Stannis, Renly and kinslaying.

[James Arryn]

No the aged based premise, is not wrong. Most of the Nobilty in early Geece and Rome did not take a man seriously if they openly engaged in homosexual activity especially when reaching adult hood this was to not only show somewhat of a morl code but also that he took his progeny or chances to carry on his family line sriously. Commoners not so much. Must people in Greece and Sparta did not enegage in homosexual practice. The Grecian tribes had their own rituals most spartans engaged in what activity they saw fit however the majority were more into extending bloodlines to bring in more soldiers to extend their war mchine, that takes women. Sex with lots of women. Spartans had almos a xenophobic charisma when i came to Spartan excellence and regarded non noble partan women as a purpose of almost breeding. King Phillip Alexanders father was rumored to be killed by a gay lover, some say this is part of the story to show that his morals of such an act are degrading to the kings character and not held to the normal regard of what actions should be that is why the jealous act got Phillip killed. Alexander was rumored to have a gay lover, even though he produced multiple heirs, Julius Ceasar is known to be a man who slept with mutiple womenm, historicly speaking we know of two wives, but no gay lovers and as stated before Achilles is of ancient orgin no one can be certain. In asoiaf being Gay is not acknowledged as a norm in westeros society, we are aware of this because no one has expressed their love openly to the same sex. I do not see how you could miss this. name one character within the story in westeros who openly shows afftection for someone of the same sex while in public.

Gah.

Again, remove the '____ is said to be gay in spite of fathering children' false dilemma. It was NOT a dilemma in ancient eyes. Sexuality was not an exclusive concept. You are simply dead wrong in your historical understanding. Research the relationship between the agoge and the mess where, contrary to your rendition, men were REQUIRED BY LAW to live with their mess mates and forbidden to marry until middle age...the latter coming BEFORE the former expired by 10 years or so.

Alexander did have a gay lover in spite of producing heirs. He and Hephaestion made sacrifices at the alter of Achilles AND Petroclus. Are described by contemporary annalists as eromaneous, a word indicating love along the Eros line. I mean, there are a kazillion examples.

The only people who don't see it are the ones who think 'produced heirs' must mean 'can't be gay', but that's a modern prejudice.

Julius Caesar did indeed sleep with many women. So much so that it was said he was 'every woman's man, and every man's woman.'

Your belief that ancient Greeks did not take a man seriously if he engaged in homosexuality is more than wrong, it's diametrically opposed to historical truth.

[Lee-Sensei]

Theon and Robb aren't kinslayers at all. That was reaching. Karstark is very distantly related to to the Starks and Theon isn't bound to the Starks by blood or marriage. I doubt they'd call Ned Stark a kinslayer if Balon rebelled and he cut off his head. Neither of them are kinslayers.

[James Arryn]

This is a nice post. Is Stannis wrong for pressing his claim do you feel?

FOR pressing it, no. For HOW he pressed it, very much so.

His first priority should have been finding a working relationship with Renly. Barring that, Robb or maybe the Vale. He should have seen how little popular and military support he possessed, and savoured the sorcery for enemies who were inherent rather than 'Anyone who disagrees with my claim'.

If he hadn't be so zealous about it, there were ways to go.

Additionally, hiding out in DS with what he believes to be proof of treason and only coming out of hiding with it after Robert was killed by it and using it to press his claim was naive/foolish beyond belief.

In any event, Renly's first suggestion to Ned..if Stannis had actually been around, there was a lot of room there for a compromise. Between the 3 of them they could have solidified the Baratheon dynasty...I could write pages about different ways it could have gone down. One of the reasons I feel Stannis is a poorer choice for King is because the number one obstacle to those discussions proving fruitful would be his refusal to compromise in a real sense.

[IRON BANK]

Gah.

Again, remove the '____ is said to be gay in spite of fathering children' false dilemma. It was NOT a dilemma in ancient eyes. Sexuality was not an exclusive concept. You are simply dead wrong in your historical understanding. Research the relationship between the agoge and the mess where, contrary to your rendition, men were REQUIRED BY LAW to live with their mess mates and forbidden to marry until middle age...the latter coming BEFORE the former expired by 10 years or so.

Alexander did have a gay lover in spite of producing heirs. He and Hephaestion made sacrifices at the alter of Achilles AND Petroclus. Are described by contemporary annalists as eromaneous, a word indicating love along the Eros line. I mean, there are a kazillion examples.

The only people who don't see it are the ones who think 'produced heirs' must mean 'can't be gay', but that's a modern prejudice.

Julius Caesar did indeed sleep with many women. So much so that it was said he was 'every woman's man, and every man's woman.'

Your belief that ancient Greeks did not take a man seriously if he engaged in homosexuality it more than wrong, it's diametrically opposed to historical truth.

What? Haphaestion is never hardly mentioned in the Historical context after Roxanne through Alexandria.

Julius Ceasar is known to have slept with lots of women. period. In the historical context their are not any named lovers. Most of the accusations of Homosexuality or immoral releveance are made by political enemies after the Cleopatra enagagement as a negative.

No, I said the ancient greek nobility would not take a man seriously. And this is true. Progeny and the extension of households were held in more regard. The bigger the family the richer and more secure one was considered. Again look toward king Phillip's story and the result of his extended gay relationship. It shows the moral construct and line of thought based on the moral imbalance of an inflamed adult male lover a practice Phillip should have ended long ago by their standards.

[Bronn Urgandy]

FOR pressing it, no. For HOW he pressed it, very much so.

His first priority should have been finding a working relationship with Renly. Barring that, Robb or maybe the Vale. He should have seen how little popular and military support he possessed, and savoured the sorcery for enemies who were inherent rather than 'Anyone who disagrees with my claim'.

If he hadn't be so zealous about it, there were ways to go.

Additionally, hiding out in DS with what he believes to be proof of treason and only coming out of hiding with it after Robert was killed by it and using it to press his claim was naive/foolish beyond belief.

In any event, Renly's first suggestion to Ned..if Stannis had actually been around, there was a lot of room there for a compromise. Between the 3 of them they could have solidified the Baratheon dynasty...I could write pages about different ways it could have gone down. One of the reasons I feel Stannis is a poorer choice for King is because the number one obstacle to those discussions proving fruitful would be his refusal to compromise in a real sense.

I can agree with a lot of this, to be honest. To me Stannis has the best and most just cause, and understandable that he considers Renly & Robb traitors so therefor enemies, but he couldve been smarter about it. I still regret him and Robb not reaching an agreement.

I still say that going for Renly was a reaction to his incredibly hostile action. However people want to paint the line of succession (Stannis hadnt crowned himself, Renly only rebelled against Joffrey) it still means that Stan and Shireen and future generations pose a threat to Renlys own legacy.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

When Renly crowned himself, he signed Stannis' death sentence. Killing him is more than justified.

That said, Bloodraven was more than justified in killing Daemon Blackfyre and people call him a kinslayer anyway.

How is a younger brother supposed to be crowned king if the older brother is alive, capable, and not a Maester or member of the NW?

Tell me, how does that happen?

That happens when said younger brother is ambitious, or influenced by advisers with axe to grind, or whatever. It happened with Daemon Blackfyre, but he lost, so he's a "traitor". It happened with Aegon II, Aegon for a change won, so somehow Rhaenyra is a "traitor" (Stannis' own logic, for bonus hilarity). Had Renly won, undoubtedly Stannis would be a "traitor", too.

[Bronn Urgandy]

That happens when said younger brother is ambitious, or influenced by advisers with axe to grind, or whatever. It happened with Daemon Blackfyre, but he lost, so he's a "traitor". It happened with Aegon II, Aegon for a change won, so somehow Rhaenyra is a "traitor" (Stannis' own logic, for bonus hilarity). Had Renly won, undoubtedly Stannis would be a "traitor", too.

I am pretty sure Stannis is just quoting history books without personal feeling to drive home the point that no matter who you are, treason is punishable by death.

But yes, lets use the fact that he didnt take a time out to go on a lengthy monologue about the injustice done to Rhaenyra as a strike against him.

[James Arryn]

I can agree with a lot of this, to be honest. To me Stannis has the best and most just cause, and understandable that he considers Renly & Robb traitors so therefor enemies, but he couldve been smarter about it. I still regret him and Robb not reaching an agreement.

I still say that going for Renly was a reaction to his incredibly hostile action. However people want to paint the line of succession (Stannis hadnt crowned himself, Renly only rebelled against Joffrey) it still means that Stan and Shireen and future generations pose a threat to Renlys own legacy.

Move Renly aside for a moment and the basic issue is that Stannis seems to fundamentally misunderstand the feudal dynamic. In a conflict of feudal succession, a king needs his Barons much more than the Barons need the King. Jon Arryn/Ned/Robert understood that.

Stannis seems to step fully formed from the pages of the Sun King, or similar. The things he despises in Robert and Renly are essential to a feudal king. Unless you want to try it King John's way x 10, which needless to say strikes me as a sure fire way to lose. He is NOT an absolute monarch, even if he wins. But I think he thinks he is. Not kidding, he seems to be closer to Aerys than any other Westeros model.

He has no dragons, has little time for diplomacy, for forming mutually beneficial relationships, for...well, politics, essentially. That's a rather black hole sized flaw for a political leader not backed by Dragons or even centuries of fore bearers.

That's what Robert got, Renly got, what Robb got, what Aegon seems to get, and what Balon And Stannis don't get. Being popular isn't superfluous, it is the essence of feudal leadership.

He'd make a great Hanging judge or tank general or w/e, but as a feudal leader he's likely to be a disaster...and we haven't even touched on the religious stuff.

Jon has taught him some basics in a short amount of time, so maybe there's a glimmer of hope.

[hollowcrown]

That's what Robert got, Renly got, what Robb got, what Aegon seems to get, and what Balon And Stannis don't get. Being popular isn't superfluous, it is the essence of feudal leadership.

Did Robert really get anything to do with ruling? All of his alliances were likely brokered by Ned or more likely Jon Arryn. No doubt Robert was a great leader and figurehead, but Ned was the tactical brains and Jon Arryn was the diplomat among the commanders of the rebellion.

[James Arryn]

Did Robert really get anything to do with ruling? All of his alliances were likely brokered by Ned or more likely Jon Arryn. No doubt Robert was a great leader and figurehead, but Ned was the tactical brains and Jon Arryn was the diplomat among the commanders of the rebellion.

Yes. He got that it was essential to be popular. He got that he needed Jon Arryn, for example. Not to just walk around demanding that everyone support Robert because he's the Rightful King...can you imagine Stannis' solution to the Dorne situation that JA fixed? If anyone blasted Stannis the way Ned blasted Robert re: the Targ kids, what do you think happens there? Etc.

Robert was a terrible king in many ways, but he understood the importance of popularity, he understood how much he needed the support of the realm's Lords, and he realized that slogans about Duty To The Rightful King were not gonna get it done. He hated politics almost as much as Stannis does, but unlike Stannis he didn't just pretend that would make it's importance go away. Rather, he left most of it to the realm's best diplomat.

[Lee-Sensei]

Did Robert really get anything to do with ruling? All of his alliances were likely brokered by Ned or more likely Jon Arryn. No doubt Robert was a great leader and figurehead, but Ned was the tactical brains and Jon Arryn was the diplomat among the commanders of the rebellion.

There's no proof that Ned made the strategies or tactics with Robert just being a figurehead listening to Ned's orders. Not at all. Furthermore, we hear from many people that Robert easily made friends of his enemies.

[Bronn Urgandy]

Move Renly aside for a moment and the basic issue is that Stannis seems to fundamentally misunderstand the feudal dynamic. In a conflict of feudal succession, a king needs his Barons much more than the Barons need the King. Jon Arryn/Ned/Robert understood that.

Stannis seems to step fully formed from the pages of the Sun King, or similar. The things he despises in Robert and Renly are essential to a feudal king. Unless you want to try it King John's way x 10, which needless to say strikes me as a sure fire way to lose. He is NOT an absolute monarch, even if he wins. But I think he thinks he is. Not kidding, he seems to be closer to Aerys than any other Westeros model.

He has no dragons, has little time for diplomacy, for forming mutually beneficial relationships, for...well, politics, essentially. That's a rather black hole sized flaw for a political leader not backed by Dragons or even centuries of fore bearers.

That's what Robert got, Renly got, what Robb got, what Aegon seems to get, and what Balon And Stannis don't get. Being popular isn't superfluous, it is the essence of feudal leadership.

He'd make a great Hanging judge or tank general or w/e, but as a feudal leader he's likely to be a disaster...and we haven't even touched on the religious stuff.

Jon has taught him some basics in a short amount of time, so maybe there's a glimmer of hope.

This isnt entirely correct. Stannis does seem to demand loyalty based on his claim, but while Renly was marrying into the Reach and Robb was winning the Riverlands Stannis was trying to win over his last remaining options, the Stormlords in a much similar way, but Renly was 1. Their liege and 2. Marching through their lands with a huge army. He was even considering marrying into the Vale, but Mel won that argument for whatever reason.

After that he took his last remaining option, which was the letter declaring the truth, giving everyone the choice of Stannis, unfortunately the unforseen circumstances of there being 3 other Kings already doomed that to failure, I dont lay the blame at Stannis' feet. after that he killed Renly and took his men, some of which considered Stannis in the first place and are still pretty loyal.

I think Stannis understands the necessities as well as anyone, but he's a miserable prick and more importantly hindered by circumstance, which is what has driven him to the steps he's taken. His last options.

[Mithras]

Renly was murdered. If Stannis convicts him of treason, Renly’s punishment should be execution, not murder. Besides, Stannis made his move before the dawn comes, so he broke the truce as well.

[The Drunkard]

Dawn isn't sunrise, it's the period of twilight before the sun comes over the horizon. That's when Renly died.

[Bronn Urgandy]

Renly was murdered. If Stannis convicts him of treason, Renly’s punishment should be execution, not murder. Besides, Stannis made his move before the dawn comes, so he broke the truce as well.

Well yes, but Stannis convicting Renly of treason doesnt tell the whole story. At Renlys time of death he was preparing to fight a battle against Stannis, which makes him fair game in a war situation, and difficult to punish in a lawful manner. You can call it a cheap move, but it was done as one enemy to another, defeated that enemy and avoided a bloody battle. And no, its not really like the Red Wedding, because that was betrayal between allies.

[Mithras]

Well yes, but Stannis convicting Renly of treason doesnt tell the whole story. At Renlys time of death he was preparing to fight a battle against Stannis, which makes him fair game in a war situation, and difficult to punish in a lawful manner. You can call it a cheap move, but it was done as one enemy to another, defeated that enemy and avoided a bloody battle. And no, its not really like the Red Wedding, because that was betrayal between allies.

There is something called trial by combat. Or even trial by seven in which we had seen two brothers fighting for the opposite causes and one ended up killing the other unintentionally or not. I think a fair battle between the opponents is as just as these. Stannis could have offered a trial by combat or a trial by seven. Or he might try to beat him in a full scale battle. But he only said "bend the knee or else..."

[hollowcrown]

Who would be Stannis's champion though? I have no doubt he himself could beat Renly in combat but Renly would call on Loras or Brienne and then Stannis would be fucked, and I can't think of a knight in Stannis's service who is really "up there" as a fighter.

[E-Ro]

Renly was murdered. If Stannis convicts him of treason, Renlys punishment should be execution, not murder. Besides, Stannis made his move before the dawn comes, so he broke the truce as well.

You do know that even in modern times when a criminal resists arrest they are killed without trial, right? Sure the cops will try to force that person into submission with no lethal methods, but the second the perp pulls a weapon he is a dead man.

Renly resisted arrest, so he was put down like the common thug he was.

[Winter's Knight]

You do know that even in modern times when a criminal resists arrest they are killed without trial, right? Sure the cops will try to force that person into submission with no lethal methods, but the second the perp pulls a weapon he is a dead man.

Renly resisted arrest, so he was put down like the common thug he was.

I also know that in those cases, the cops' firearms are seized and they're relegated to desk duty until they've been cleared.*

Of course, Stannis wasn't even king and had no right to execute Renly.

*All my knowledge about the American justice system stems from Law and Order, the Good Wife and online commentators.

[hollowcrown]

I also know that in those cases, the cops' firearms are seized and they're relegated to desk duty until they've been cleared.*

Of course, Stannis wasn't even king and had no right to execute Renly.

*All my knowledge about the American justice system stems from Law and Order, the Good Wife and online commentators.

Stannis/Mel was simply the more pragmatic party in this case. Renly would've done a night raid, but he's a Knight of Summer and wanted his glorious, heroic battle. Mel knew defeat was imminent so she took action and took Renly out of the picture. In the game of thrones you win or you die. Renly died, much like Ned did, hoping that his enemies would play by the same rules as him.