I truly don't get the Stannis apologisits...

[OrangeStallion]

Why was he likely manipulated by them when there isn't any proof of that. In fact, Olenna speaks her disapproval of the scheme when discussing the issue.

Show:Renly, Show:Loras, and Show:Margaery are completely different characters from their book counterparts. Much more then the two different Stannis, yet many Stannis fans don't seem happy with people using the show version of him in their arguments against him.

Olenna also speaks her disapproval of murder at weddings.

[Maid So Fair]

He was manipulated likely by Loras/Margaery/Queen of Thorns. Mace could have been convinced by either of those three also.

We don't really know in the books who the instigator is, but according to the show it seems pretty clear that Loras Tyrell is quite the schemer.

(of course show logic=/=book logic, but its still a possibility)

Manipulated to what end, exactly?

[PatrickStormborn]

He was manipulated likely by Loras/Margaery/Queen of Thorns. Mace could have been convinced by either of those three also.

We don't really know in the books who the instigator is, but according to the show it seems pretty clear that Loras Tyrell is quite the schemer.

(of course show logic=/=book logic, but its still a possibility)

It's really not a possibility. The QoT outright states that she never wanted to get involved in any kind of war over succession, Margaery is only 14/15 in AGoT - not some political genius as some seem to believe, and there is no evidence that Loras was manipulating Renly.

Renly wanted to get rid of the Lannisters. The Tyrells were his allies, so he planned to replace Cersei with Margaery. When that failed and Robert was killed by Cersei, he ultimately decided to crown himself and marry Margaery, ensuring the support of the Tyrells.

The notion that Renly was manipulated comes entirely from the show.

[OrangeStallion]

It's really not a possibility. The QoT outright states that she never wanted to get involved in any kind of war over succession, Margaery is only 14/15 in AGoT - not some political genius as some seem to believe, and there is no evidence that Loras was manipulating Renly.

Renly wanted to get rid of the Lannisters. The Tyrells were his allies, so he planned to replace Cersei with Margaery. When that failed and Robert was killed by Cersei, he ultimately decided to crown himself and marry Margaery, ensuring the support of the Tyrells.

The notion that Renly was manipulated comes entirely from the show.

QoT outright states her disapproval of murder at weddings.

She's not a reliable source if we're looking for unfaulty information.

The end for the Tyrells would be to sit one of their own on the Iron Throne. Obviously.

Due to Renly and Loras' special friendship, I would say its reasonably likely that the whole idea of Margaery replacing Cersei most likely came from the Tyrells.

[Fat Mac]

I don't think Renly was manipulated by the Tyrells, but I think they definitely intended on using him before he intended on using them.

When Loras was a boy he went to squire for Renly at SE. Note Loras is Mace's favorite son. This was obviously the start of their relationship. Who sent Loras to SE? It stands to reason Mace was behind it. Clearly Mace, left out of the court situation since the fall of the Targaryens, wants to get into bed with the Baratheons. Stannis isn't an option, since he hates Mace, and is already married to a Florent, who also hate Mace. That leaves Renly, who has more power than Stannis and is younger and more mold-able.

I don't think Loras was intending on manipulating Renly. He would have been too young to be given such a task. But I have no doubt in my mind that Mace sent Loras to SE to eventually strengthen his power and his voice at court. And if that's true, that precedes Renly's use of the Tyrells by a number of years.

[Maid So Fair]

QoT outright states her disapproval of murder at weddings.

She's not a reliable source if we're looking for unfaulty information.

The end for the Tyrells would be to sit one of their own on the Iron Throne. Obviously.

Due to Renly and Loras' special friendship, I would say its reasonably likely that the whole idea of Margaery replacing Cersei most likely came from the Tyrells.

She publicly disapproves of murder at weddings while at a wedding where she is about to murder someone. It's not exactly indicative of her reliability otherwise.

Marg is no Cersei and there's every intention she will bear Renly a trueborn heir, who will be Mace's grandson, a proposition the man is overjoyed about. There's no indication they planned to move against him and indeed they had no reason to.

ETA: Even if true, I still see no arguments about why Tyrells are so horrible compared to everybody else.

[James Arryn]

I don't think Renly was manipulated by the Tyrells, but I think they definitely intended on using him before he intended on using them.

When Loras was a boy he went to squire for Renly at SE. Note Loras is Mace's favorite son. This was obviously the start of their relationship. Who sent Loras to SE? It stands to reason Mace was behind it. Clearly Mace, left out of the court situation since the fall of the Targaryens, wants to get into bed with the Baratheons. Stannis isn't an option, since he hates Mace, and is already married to a Florent, who also hate Mace. That leaves Renly, who has more power than Stannis and is younger and more mold-able.

I don't think Loras was intending on manipulating Renly. He would have been too young to be given such a task. But I have no doubt in my mind that Mace sent Loras to SE to eventually strengthen his power and his voice at court. And if that's true, that precedes Renly's use of the Tyrells by a number of years.

In the same way Rickard used Jon Arryn?

I'm ok with that. It's all politics; everyone's using each other. Just not sure why people seem to make Renly's case more extreme, sinister and one-sided.

Well, no, I think I know why people do that, but I'd rather not assume the worst of others.

But the thing's that's not in doubt if you read Cat's scene: Renly is the one in charge.

[James Arryn]

This thread's filled to the brim with Stannis Two-Steps/false equivalences.

1) Declaring war on/attacking/assassinating brother =/= self-defence.

2) Actually assassinating brother =/= assuming he won't be taken alive.

3) Hypothetically awkward conversations with Robert =/= reason to ditch all duties and abandon him to his enemies.

4) Leaving Ned after offering salvation/being rejected for suicide =/= abandoning him.

5) Rebelling against open enemies Joff/Cersei =/= rebelling against Stannis.

6) Not accepting completely unprovable, highly convenient story from brother who has declared war on you and attacked you =/= saying you freely choosing to reject the 'truth'.

7) Stannis being righteous 'in spite of everything' BECAUSE he eventually sees the wall as more important =/= other decisions righteous. Quite the reverse, in fact.

8) Because Stannis =/= valid argument for anything.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I don't get the Stannis apologists either. There are plenty of sins to be laid at his feet, and which no one should defend. Thankfully, I see very few posters defend all of his actions, and, particularly, see very few defend the burnings. Mostly he's liked in spite of these things. Sadly, anyone who voices a favorable opinion of Stannis risks being treated as a fringe 'apologist.' Liking Stannis is often treated as somehow beyond the pale, unreasonable. Bizarrely and partly hilariously, these discussions seem always to pit Stannis against Dany or Renly, with those crying 'apologist' against the Stannis fans simultaneously defending the worth of these other characters, despite their easily comparable flaws and enormities. People who do this engage in wild mental gymnastics, and deservedly lose credibility.

[Mark Antony]

Yeah the twilight team Stannis or Team Dany vibes are always lame.

[James Arryn]

I don't get the Stannis apologists either. There are plenty of sins to be laid at his feet, and which no one should defend. Thankfully, I see very few posters defend all of his actions, and, particularly, see very few defend the burnings. Mostly he's liked in spite of these things. Sadly, anyone who voices a favorable opinion of Stannis risks being treated as a fringe 'apologist.' Liking Stannis is often treated as somehow beyond the pale, unreasonable. Bizarrely and partly hilariously, these discussions seem always to pit Stannis against Dany or Renly, with those crying 'apologist' against the Stannis fans simultaneously defending the worth of these other characters, despite their easily comparable flaws and enormities. People who do this engage in wild mental gymnastics, and deservedly lose credibility.

Renly's 'easily comparable enormities' to multiple people burned are...?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Renly's 'easily comparable enormities' to multiple people burned are...?

Starving King's Landing.

[James Arryn]

Starving King's Landing.

No, dead wrong. Are you suggesting the Allies should have been sending food to Germany and Japan during WWII? Did Robert's rebels send food to KL while rebelling? Not supplying your enemies is so basic in warfare I find this conversation remarkably illustrative.

If you don't think what you're doing here is apologizing for burning people alive, you're wrong.

[Trigger Warning]

Starving King's Landing.

So you'd supply the enemy garrison? Or whatever armies in the field they'd send the supplies on to?

This is ridiculous.

[James Arryn]

So you'd supply the enemy garrison? Or whatever armies in the field they'd send the supplies on to?

This is ridiculous.

It's ridiculous as a criticism.

As an example of 'comparable enormities' to support an argument that Stannis apologists are mythical creatures, it's perfect.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

No, dead wrong. Are you suggesting the Allies should have been sending food to Germany and Japan during WWII? Did Robert's rebels send food to KL while rebelling? Not supplying your enemies is so basic in warfare I find this conversation remarkably illustrative.

If you don't think what you're doing here is apologizing for burning people alive, you're wrong.

Remarkably illustrative, indeed. Renly is right in your view to starve a civilian population because it's smart militarily. This of course leaves out a discussion of the morality of starving innocent civilians because one believes one is best suited to be supreme despot. The comparison of Renly's rebellion against Joffrey to WW2 is hilarious, so wildly off the mark that anyone not engaged in mental gymnastics can see it does not apply. Declaring my condemnation of Renly's actions an apology for burning people alive is equally hilarious and deluded.

[Fat Mac]

No, dead wrong. Are you suggesting the Allies should have been sending food to Germany and Japan during WWII? Did Robert's rebels send food to KL while rebelling? Not supplying your enemies is so basic in warfare I find this conversation remarkably illustrative.

If you don't think what you're doing here is apologizing for burning people alive, you're wrong.

Too bad the nobles in KL were still eating. They were getting the food from Rosby and Stokeworth.

Renly wasn't starving his enemies. He was starving innocents, and, if he truly considered himself King, he was starving his people.

Smart move? Yes. Highly unethical? Yes.

[Talleyrand]

It's ridiculous as a criticism.

As an example of 'comparable enormities' to support an argument that Stannis apologists are mythical creatures, it's perfect.

And in addition Stannis wasn't exactly sending his fish and grain to the city either was he?

[James Arryn]

Too bad the nobles in KL were still eating. They were getting the food from Rosby and Stokeworth.

Renly wasn't starving his enemies. He was starving innocents, and, if he truly considered himself King, he was starving his people.

Smart move? Yes. Highly unethical? Yes.

He wasn't starving anyone.

All he did was stop sending his food to his enemies' capital. Which is as unethical as war, meaning it either is not unethical or literally unethical for everyone fighting a war like ever. No one supplies their enemies excepting in guerilla warfare. Honestly, even for the STS, this is dumb/obvious.

Feeding his enemies would be insane, and IF Renly had kept feedng them and Stannis or Cat pointed it out, it would absolutely be used as evidence of his foolishness and 'summer' warfare.

[Fat Mac]

And in addition Stannis wasn't exactly sending his fish and grain to the city either was he?

Food doesn't come from Dragonstone, it comes from the Reach. If Dragonstone gives any food to KL at all, its not enough to remarkably change the amount of food the city gets. And enough comes from the Reach that when Renly intentionally stopped the flow of food, it was enough for the city to starve.

I don't see why you guys are using Robert and Stannis as examples to try and make Renly look better. Because they aren't comparable.