Laughing Storm Reborn Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Somebody pointed it out to me when I was confused as fuck about why on Earth the sigil of a houses of badasses.....was a fucking deer. There are Elks that look like they could crush a car to pieces... Stags and their antlers had great symbolism in Medieval European, then lions and dragons became more popular as royal sigils... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Arthur Hightower Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Lets start pointing out a few. 1. Deciding to attack a castle when an enemy army is nearby. Even if they wouldn't attack, Stannis should have taken into account that the Tyrells could have been a problem 2. Making Imry Florent your admiral, If you're gonna appoint an admiral make sure it's somebody willing to listen to reason These 2 alone are pretty ridiculous If by "nearby" you mean 300+ miles away at Bitterbridge, with all potential commanders (Loras, Mace, Randyll, Garlan, Mathis) being 400-500 miles away from the army, with it defying logic that Loras, Baelish and Mace can reach the army, make a deal with to support Joffrey, get Rowan and Tarly to the Blackwater to link up with Tywin, make/commender an unfathomable number of barges to reach Stannis hours before he takes the city, then yes, Stannis shouldn't have attacked King's Landing because an army was "nearby". The Imry angle has already been covered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modesty Lannister Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Not necessarily. Stannis would still be an immensely unpopular king with 20,000 men and the Lannisters and Tyrells would still not want him in power. Tommen would be in Rosby, Stannis probably kills Cersei and Joffrey and the Tyrells and Lannisters rally behind a new king. I do not think so. The fact that Stannis wasn't popular at court proves nothing. Aegon V was not popular amongst the nobles, but smallfolk loved him. Stannis would have ruled justly. And with Renly as hand they would have been unstoppable. But, as someone rightly pointed out, then we wouldn't have ASOIAF. And I love wolf/lion/stag comparison. Very true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 If by "nearby" you mean 300+ miles away at Bitterbridge, with all potential commanders (Loras, Mace, Randyll, Garlan, Mathis) being 400-500 miles away from the army, with it defying logic that Loras, Baelish and Mace can reach the army, make a deal with to support Joffrey, get Rowan and Tarly to the Blackwater to link up with Tywin, make/commender an unfathomable number of barges to reach Stannis hours before he takes the city, then yes, Stannis shouldn't have attacked King's Landing because an army was "nearby". The Imry angle has already been covered. Well it turned out that the army wasn't 300+ miles away now was it? The point is there was an army in the field and Stannis decided to attack a fortified position anyway, that is not the smartest thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronn Urgandy Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I do not think so. The fact that Stannis wasn't popular at court proves nothing. Aegon V was not popular amongst the nobles, but smallfolk loved him. Stannis would have ruled justly. And with Renly as hand they would have been unstoppable. But, as someone rightly pointed out, then we wouldn't have ASOIAF. And I love wolf/lion/stag comparison. Very true. I'd rather have King Renly and Stannis as Hand, no doubt Stannis works harder but Renly would need to reign him in from time to time. But when difficult shit needs to get done, Renly can just call on big bro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beautiful Balon Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I'd rather have King Renly and Stannis as Hand, no doubt Stannis works harder but Renly would need to reign him in from time to time. But when difficult shit needs to get done, Renly can just call on big bro Also, no one would dare to assasinate Renly because that would make Stannis king* *Except for Stannis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Ravens Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 I'd rather have King Renly and Stannis as Hand, no doubt Stannis works harder but Renly would need to reign him in from time to time. But when difficult shit needs to get done, Renly can just call on big bro I agree that this would be a better way for team Baratheon to rule, but Stannis would never, ever agree to it. Also, no one would dare to assasinate Renly because that would make Stannis king* *Except for Stannis. Nice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Mac Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 I'd rather have King Renly and Stannis as Hand, no doubt Stannis works harder but Renly would need to reign him in from time to time. But when difficult shit needs to get done, Renly can just call on big bro Normally I'd hiss at this type of statement, but I've come to agree with it. Unfortunately it's kind of a requirement for Kings to be popular with the Lords, and Renly has that down. But when it comes to day to day administration, I'd trust very few more than Stannis (and that's kind of the Hand's duties anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 I'd rather have King Renly and Stannis as Hand, no doubt Stannis works harder but Renly would need to reign him in from time to time. But when difficult shit needs to get done, Renly can just call on big bro :agree: A King should be loved, a Hand should be feared. King Renly + Hand of the King Stannis would be the perfect combo, and I actually think Renly would have been open to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 If by "nearby" you mean 300+ miles away at Bitterbridge, with all potential commanders (Loras, Mace, Randyll, Garlan, Mathis) being 400-500 miles away from the army, with it defying logic that Loras, Baelish and Mace can reach the army, make a deal with to support Joffrey, get Rowan and Tarly to the Blackwater to link up with Tywin, make/commender an unfathomable number of barges to reach Stannis hours before he takes the city, then yes, Stannis shouldn't have attacked King's Landing because an army was "nearby". The Imry angle has already been covered. Tywin can attack Stannis without linking up with the Tyrells, and still would have a good chance of saving the city. Still, even if Stannis breaks through the city quickly and takes the Red Keep...what then? Does he think the armies under Tywin, Robb Stark, and the Tyrells will magically disappear because he is sitting on an ugly chair in the Red Keep? Taking King's Landing and killing Cersei/Joffrey would be a strong symbolic victory for Stannis, but he would quickly find himself in a world of shit: besieged with a weakened army and millions of starving smallfolk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForgottenKnight Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Taking King's Landing, the seat of power, would have legitimized him as King. Stannis had 80,000 men when he attacked King's Landing. Say he successfully took it and lost half. His remaining 40,000 would still outnumber Tywin's 30,000. He could either wait for Tywin to come to him or he could march and meet him in the middle. He would still have the advantage either way. Stannis had the largest army in Westeros when he attacked King's Landing. If he had won the war of five king's would have been over a long time ago. He also had the largest fleet so he could essentially take his army anywhere to meet any opponent. Most likely he would have forged a marriage alliance with the Starks and made the Tyrell's to bend the knee again. It would have come quickly as all their allies would be dead. There are no number estimates for Tyrell forces as far as I know. They are the only potential wildcard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow of the Morning Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 No. Stannis is not cruel or vicious. Stalin killed millions of people, persecuted many people that he saw as objectors, purged generals, scientists and ethnic groups inside URSS and he had a insatiable thirst for recognition. He wanted to be the only leader in evidence. He killed many political opponents and even adulterated photos to make them disappear form the historical records, if any official, politics or administrator was good and put in evidence due a good job he removed this people and even charged or executed him, just to not share the spotlight. He was so egomaniac that if someone stopped to applause him during a speech was charged. We can see that in the video below. No one stopped to applause and a buzzer was sound to people stop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fik2-kgOgng The only character that I see to be like him is the Mad King. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Taking King's Landing, the seat of power, would have legitimized him as King. Stannis had 80,000 men when he attacked King's Landing. Say he successfully took it and lost half. His remaining 40,000 would still outnumber Tywin's 30,000. He could either wait for Tywin to come to him or he could march and meet him in the middle. He would still have the advantage either way. Stannis had the largest army in Westeros when he attacked King's Landing. If he had won the war of five king's would have been over a long time ago. He also had the largest fleet so he could essentially take his army anywhere to meet any opponent. Most likely he would have forged a marriage alliance with the Starks and made the Tyrell's to bend the knee again. It would have come quickly as all their allies would be dead. There are no number estimates for Tyrell forces as far as I know. They are the only potential wildcard. What the fuck? Where are you getting this number from? He had closer to 20.000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaworth'sShipmate Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Stannis= Stalin? The only paralells are the first three letters of their names. Stannis is all about justice. Harsh unmerciful justice, but still justice by a fixed rigid standard. Stalin was the opposite of just. He executed and imprisoned millions of people based either on purely suspicion and paranoia, or just a desire to keep the people in line. Also Stannis would not starve an entire region to death just to show them who is boss. Not even Roose or Tywin are at a Stalin level, since they have no wish or desire to kill a large number of people they rule over. Stannis is the one ruler who cares about doing the right thing, more than anyone else since Ned died. Stannis isn't about what he wants or desires, its about what he thinks is "right" or right for the kingdom. While Stalin coveted the premiership of the Soviet Union, Stannis doesn't "want" to be king in the same way. Yes he wants it, but he only wants it because it is due to him, the laws say that it is his by right. By the way, to anyone who says Stannis threw Ned under the bus by not responding to his summons, what could he reasonably have done? Sailed his meager forces to Kings Landing and claimed the kingship under Cersei and Joffrey's nose? It would be suicide. If he couldn't have overpowered the Lannisters at the Blackwater, he couldn't do so while Ned still drew breathe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.