Did Stannis even have a chance? (Spoilers)

[Ser Pounce FTW]

Someone please explain to me what the Tyrells had to gain from Robert casting Cersei aside if the plan wasn't to get rid of her children too. They just thought Marg would look pretty in a crown? They were eager to fund Robert's tourneys?

Considering the similarities between Renly trying to have Robert "discard" Cersei and King Henry's trying to "discard" his numerous wives, I wonder if the plan wasn't that replacing one queen with another invalidates the offspring of the discarded wife. Catherine's daughter was not in the line of succession and Anne's daughter was declared illegitimate. Both children were legal heirs but the king and the court chose not to see it that way and a child of a later wife succeeded Henry viii. Had Edward vi not died so young and childless, these first children would never have ruled. I suppose Martin was having Renly think in a similar fashion.

just can't seem to stay away!

[Winter's Cold]

I think you might be underestimating just how serious a grand council is. Unlike the council which elected Aegon V, one of the key claimants has one of the richest and most powerful noble houses backing him; all the power of the West, unlike the only son of Aerion Brightflame, who was passed over with ease. Also, in this scenario Joffrey hasn't had the opportunity to show his psychosis; what argument will Renly provide for why Joffrey should be removed? That he provides to much influence from the Lannisters? Will Robert's children by Margery be more egalitarian? The rest of the realm will be forced to choose between Joffrey with a Lannister bias and the strongest possible claim to the throne against a possibly underage son of Margery with a strong Tyrell bias. Take your pick Lords and Ladies!

All of this requires a huge amount of mights and maybes, in a plan which Renly has clearly been thinking about for some time. Compared with how well it works if Renly has that small piece of information, Renly working in the dark is a mess.

It's the only peaceful plan that can possibly remove Lannister influence. That's why Renly chose it besides. The Lannisters may be powerful but they are not loved especially after the sack of King's Landing. The Starks would definitely oppose the Lannisters as would the Tullies as the Stark's allies. The Baratheons under Renly would support the Tyrells as well. The Martells will not side with Tywin Lannister, a man who killed their princess and her children. It's quite likely that a great council would decide against the Lannisters. Either way it's a better option than waiting for the Lannisters to fully consolidate power in King's Landing. Once Robert is dead, Cersei and Joffrey can easily strip Renly of his title and lands.

[TheCasualObserver]

It's the only peaceful plan that can possibly remove Lannister influence. That's why Renly chose it besides. The Lannisters may be powerful but they are not loved especially after the sack of King's Landing. The Starks would definitely oppose the Lannisters as would the Tullies as the Stark's allies. The Baratheons under Renly would support the Tyrells as well. The Martells will not side with Tywin Lannister, a man who killed their princess and her children. It's quite likely that a great council would decide against the Lannisters. Either way it's a better option than waiting for the Lannisters to fully consolidate power in King's Landing. Once Robert is dead, Cersei and Joffrey can easily strip Renly of his title and lands.

But if things were as clear cut as you say Renly thought they were, why wouldn't he try this move for himself later when Robert died? He firmly shoots down the idea just prior to his death after all. As I said, Renly knowing about the incest makes more sense.

[MoreOrLess]

Your looking to mix of Ned's honour with Stannis's insistence on the family line of sucession there Blackwater Saint and honestly I'm not sure how either of those could be used as justifications for allowing Aery's to burn Kings Landing.

Ned disapproves of Jamie not due to the act of Kingslaying, he does so because he believes the Kingslaying was merely in support of Tywin's sack of Kings Landing. Jamie is likely correct that Ned wouldn't believe the real story and this could be viewed as a moral failing but Ned's honour would most likely have caused him to do the same thing in Jamie's place.

Stannis's insistence on the right of the elder brother to lead the family is of course on shaker ground in terms of modern morality and its inherently more pragmatic but isn't without sound arguments. If that can be disregarded it does clearly set a dangerous precedent in a world were its really the only way for a peaceful transfer of power to take place.

Renly's desire to become king is nothing like Jamie killing Aerys, that was clearly a moral decision as the outcome of know doing so was obvious, The outcome of Renly backing Stannis is not at all so obviously negative, we see Stannis has the potential to be incredibly brutal when pushed but honestly isn't Renly just as willing to kill his own brother to claim the throne? Being charming and friendly does not mean that someone cannot be capable of brutal acts.

[Blackwater Saint]

Your looking to mix of Ned's honour with Stannis's insistence on the family line of sucession there Blackwater Saint and honestly I'm not sure how either of those could be used as justifications for allowing Aery's to burn Kings Landing.

Ned disapproves of Jamie not due to the act of Kingslaying, he does so because he believes the Kingslaying was merely in support of Tywin's sack of Kings Landing. Jamie is likely correct that Ned wouldn't believe the real story and this could be viewed as a moral failing but Ned's honour would most likely have caused him to do the same thing in Jamie's place.

Stannis's insistence on the right of the elder brother to lead the family is of course on shaker ground in terms of modern morality and its inherently more pragmatic but isn't without sound arguments. If that can be disregarded it does clearly set a dangerous precedent in a world were its really the only way for a peaceful transfer of power to take place.

Renly's desire to become king is nothing like Jamie killing Aerys, that was clearly a moral decision as the outcome of know doing so was obvious, The outcome of Renly backing Stannis is not at all so obviously negative, we see Stannis has the potential to be incredibly brutal when pushed but honestly isn't Renly just as willing to kill his own brother to claim the throne? Being charming and friendly does not mean that someone cannot be capable of brutal acts.

You didn't read either of my posts really well. I correctly compared Stannis' rigid "morality" to Ned's rigid "morality...and I was correct in doing so. Ned disapproved of Jamie's kingslaying was he particularly felt it was wrong for Jamie to kill the king since he took an oath to protect him. You can't ignore that. So, according to Ned, Jamie should have just let Aegon burn thousands of people alive...nice. And as I said earlier Ned's rigid morality--and his "honor" was part of that-- made him confront Cersei about her children being bastards, which led to his and many others' deaths..including the slaughter of Ned's bastards. And Ned's insistence on backing Stannis the pyromaniac instead of Renly, who could have taken the throne with minimal bloodshed, helped lead to this mass war and the deaths of tens of thousands...including his son and wife. As I correctly said before, that "law and honor" didnt' hold society together; it helped tear it apart.

And no, disregarding the claim of a brother of a usurper who has no solid proof of the illegitimacy of the present king by ascension does not set a dangerous precedent. However, letting anybody make such a claim without clear proof and expect everyone to follow him would.

And you really didn't read my posts well. If you're not going to read posts well, why respond? i didn't compare Renly's decision to Jamie's. As I noted above, I compared Ned's ridiculous rigid morality to Stannis's even more ridiculous (and callous) rigid morality. And Renly being understandably willing to kill his competitor in battle has nothing to do with our discussion. Nor does the fact that Stannis has been the only one showing a willingess for staggering brutality and cruelty (hello, Shireen); so, I suggest you get off the Stannis wagon.

[TheCasualObserver]

You didn't read either of my posts really well. I correctly compared Stannis' rigid "morality" to Ned's rigid "morality...and I was correct in doing so. Ned disapproved of Jamie's kingslaying was he particularly felt it was wrong for Jamie to kill the king since he took an oath to protect him. You can't ignore that. So, according to Ned, Jamie should have just let Aegon burn thousands of people alive...nice. And as I said earlier Ned's rigid morality--and his "honor" was part of that-- made him confront Cersei about her children being bastards, which led to his and many others' deaths..including the slaughter of Ned's bastards. And Ned's insistence on backing Stannis the pyromaniac instead of Renly, who could have taken the throne with minimal bloodshed, helped lead to this mass war and the deaths of tens of thousands...including his son and wife. As I correctly said before, that "law and honor" didnt' hold society together; it helped tear it apart.

And no, disregarding the claim of a brother of a usurper who has no solid proof of the illegitimacy of the present king by ascension does not set a dangerous precedent. However, letting anybody make such a claim without clear proof and expect everyone to follow him would.

And you really didn't read my posts well. If you're not going to read posts well, why respond? i didn't compare Renly's decision to Jamie's. As I noted above, I compared Ned's ridiculous rigid morality to Stannis's even more ridiculous (and callous) rigid morality. And Renly being understandably willing to kill his competitor in battle has nothing to do with our discussion. Nor does the fact that Stannis has been the only one showing a willingess for staggering brutality and cruelty (hello, Shireen); so, I suggest you get off the Stannis wagon.

Ned wasn't aware of the wildfyre plot, because Jaime has made it his mission to not tell anyone/kill everyone involved. So we cannot say that Ned's disapproval means he would have rather seen the city burn. From his perspective, Jaime killed the man he was sworn to protect to benefit his father. Unless I'm getting my timeline wrong, Robert had already left for that fatal hunting trip when Ned confronted Cersei, so it's not entirely true to say that his mercy was the cause of everything that followed. Also, Ned confronted Cersei out of compassion for her children - and from you describing Renly, you are very complimentary of his compassion, so why should Ned;'s compassion be treated with scorn?

As an alternative to you saying that Renly could have taken the throne with minimal bloodshed, I offer this; Renly accepts Stannis' offer at Storm's End and become his heir. Stannis' military prowess steamrolls the Lannisters with the minimum of fuss, whilst Renly smooths over the diplomatic angle. Everybody is happy, the Lannisters are defeated, Renly takes over when Stannis dies, and nobody needs to get burned.

[Winter's Cold]

You didn't read either of my posts really well. I correctly compared Stannis' rigid "morality" to Ned's rigid "morality...and I was correct in doing so. Ned disapproved of Jamie's kingslaying was he particularly felt it was wrong for Jamie to kill the king since he took an oath to protect him. You can't ignore that. So, according to Ned, Jamie should have just let Aegon burn thousands of people alive...nice. And as I said earlier Ned's rigid morality--and his "honor" was part of that-- made him confront Cersei about her children being bastards, which led to his and many others' deaths..including the slaughter of Ned's bastards. And Ned's insistence on backing Stannis the pyromaniac instead of Renly, who could have taken the throne with minimal bloodshed, helped lead to this mass war and the deaths of tens of thousands...including his son and wife. As I correctly said before, that "law and honor" didnt' hold society together; it helped tear it apart.

And no, disregarding the claim of a brother of a usurper who has no solid proof of the illegitimacy of the present king by ascension does not set a dangerous precedent. However, letting anybody make such a claim without clear proof and expect everyone to follow him would.

And you really didn't read my posts well. If you're not going to read posts well, why respond? i didn't compare Renly's decision to Jamie's. As I noted above, I compared Ned's ridiculous rigid morality to Stannis's even more ridiculous (and callous) rigid morality. And Renly being understandably willing to kill his competitor in battle has nothing to do with our discussion. Nor does the fact that Stannis has been the only one showing a willingess for staggering brutality and cruelty (hello, Shireen); so, I suggest you get off the Stannis wagon.

I agree with the premise of your argument that the law above all championed by Ned and Stannis is not in tune with reality. However, I think Ned resents Jaime because he feels robbed of his revenge. If Jaime had instead incapacitated Aerys, Ned would have responded better. Ned also dislikes harming innocents, so I doubt that he would allow King's Landing to be burned if he was in Jaime's place.

[Skulb]

I'm not projecting anything.

Followed by half a page of projecting, ignorance and political correctness. And that`s the end of that "conversation".

[Skulb]

I agree with some of what you say, but I think you make some unsubstantiated claims. Human sacrifice did occur in history but it was a rare thing and in a lot of the cases the people sacrificed were captured enemies.

There is a degree of cultural bias in your post too, you make it sound like romans and greeks were objectively the best culture around at the time and the fact that they did human sacrifice on rare occasions does not necessarily mean all other cultures did as well.

The same with Christianity, Christianity really wasn't all that revolutionary, when you consider the preceding religions (namely Zoroastrianism) and cults who already had pretty much all of the ideas and ethics christianity later became known for. At the same time Christianity still maintain much of the mentality of the time in every respective region it was established. The Christianity practiced in the far past would seem very alien and immoral to our modern moral norms nowadays. So its not like there is a monolithic christian morality you can point to and say THAT is christian morality. Since the very beginning there have been numerous different sects and mindsets that contradicted and conflicted with one another. ITs the same with Islam. When people get all hysterical about Muslims and islam, because there are extremist Muslims, they fail to see that Islam and its followers are extremely varied. Muslims and their sects range from the secular, open minded and accepting to the most exclusionary and violent. In fact even in a specific sect of a religion there are always those who are more violent and aggressive and those who are more peaceful and cooperative. The R'hllor converts in stannis' army for instance also consist of both fanatics who are down for random human sacrifice and yet there are those converts also who dislike such acts.

Just because I don`t write something doesn`t mean I`m unaware of it. And just because I do write something doesn`t mean you`re free to project your own preconceptions onto my statements. Every culture in history has had some element of human sacrifice, including obviously Christianity, because the entire religion Christian European culture was based on had a human sacrifice at the heart of it. All I`m saying is that when Freerider thinks that his modern PC notions of morality are the correct ones to impose on a narrative that has been specifically written to challenge that, he is more or less delusional. People follow murderers and criminals into war all the time and they always have. The murders just have to be presented as necessary and off we go. And that`s what Stannis did too.

[Blackwater Saint]

Followed by half a page of projecting, ignorance and political correctness. And that`s the end of that "conversation".

Actually this was what I posted:

"I'm not projecting anything. I'm just doing exactly what most have correctly done when reading the books: use the ethics of this world to better understand and evaluate the similar and different ethics of ASOIAF. If we don't use our ethics then we can't say any of these actions are wrong:

1. The mountain raping and killing Elia and killing her children

2. Theon's killing of the baker's's boys

3. The hound's slaying of the butcher boy

4. The slaughter of Robert's bastards.

Using your silly logic, we couldnt' condemn any of these because we would be "projecting our morality." So, If you condemn any action in ASOIAF, then you're just a pious hypoicrite. And your Christian sacrifice argument is ridiculous as well. Rape was extremely allowed and even encouraged in those days as well; using your logic rape...and slavery in Esseros...would be ok as well. They're not.

And you clearly don't know anything at all about Postmodernism, and you clearly haven't read it's main thinkers Lyotard, Jameson, Derrida, and Foucault. If you did you wouldn't have made your erroneous (and homophobic) comment about "limp-wristed" postmodernists. A postmodernist wouldn't make the comment you suggested, a person believeing it real, unchanging ethics would...and that's not postmodern. And spare me the "people made sacrifices all the time" argument. They didn't. And you didn't have to be a human rights activist to believe burning your own daugher alive was wrong. Many in Westeros and Esseros would feel the same. And you have no idea some of Stannis' men didn't leave because of that sacrifice. They had stayed with him all the way up to that point, and the looks on many of his men's faces showed disgust and repugnance. Apparently, you weren't paying attention."

The fact you couldn't even counter any of my arguments that pointedly debunked yours shows the ony ignorance and projection is yours. Your ignorance of postmodernism is particularly laughable; so, I knew you couldn't respond to my sound correction of it. And criticizing vulgar homophobia like yours isn't being politicially correct; it's pointing out your vulgar homophobia. So, now the "conversation" is truly over.

[Stag_legion]

Just because I don`t write something doesn`t mean I`m unaware of it. And just because I do write something doesn`t mean you`re free to project your own preconceptions onto my statements. Every culture in history has had some element of human sacrifice, including obviously Christianity, because the entire religion Christian European culture was based on had a human sacrifice at the heart of it. All I`m saying is that when Freerider thinks that his modern PC notions of morality are the correct ones to impose on a narrative that has been specifically written to challenge that, he is more or less delusional. People follow murderers and criminals into war all the time and they always have. The murders just have to be presented as necessary and off we go. And that`s what Stannis did too.

In spite of your anger and hostility towards me, I agree with your statement. Projecting our modern morality to previous eras is dishonest, cartoony and anachronistic. its the reason why a lot fantasy and or historic portrayals feel so shallow.

As for me projection and assumption towards your previous post. I can only write about what you have written and what I interpret by your writing. Of course I could have made an unwarranted assumption about you and your opinion, that's what conversations are for, a back and fourth. I won't make the claim that I know exactly what you think, my response was only to what I took from your post.

[Blackwater Saint]

In spite of your anger and hostility towards me, I agree with your statement. Projecting our modern morality to previous eras is dishonest, cartoony and anachronistic. its the reason why a lot fantasy and or historic portrayals feel so shallow.

Some projection of our morality is inevitable. As I said in my other post, if we didn't project some of our morality, we couldn't judge Theon's actions, Cersei's actions, the Mountain's actions, Ramsay Bolton's actions or any heinous or benevolent actions. Part of the reason you like Stannis comes from that projection. So denying that projection is delusional, dishonest, and foolish.

[MoreOrLess]

I don't really see Ned as akin to Stannis in his rigid following of the law, in his case honour basically means behaving in what he believes to be a moral fashion and not engaging in brutal self serving pragmatism. Not telling Robert of Cersei's incest and giving her a chance to escape was an act of kindness he incorrectly believed would save lives, not at all like not killing Aerys which very obviously would have saved lives. If he'd had merely rigidly followed his legal duty he would have told Robert right away and would have gone along with killing Dany.

Stannis's potential for misrule really wasn't known given that Mel and the AA prophecy's influence on him wasn't known/believed by either Ned or Renly. The latter does not claim that the reason he ursurps Stannis is for that reason, he claims its due to Stannis's lack of political skill. Its of course also doubtful how far down this path he might have gone if he'd have gotten Renly's support, personally my view is that a lot of what follows from Stannis on the show is driven by having to kill Renly, he can't back down because doing so would mean questioning his past actions so he just digs deeper and deeper..

As far as modern morality goes I think this story really looks to inhabit the middle ground, characters like Tywin, Stannis and Renly could easily have come from the War of the Roses, the likes of the Starks, Dany, Jon, Oberyn, etc have a much more modern idealised bent to them. Its this mixing of the two alternating between the more realistic and the idealised that gives the story a lot of its drama, idealised heroes fall afoul of a realistic world and realistic leaders fall afoul of idealised morality.

[Blackwater Saint]

I don't really see Ned as akin to Stannis in his rigid following of the law, in his case honour basically means behaving in what he believes to be a moral fashion and not engaging in brutal self serving pragmatism. Not telling Robert of Cersei's incest and giving her a chance to escape was an act of kindness he incorrectly believed would save lives, not at all like not killing Aerys which very obviously would have saved lives. If he'd had merely rigidly followed his legal duty he would have told Robert right away and would have gone along with killing Dany.

Stannis's potential for misrule really wasn't known given that Mel and the AA prophecy's influence on him wasn't known/believed by either Ned or Renly. The latter does not claim that the reason he ursurps Stannis is for that reason, he claims its due to Stannis's lack of political skill. Its of course also doubtful how far down this path he might have gone if he'd have gotten Renly's support, personally my view is that a lot of what follows from Stannis on the show is driven by having to kill Renly, he can't back down because doing so would mean questioning his past actions so he just digs deeper and deeper..

As far as modern morality goes I think this story really looks to inhabit the middle ground, characters like Tywin, Stannis and Renly could easily have come from the War of the Roses, the likes of the Starks, Dany, Jon, Oberyn, etc have a much more modern idealised bent to them. Its this mixing of the two alternating between the more realistic and the idealised that gives the story a lot of its drama, idealised heroes fall afoul of a realistic world and realistic leaders fall afoul of idealised morality.

As I told a previous poster, if you're not going to read a poster's post well, you shouldn't respond to it. You didn't read my post well. I didn't say their moralities were the same, I said the rigidities of their moralities were...and they were. He didn't have to tell Cersei he knew about Joffrey before she was removed from power, but his rigid morality did and it got Robert's bastards slaughtered. You're clearly and disturbingly fine with that. He also showed that rigidity by supporting a poor candidate for the throne when supporting a better one would have saved tens of thousands of lives. You're clearly and disturbingly OK with that decision as well. And I also said rigid morality, not rigid "duty." Again, please read my posts better. The fact he would defy his king and not support what he--correctly--saw as the wrong thing further proves his rigid morality, which was often right...just not often enough.

And yes Stannis' potential for misrule was known. Ned grew up with Robert who didn't particularly like or admire Stannis, so Ned knew a lot about him. He knew he was cold, callous, insecure and took everything as a slight. He also knew he wasn't much of a people person and wouldn't be likely to be a savvy diplomatic king or relate well with his people...and that was all true. So, allowing a war to start to help put a usurper's brother on the throne was a stupid decision on Ned's part, due to his rigid morality.

And no, the books aren't inhabiting a "middle ground" as you say. Either all of the characters inhabit the moral ideology of their time or Martin failed to create a consisten one. You can't say the good ones are more modern and the bad ones are more like the War of the Roses, particularly since there are good and bad ones in each period. As I correctly said before, if you are going to project your morality onto ASOIAF (which is a modern creation)--and we all correctly do--you have to project it onto all of the characters.

[Winter's Cold]

As I told a previous poster, if you're not going to read a poster's post well, you shouldn't respond to it. You didn't read my post well. I didn't say their moralities were the same, I said the rigidities of their moralities were...and they were. He didn't have to tell Cersei he knew about Joffrey before she was removed from power, but his rigid morality did and it got Robert's bastards slaughtered. You're clearly and disturbingly fine with that. He also showed that rigidity by supporting a poor candidate for the throne when supporting a better one would have saved tens of thousands of lives. You're clearly and disturbingly OK with that decision as well. And I also said rigid morality, not rigid "duty." Again, please read my posts better. The fact he would defy his king and not support what he--correctly--saw as the wrong thing further proves his rigid morality, which was often right...just not often enough.

And yes Stannis' potential for misrule was known. Ned grew up with Robert who didn't particularly like or admire Stannis, so Ned knew a lot about him. He knew he was cold, callous, insecure and took everything as a slight. He also knew he wasn't much of a people person and wouldn't be likely to be a savvy diplomatic king or relate well with his people...and that was all true. So, allowing a war to start to help put a usurper's brother on the throne was a stupid decision on Ned's part, due to his rigid morality.

And no, the books aren't inhabiting a "middle ground" as you say. Either all of the characters inhabit the moral ideology of their time or Martin failed to create a consisten one. You can't say the good ones are more modern and the bad ones are more like the War of the Roses, particularly since there are good and bad ones in each period. As I correctly said before, if you are going to project your morality onto ASOIAF (which is a modern creation)--and we all correctly do--you have to project it onto all of the characters.

I think the reason Ned and Robb were fine with Stannis as king was because they did not know what Stannis is like. Essentially the North is a region that is very culturally distinct from the southern kingdoms. They have a different religion. They don't host tourneys or participate in them. They don't have knights. They are not part of the King's Landing court. They don't really care for it. This is why they fail at politics and also why they would support Stannis. The southern houses are very concerned about who gets to sit on the Iron Throne while the North does not care as long as they're not adversely affected.

[Blackwater Saint]

I think the reason Ned and Robb were fine with Stannis as king was because they did not know what Stannis is like. Essentially the North is a region that is very culturally distinct from the southern kingdoms. They have a different religion. They don't host tourneys or participate in them. They don't have knights. They are not part of the King's Landing court. They don't really care for it. This is why they fail at politics and also why they would support Stannis. The southern houses are very concerned about who gets to sit on the Iron Throne while the North does not care as long as they're not adversely affected.

I think you're definitely right about Ned and Robb having considerable ignorance about Stannis. They certainly had no idea of the depth of his connection to and reliance on Melissandre. However, as I noted before I still think there were other factors. Ned's disapproval of Jamie's killing of Aegon reflects Ned's rigid belief the rightful king is the rightful king, even if he isn't the best choice or trying to install him would cost thousands of lives. And Robert did most likely fill Ned in ont Stannis' less appealing personality traits...as I'm sure he also dismissed Renly as a lightweight toff.

I think you're more accurate about Robb. Robb almost certainly knew very little about Stannis before or during the war and would have accepted Stannis, Renly, or just about anyone but Joffrey as long as he had his revenge and remained King of the North. If only the poor boy hadn't foolishtly broke his pact with the Freys and made sure he sent his mother home after she made it...;)

[MoreOrLess]

I'm sorry blackwater saint but I'm starting to find your posting arrogant and rather unpleasant looking to draw conclusions that not only go against the material we've seen but then also use that to make extreme moral judgements about others posters.

In this case you stated that Ned would have clearly allowed Aery's to burn KL, what evidence do you have for that? Ned is untotally unaware of that situation and clearly disaproves of Jamie killing him because he believes it was a selfish act akin to Tywin's sacking of Kings Landing looking to ingratiate himself with Robert.

That your willing to brand posters you disagree with as potentially murderous dictators in waiting but are absolutely fine pushing your own pet viewpoint that involves a character taking brutally pragmatic acts the good of which is highly questionable and potentially a cover for self serving egotism is pretty dam hypocritical.

Similarly you incorrectly claim others haven't read your posts and then spend much of your time constructing strawmen.

[Blackwater Saint]

I'm sorry blackwater saint but I'm starting to find your posting arrogant and rather unpleasant looking to draw conclusions that not only go against the material we've seen but then also use that to make extreme moral judgements about others posters.

In this case you stated that Ned would have clearly allowed Aery's to burn KL, what evidence do you have for that? Ned is untotally unaware of that situation and clearly disaproves of Jamie killing him because he believes it was a selfish act akin to Tywin's sacking of Kings Landing looking to ingratiate himself with Robert.

That your willing to brand posters you disagree with as potentially murderous dictators in waiting but are absolutely fine pushing your own pet viewpoint that involves a character taking brutally pragmatic acts the good of which is highly questionable and potentially a cover for self serving egotism is pretty dam hypocritical.

Similarly you incorrectly claim others haven't read your posts and then spend much of your time constructing strawmen.

I'm sorry, More or Less, but I'm starting to find your posting arrogant and rather unpleasant, as all you've been doing--unlike me--is constructing strawmen and misreading my posts...and now you're erroneously judging me as well. Inaccurately and rudely calling my view a "pet viewpoint" proves that.

Ned doesn't clearly "disapprove of Jamie killing him because he believes it was a selfish act akin to Tywin's sacking of Kings Landing looking to ingratiate himself with Robert." Where do you have proof of that? He was upset because Jamie broke his oath and killed the king, a mad king who burned people alive, and he didn't care to think Jamie might have been stopping Aegon from killing more.

And where did I brand a poster a "murderous dictator in waiting"? I did no such thing. That's just one of many strawmen you have posted against me. And just to show you more, here is my last post, which you failed to address and mirepresented. Notice you completely and conveniently ignored my points about Robert's bastards and Ned's disastrous support for Stannis. So, in making your arrogant strawmen and rude statements, you completely misread my post again:

"As I told a previous poster, if you're not going to read a poster's post well, you shouldn't respond to it. You didn't read my post well. I didn't say their moralities were the same, I said the rigidities of their moralities were...and they were. He didn't have to tell Cersei he knew about Joffrey before she was removed from power, but his rigid morality did and it got Robert's bastards slaughtered. You're clearly and disturbingly fine with that. He also showed that rigidity by supporting a poor candidate for the throne when supporting a better one would have saved tens of thousands of lives. You're clearly and disturbingly OK with that decision as well. And I also said rigid morality, not rigid "duty." Again, please read my posts better. The fact he would defy his king and not support what he--correctly--saw as the wrong thing further proves his rigid morality, which was often right...just not often enough.

And yes Stannis' potential for misrule was known. Ned grew up with Robert who didn't particularly like or admire Stannis, so Ned knew a lot about him. He knew he was cold, callous, insecure and took everything as a slight. He also knew he wasn't much of a people person and wouldn't be likely to be a savvy diplomatic king or relate well with his people...and that was all true. So, allowing a war to start to help put a usurper's brother on the throne was a stupid decision on Ned's part, due to his rigid morality.

And no, the books aren't inhabiting a "middle ground" as you say. Either all of the characters inhabit the moral ideology of their time or Martin failed to create a consisten one. You can't say the good ones are more modern and the bad ones are more like the War of the Roses, particularly since there are good and bad ones in each period. As I correctly said before, if you are going to project your morality onto ASOIAF (which is a modern creation)--and we all correctly do--you have to project it onto all of the characters."

So, try to actually address my posts next time or our discussions are done.

[maniacmcgoo]

By all the Gods, Old and New this thread got derailed.

Blackwater Saint your viewpoints are your own and as has been seen many here disagree with you. I hate playing mediator but hot dang this got out of hand quickly. I disagree with you as well not because I like Stannis and dislike Renly. I actually don't care for either of them. Both reflect different parts of who Robert was in my opinion. But that's for another time and another thread not dedicated to Stannis' chances at the battle of Winterfell. If you want to discuss the rightfulness of Stannis' cause or how evil a character he is it would probably behoove you to start a thread dedicated to that instead of derailing one attempting to discuss something you obviously have no desire to discuss.

Back to the actual point of this Thread for all of you who have lost the train. It is asking if Stannis even had a chance at the battle of Winterfell. I don't think how the show set it up he had a chance at all in the battle. Things turned badly very fast for him and his intractable nature made him continue to soldier on.

However, I do have a pretty huge issue with an army of mounted soldiers being capable of even getting more than a few hundred feet away from Winterfell before they all break a leg considering that the snow pack around Winterfell is suitable enough for Reek & Farya (Sansa in Show) to leap from the top of the battlements, which is a very very tall wall, and survive with minor injuries. If there is much more than a dusting of snow on the ground riding on horseback is treacherous as a horse can easily slip and break a leg. when the snow is as tall as it should be to allow the leap that Reek took then being on horseback would be such a hinderance that it would be worthless to be mounted. In that light Stannis' army would easily decimate (even with its highly reduced numbers) any force that attempted a cavalry charge in heavy snow.

I chalk it up to D&D not having any interest in continuing to write Stannis's character when he doesn't survive til the end of the books. Badly thought out ending in my opinion that pays no attention to the realities of mounted combat when dealing with heavy snow when shortly after they have Sansa & Reek jumping off a catle's walls within sight of the battle.

[Blackwater Saint]

I can't believe you actually just said "By all the Gods." This is, I believe, a grown-up forum.

Anyway, this thread didn't get derailed, although you're trying to derail it; threads do develop and shift. Also, if you hate being mediator, stop mediating...or doing so makes you look silly. Nobody asked you to mediate, and it's not your place. And yes my viewpoints are my own, and they happen to be valid. You certainly didn't show otherwise. You couldn't even say how or why you disagreed with me; I'm not surprised. And who cares if people disagree with me, this is a Forum for discusssions and disagreements, not a validation zone where everybody has to agree. Ser Pounce and Winter's Cold, by the way, shared many of my views and sentiments, so you didn't read the posts well.

Finally, many people, not just me, have been discussing Renly and Stannis for a long time now. Who are you to come in, after 24 posts, to tell me or anybody else our discussions are for another time and place? Again, that's extremely arrogant and not your place. If you want to only discuss the initial point of this thread and tell every other poster how and what to post, it might "behoove you"--I can't believe you actually said that, either--to start your own thread and set your rules from the beginning.