Tywin Lannister's respect for Stannis Baratheon

[Tyrell_like_Squirrel]

That was the winning strategy all along, until he got murdered by his brother.

Renly rebelled because he had to get rid of Lannister influence, not sure what his plans would had been after that. Prolly ruling? Anything is better than Cersei.

His plans were pretty clearly influenced by the Tyrells, considering it was their influence that gave him the actual strength needed to take the throne.

Renly rebelled because he was a power hungry asshole, he rebelled before he even knew that Joffrey and crew were incest bastards. Plus, his rebellion threatened the idea of succession for every noble house. If a younger brother can succeed before the elder, then there's going to be a lot of fighting over legitimacy and inheritance.

I'm still blown away by the amount of Renly supporters there are. Especially since people love to use Donal Noye's "Stannis is iron" quote all the time, but forget his critique of Renly. Shiny and impressive on the outside, but not worth much at the end of the day.

[Trigger Warning]

Renly lost because he spent months dithering instead of making a decisive grab for the throne. He understood symbols of power and how to appeal to people far more then Stannis, but he doesn't seem to have had any clear and distinct plans for ruling. It wasn't just dark magic, and I fail to see any evidence that he would have been able to hold on to his power once he gained it, without being indebted to the reach. That's basically what Robert did with the Lannisters, and most would agree that Robert was a pretty ineffective King. I suggest you check out Steven Atwell's analysis of the Baratheon brothers at Tower of the Hand, he's much better at laying out Renly's incompetence then I am.

Oh please, Renly's strategy was very effective. Stannis had an unknown weapon that Renly could neither anticipate nor defend against. If he'd rushed to King's Landing and took the throne Stannis would have still killed him. Furthermore so what about being indebted to the Reach? It's an alliance, they're giving him their power to advance his claim and in return he'll give them advancement at court, there's always a power behind the throne.

[DasallmaechtigeJ]

As for Stannis' character, one thing that often comes up short in discussions like these (the argument might get a little too philosophical):

Renly, Cersei, Arianne, and Asha for example all make claims for the throne because they think sitting on it is their right by birth and something that they perceive as advantegous/enjoyable etc. To them, the Game of Thrones is (exaggerating) a fun thing to do to satisfy their own ambition or further their goals.

I would argue that Stannis is different here: unlike the others, he thinks ruling is his duty. He perceives it as his duty by birth/succession to rule the Seven Kingdoms and bring justice to it, in short, to serve for the greater good. It is important to note that his perception of duty is very Kantian. Whether you like his perception of justice or the way he acts in war is a different matter (as, speaking with Machiavelli, war/securing power is a totally different socail plane with totally different moral laws). However, there is no denying that he is the only claimant who actually does smething or the sake of the realm (defending the wall). I don't want to say that he likes the smallfolk, other nobles, or even ruling. Actually, I think he doesn't like other people and the fact that he needs to bother ruling them the slightest bit, but he sees it as his divine duty that he has to oblige to whether he likes it or not. In that way, he is highly idealistic and has good intentions, whether he lives up to them is a different matter.

(To me, among all claimants, he is the as of yet most fit ruler, as he is the only one who actually has a notion what he wants to do on the Iron Throne and how he wants to rule. Also, he is the only one with sufficient expierence in ruling and warfare.)

[Tyrell_like_Squirrel]

Oh please, Renly's strategy was very effective. Stannis had an unknown weapon that Renly could neither anticipate nor defend against. If he'd rushed to King's Landing and took the throne Stannis would have still killed him. Furthermore so what about being indebted to the Reach? It's an alliance, they're giving him their power to advance his claim and in return he'll give them advancement at court, there's always a power behind the throne.

I would disagree 1000% with this, the ideal situation is that the monarch should govern for the good of the realm with aid from his lords and bannerman. Obviously this doesn't always work, but I fail to see where you would get the idea that there's "always a power behind the throne." And you failed to address the main problem, Renly has no real claim to the throne and his rebellion would have been treated as blatant treason by pretty much everyone if Joffrey hadn't been a literal and figurative bastard.

Also, Renly could have just left storm's end and made his way to the capitol. He had no real reason to to fight Stannis except to satisfy his own vanity. He could have gone straight for the throne well before that too. Again, I fail to see where all this Renly love comes from.

[James Arryn]

I would disagree 1000% with this, the ideal situation is that the monarch should govern for the good of the realm with aid from his lords and bannerman. Obviously this doesn't always work, but I fail to see where you would get the idea that there's "always a power behind the throne." And you failed to address the main problem, Renly has no real claim to the throne and his rebellion would have been treated as blatant treason by pretty much everyone if Joffrey hadn't been a literal and figurative bastard.

Also, Renly could have just left storm's end and made his way to the capitol. He had no real reason to to fight Stannis except to satisfy his own vanity. He could have gone straight for the throne well before that too. Again, I fail to see where all this Renly love comes from.

Do you understand how ridiculous this argument is on behalf of Stannis? The 'it will change Westeros' argument? It makes zero sense. Because Westeros hasn't read the books and heard Cersei's confession. Meaning Stannis taking power would have exactly the same effect as you say Renly would.

It's nonsense.

But if you feel that Stannis' unsupported assertion profoundly affects legitimacy, I'll play along. I'm about to blow your mind. Are you sitting securely? Any health concerns I ought to know about before I utter the words that will redefine your existences? No? Okay, here goes:

Renly: Stannis is illegitimate.

GAMECHANGER!!!

The walls are down! The doors are blown! It's a brave new world! Holy crap, is this what God feels like?!

Wait, what's that you say? Renly is just making empty convenient excuses which, without proof, will be dismissed by Westeros as so much wind? That's a good point. I guess we're back to King Joff.

This is the part where Stanfans will sincerely and passionately argue in opposing directions based entirely on which direction Stannis is pointing. Always my favourite bit, like 'Renly lost because....anything other than shadowbaby. ' It may seem like a ghostlike completely unprecedented Magic assassin that would kill a man sitting on the IT just as readily as in a tent, but no...within those shadows are the cold hard lessons of pragmatic truth....as it pertains to death by Shadowbaby.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Renly lost because he spent months dithering instead of making a decisive grab for the throne. He understood symbols of power and how to appeal to people far more then Stannis, but he doesn't seem to have had any clear and distinct plans for ruling. It wasn't just dark magic, and I fail to see any evidence that he would have been able to hold on to his power once he gained it, without being indebted to the reach. That's basically what Robert did with the Lannisters, and most would agree that Robert was a pretty ineffective King. I suggest you check out Steven Atwell's analysis of the Baratheon brothers at Tower of the Hand, he's much better at laying out Renly's incompetence then I am.

No offense to Steven Atwell, but I find a lot of his analysis unpersuasive.

[Universal Sword Donor]

His plans were pretty clearly influenced by the Tyrells, considering it was their influence that gave him the actual strength needed to take the throne.

Renly rebelled because he was a power hungry asshole, he rebelled before he even knew that Joffrey and crew were incest bastards. Plus, his rebellion threatened the idea of succession for every noble house. If a younger brother can succeed before the elder, then there's going to be a lot of fighting over legitimacy and inheritance.

I'm still blown away by the amount of Renly supporters there are. Especially since people love to use Donal Noye's "Stannis is iron" quote all the time, but forget his critique of Renly. Shiny and impressive on the outside, but not worth much at the end of the day.

Renly rebelled because the Lannisters were pretty dead set on killing him, if only because Cersei wanted him dead. He made as much clear when he offered Ned the chance to be regent and Renly gain *zero* power.

[Tyrell_like_Squirrel]

Do you understand how ridiculous this argument is on behalf of Stannis? The 'it will change Westeros' argument? It makes zero sense. Because Westeros hasn't read the books and heard Cersei's confession. Meaning Stannis taking power would have exactly the same effect as you say Renly would.

It's nonsense.

But if you feel that Stannis' unsupported assertion profoundly affects legitimacy, I'll play along. I'm about to blow your mind. Are you sitting securely? Any health concerns I ought to know about before I utter the words that will redefine your existences? No? Okay, here goes:

Renly: Stannis is illegitimate.

GAMECHANGER!!!

The walls are down! The doors are blown! It's a brave new world! Holy crap, is this what God feels like?!

Wait, what's that you say? Renly is just making empty convenient excuses which, without proof, will be dismissed by Westeros as so much wind? That's a good point. I guess we're back to King Joff.

This is the part where Stanfans will sincerely and passionately argue in opposing directions based entirely on which direction Stannis is pointing. Always my favourite bit, like 'Renly lost because....anything other than shadowbaby. ' It may seem like a ghostlike completely unprecedented Magic assassin that would kill a man sitting on the IT just as readily as in a tent, but no...within those shadows are the cold hard lessons of pragmatic truth....as it pertains to death by Shadowbaby.

I didn't say that Stannis making a claim for the throne in that situation would be okay. I don't think I mentioned Stannis in that point at all. What I was trying to convey was that Renly literally has no claim to the throne at all, even with Cersei's children being incest. Renly made his claim before Stannis and after Joffrey, but he didn't know that Joffrey was a bastard. He just did it anyway.

I'm not saying that Stannis is the greatest, I'm not going to deny I'm a fan but I can look at things objectively and listen to other sides. All I was trying to say was Stannis was clearly the biggest threat to Tywin, not Renly. And as far as proof of this goes, Renly had a massive army and huge popular support and yet he wasted time seizing the initiative.

You're right, he could make a claim that Stannis is illegitimate, but he didn't. He could have grabbed the throne with the support of the reach and stormlands, executed the Lannisters, made peace with the Starks, and won the whole thing, never coming within two leagues of Stannis and his shadow-spawn.

I suggest checking out Steven Atwell, he makes some interesting points and is much more articulate then me.

Also, no need to get rude, we're all fans here. :cheers:

[Tyrell_like_Squirrel]

No offense to Steven Atwell, but I find a lot of his analysis unpersuasive.

I like him, but hey, to each their own.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

I read that article, he also pointed out how a younger brother killing an older brother would forever fuck up the idea of the line of succession.

But an uncle killing his nephews would be A OK?!

Ned, who is directly told by Cersei the truth, worries that he will forever be remembered as the man who displaced Roberts children.

[James Arryn]

I didn't say that Stannis making a claim for the throne in that situation would be okay. I don't think I mentioned Stannis in that point at all. What I was trying to convey was that Renly literally has no claim to the throne at all, even with Cersei's children being incest. Renly made his claim before Stannis and after Joffrey, but he didn't know that Joffrey was a bastard. He just did it anyway.

I'm not saying that Stannis is the greatest, I'm not going to deny I'm a fan but I can look at things objectively and listen to other sides. All I was trying to say was Stannis was clearly the biggest threat to Tywin, not Renly. And as far as proof of this goes, Renly had a massive army and huge popular support and yet he wasted time seizing the initiative.

You're right, he could make a claim that Stannis is illegitimate, but he didn't. He could have grabbed the throne with the support of the reach and stormlands, executed the Lannisters, made peace with the Starks, and won the whole thing, never coming within two leagues of Stannis and his shadow-spawn.

I suggest checking out Steven Atwell, he makes some interesting points and is much more articulate then me.

Also, no need to get rude, we're all fans here. :cheers:

Renly and Stannis' claims have the exact same impact on political precedent. The argument that it will mean approved treason isn't a material one, but concerned with perception/effect, and in that they are the same.

In terms of material claim, Renly's argument is much like Robert's was. A...rather than THE....blood claim plus a grievance/threat from the status quo plus the power to realize it.

The overriding truth is that rules of succession as a constant is a myth. In RL and the books, the rules if succession are much more scoreboard than rulebook. Women were ruled out by virtue of who won, not who was right. Dany might be about to rewrite what's 'right'. The BF rebellion favoured primogeniture over designation, again by virtue of who won. From Maegor to Egg up to Robert, this idea that there are rules everyone plays by is a fiction within a fiction.

In RL it's even sketchier. The Normans imposed feudalism on England. Right? William the Conqueror and all that?

So...he dies....and the crown goes to his eldest son Robert. Right?

Nope. His second son, William Rufus was more popular, liked better by Old Bill and got the gig. But he's killed hunting. A-ha, sound familiar? Robert's moment has arrived!

Nope. Younger brother Henry is hired. Very popular chap. Not the warrior Robert is...few are...but he understands politics.

Enough to be concerned about his succession. His son dies, leaving a sole daughter. What do the Rules say? Well, let's see. Henry makes everyone promise to support his daughter as queen. He dies and the throne goes to....the third son of another branch of the family, Stephen of Blois of course. Third son, did I say? Yes. Why him? Popular.

Are you seeing how the rules actually work yet? No? We'll go on.

Stephen fights and rules for quite a long time and then dies leaving the throne to his...nope, his son was passed over for Henry, the son of the daughter who was passed over for him back when. Sorry if this is confusing, but there are few straight lines in real life power politics.

Okay, we're quite a ways into this now, so get ready for a curve. This Henry IS succeeded by his oldest surviving son. Now, begore you get too emotional about this, it's worth pointing out that that son did not succeed as per the rules, but by virtue of winning the last of several armed rebellions, sons against father, that had been going on for decades. These rules are tricky, no?

But anyways, let's take what we can get. An oldest son, by God! About time. So this is the sign of things to come, you're thinking. Don't get comfy. When he dies succession appoints Arthur, the son of his next eldest brother Geoffrey. Shame that younger brother John didn't get the memo, or at least not before he'd been crowned and subsequently murdered his nephew.

And it carries on this way until the point when the real power rested with Parliament, at which point parliament began insisting that the play-actor rulers behave themselves and get transitions over without much fuss so the big boys could get on with the actual ruling. And needless to say, a Parliament...ie, the real power...was very messy indeed.

Succession as this Single Deciding Argument is a myth. Real power is decided by a combination of different factors: order of inheritance, designation, acclimation, popularity, gender, religion, convenience, etc.

Atwell i've read. I compliment his enthusiasm for the subject. His arguments tend to be end-driven, and as such unconvincing.

As for being rude, sincere apologies. Not my intent at all, but as I get ironic I can begin to write 'in character' enough that I lose perspective on manners, so please to forgive.

[The Drunkard]

At which point one single, consistent, unbroken, uncomplicated, easy to read line runs through all of Stannis' decisions: the interests of Stannis Baratheon. Every choice he makes falls under this heading.

Other than, of course, that he thinks that being king is going to kill him. He makes it clear to Davos that "the cost" of victory will be his death, due to the vision of the king in the burning crown. Everything he does in ASOS and onward is done with the belief that he will die should he be successful. Hardly self interest.

[James Arryn]

Other than, of course, that he SAYS he thinks that being king is going to kill him. He makes it clear to Davos that "the cost" of victory will be his death, due to the vision of the king in the burning crown. Everything he does in ASOS and onward is done (ACCORDING TO HIM) with the belief that he will die should he be successful. Hardly self interest.

Fixed for ASOIAF.

[The Drunkard]

Other than having already made up your mind about the character and not wanting it to change, there is no reason to think he's lying in that scene.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Other than having already made up your mind about the character and not wanting it to change, there is no reason to think he's lying in that scene.

Well there is.

I stopped believing in gods the day I saw the Windproud break up across the bay. Any gods so monstrous as to drown my mother and father would never have my worship, I vowed. In King’s Landing, the High Septon would prattle at me of how all justice and goodness flowed from the Seven, but all I ever saw of either was made by men.

He's an atheist, do you know many atheists who believe in visions or preordained fate?

[TheHouseHB]

More like one psychopath respecting another.

Shots fired!

[The Drunkard]

He's an atheist, do you know many atheists who believe in visions or preordained fate?

It feels unnecessary to explain that in our world magic does not exist, unlike in westeros where it does, so instead I'll just suggest moving your eyes down a single line and looking at this:

"If you do not believe in gods—"

"—why trouble with this new one?" Stannis broke in. "I have asked myself as well. I know little and care less of gods, but the red priestess has power."

Nevermind that this takes place a book prior to his vision in ASOS, during which time Melisandre demonstrates further magic that leads Stannis to this conclusion:

"Stand before the nightfire and you'll see for yourself. The flames shift and dance, never still. The shadows grow tall and short, and every man casts a dozen. Some are fainter than others, that's all. Well, men cast their shadows across the future as well. One shadow or many. Melisandre sees them all."

[James Arryn]

Other than having already made up your mind about the character and not wanting it to change, there is no reason to think he's lying in that scene.

Is that how you think it works? We take power players at their word when they talk about why they want power? So you believe Renly when he says that he wants to rule because it's better for 7K?

And unlike Stannis, we SEE Renly propose 2 different plans which do not involve him being King, whereas Stannis wants the power from the moment we meet him.

And Renly, need I remind you, has not deceived people in order to get power as Stannis admits to doing. Which being true, brings me full circle. I don't take Stannis at his word because he deceives...himself and others...to get power, and because I don't tend to take ANY power player at his word on the subject of their power.

[John Hulboy]

Tywin knew Stannis would fight an shows Tywin knew he would be facing a very good tested land and sea commander . Stannis is a threat to the lannisters .

[EvilEye]

Is that how you think it works? We take power players at their word when they talk about why they want power? So you believe Renly when he says that he wants to rule because it's better for 7K?

And unlike Stannis, we SEE Renly propose 2 different plans which do not involve him being King, whereas Stannis wants the power from the moment we meet him.

And Renly, need I remind you, has not deceived people in order to get power as Stannis admits to doing. Which being true, brings me full circle. I don't take Stannis at his word because he deceives...himself and others...to get power, and because I don't tend to take ANY power player at his word on the subject of their power.

So Stannis is lying to Davos in that scene because...why? He's trying to look cool for him?

"Yeah, this'll probably kill me, but I'm gonna do it anyway." *flexes* "I'm hardcore like that."

I'm all for skepticism and not blindly accepting the things people say about themselves as gospel, but that doesn't mean everything they say on the subject should be automatically dismissed as self-serving lies.