses on his side, and more on the side of both Tywin and Robb.

It's a question of optimizing his situation, which he does brilliantly. You may object to the morality of the act, but it's pretty much the smartest thing to do in his situation and ensuring a quicker end to all conflict and death in the long term, getting him more men as well as a serious PR boost, which he is going to need considering he doesn't really have valid claim.

What Renly did was no more than a veiled large-scale siege on the city.

[MagnaStulta]

I would have gotten those replacement troops too when slowly marching and cutting the supplies, with less losses on his side, and more on the side of both Tywin and Robb.

It's a question of optimizing his situation, which he does brilliantly. You may object to the morality of the act, but it's pretty much the smartest thing to do in his situation and ensuring a quicker end to all conflict and death in the long term, getting him more men as well as a serious PR boost, which he is going to need considering he doesn't really have valid claim.

What Renly did was no more than a veiled large-scale siege on the city.

Unfortunately I agree; my picture of Renly doing it in order to convince the smallfolk in the city he was their friend when he reopened the routes (which I based on Tyrell behavior after his death in doing exactly that appeal to smallfolk) was wrong, and my comparison of him was off because he did have a military reason to behave as he did so is much more human than I thought.

I still think he went too far and that his choice of tactics were appalling, but not nearly to the level I thought they were just yesterday; and I look forward to debating with you on other ASOIAF related topics Sullen Sellsword; I just hope I turn out to be right next time instead.

I concede my points about renly earlier were wrong.

[Sullen]

Debating with you was also a pleasure, man.

Looking forward to partaking in another debate with you, hopefully on the same side this time.

[MagnaStulta]

Me to :agree:

[paramount]

Stannis may not have saved Westeros but he certainly saved the Free folk from an otherwise certain destruction.

[Mithras]

Stannis may not have saved Westeros but he certainly saved the Free folk from an otherwise certain destruction.

How?

[averde]

Sadly like show Stannis says, he's destined to be a page in someone else's history book.

[Bronn Urgandy]

Stannis may not have saved Westeros but he certainly saved the Free folk from an otherwise certain destruction.

How?

Well, technically he saved the North from certain destruction at the hands of the Free Folk, jeopardising the Free Folk in the process, he then extended a fair compromise to those jeapordised Free Folk of "bend the knee and I'll offer you the same protection from the White Walkers that I offered my subjects from you, but if you're here to fuck shit up then you can stay out." Thereby helping to save the people he helped to jeapordise, catch 22 though, he couldn't let the Wildlings continue on their current course of action.

While the original idea of allowing the Wildlings south of the wall can be credited to Stannis, and he's at least self aware to know the Southrons won't like it but unlike most in Westeros he actually realises the Wildlings are people too, Jon's efforts have proved more to be more fruitful. But in a roundabout way Stannis is helping to save the Wildlings, its just that that safety comes at a cost, and seemingly a higher cost than a born and bred Westerosi, though his demanding of their obedience and more importantly (and the most emphasised price for the Wildlings to pay) to keep the peace isn't what I'd call unreasonable, considering it puts 800 feet of ice and armoured, trained warriors between them and the White Walkers.

Its like a lot of other things Stannis has done, there is an absurd kind of nobility to it but no one will ever thank him for it.

[The Fourth Head]

Sorry for coming late to this thread.

Stannis killed a bunch of asylum seekers trying to save their own lives. What a hero!

He then picks a fight with the Boltons who, up until that point, had remained inert, taking valuable men that should have been devoted to manning the walls and marching them off several weeks south of the wall to a position that leaves them too far away to offer any service to the wall should the Others strike. So if the Others strike now, he will be able to offer zero assistance. And westeros owe him a debt?

Worse, Northmen that may have (albeit tardily) been sent to man the wall by the Boltons upon news of an actual WW attack are now engaged in a war with Stannis- both sides are now distracted and unable to give anything away to the wall.

Finally, and this is the biggest reason why noone should thank Stannis: had Mance won, why would Mance have left the wall undefended?

Mance was a former member of the NW. Mance appreciates the danger of the WW, Mance has a desire to save people. So anyone believing that Mance would have simply allowed his army through the wall, destroyed the watch, lost control of all 100,000 wildlings, let them all scatter to rape and pillage despite them all knowing the threat the WW's pose, and then left the wall entirely unmanned for an attack from the Others is making a lot of unfounded assumptions. Mance is a smart guy and a good leader- perhaps the best there is to utilise the remaining living man power in the north . How many of those 100,000 people, united out of respect for him could have populated and armed the wall under Mance's leadership? 5K? 10K? How may could he have recalled during a WW attack? 30K? I see a wall under wildling / Mance authority as a much better proposition for the realm than trying to work within the constraints of the current NW's hierachy- ie a bunch of cowards, murderers, rapers and thieves only tolerant of NW men to man the walls and intolerant of any tactical flexibility. I also think long term, it's better that the majority of the Wildlings are on the South side of the wall which Stannis victory prevented. Whilst the Wildlings would have put a serious strain on resources in the North prior to the Other's attacking, and risked the lives of the Northerners, I personally think it's better to have all that humanity alive, on the south side, than on the north side as wights.

Now admittedly, Stannis offered the Wildlings asylum under the authority of the king, so his intentions were excellent- but he made it so hard to stomach that he was not successful enough. His victory had scattered the wildlings and those who remained were very reluctant to take his offer. That has left thousands of wildings north of the wall who will probably become wights because Stannis won a fight killed their leader and offered them very hard terms- ie, abandon your gods. Bravo Stannis. A big debt the realm owes you. Had Mance won, there would not be a living sole north of the wall to be turned into wights, so assuming the realm needs to give thanks to Stannis involves assuming that the realm will be better off long terms with the dying NW clinging to its last remains of power, Mance disempowered and most of the wildlings north of the wall, and I don't share that belief.

[Grimbold]

Where are you getting this 100.000 wilding figure from?