It really sucks to be Stannis

[John Doe]

3 hours ago, Eden-Mackenzie said:

Why exactly does Stannis need to be able to raise men? He's the Master of Ships, de facto Lord High Admiral or whatever equivalent you prefer, the Royal Fleet would be manned by men loyal to the crown. His castle, traditionally awarded to the King's heir, is on an island. Yes, he needs to be able to garrison the island in the event of an attack, which he seems fully capable of doing, and, with the Royal Navy at his command, any threat to Dragonstone could be readily dealt with. The only times we have seen lords raise armies is to go to war, either against each other or against the crown. As Stannis has no nebulous borders to his lands, he should have no cause to war with another lord. Which leaves the crown. Currently held by Robert. His brother. Who gave him his lands. 

Why does Renly need to be able to raise men? They both don't. It just shows how bad his seat was compared to Renly's. It's very poort too. 

[Eden-Mackenzie]

1 hour ago, John Doe said:

Why does Renly need to be able to raise men? They both don't. It just shows how bad his seat was compared to Renly's. It's very poort too. 

The Stormlands border Dorne and the Reach, the two regions most likely to rebel against Robert. Others have already demonstrated why Renly was a better choice to maintain Robert's style of peace in the Stormlands: Robert sought to bring his enemies, excepting dragonspawn, back into the fold, and Renly had the same gregarious and likable nature, whereas Stannis and his rigid sense of justice would have alienated the lords whose loyalty to Robert had been less than wholehearted.

Dragonstone is the first line of defense against a naval attack on King's Landing, it is not some throwaway castle in the Stormlands owing loyalty and fealty to Storm's End, which is really the most Stannis should have expected as the second son, and even that was not "by rights" guaranteed to him. Stannis may chafe at the idea of being Lord of Dragonstone, answerable only to the King, but I imagine he would dislike being Lord of some minor castle or keep sworn to Tommen, Lord of Storm's End, even more. There is also no guarantee Robert would have granted Stannis lands anyway, considering he did not confiscate castles from houses who fought for the Targaryens. Whether Stannis acknowledges it or not, Lord of Dragonstone and Master of Ships are two rather prestigious positions, either and/or both of which could have been revoked at any point in time, especially following Joffrey's birth.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, John Doe said:

Why does Renly need to be able to raise men? They both don't. It just shows how bad his seat was compared to Renly's. It's very poort too. 

Are you by any chance channeling Stannis?

Sorry, I've to ask because you 'sound' like I think Stannis would sound when he complained to Robert. 'Renly is just boy! He did nothing to deserve Storm's End. I on the other hand am an experienced battle commander. I held Storm's End for you, I took Dragonstone for you (meaning: I accepted the surrender of the garrison), I crushed the Iron Fleet for you, etc. I deserve stuff and favors and titles because I am awesomely loyal and dutiful.'

Stannis has no right to complain and Robert can reward or give away whatever he wants to whomever he wants. He is the king. He can give Stannis nothing and Renly three great seats because the boy told him a funny joke. The man is the king.

[Stag_legion]

17 hours ago, Winter's Cold said:

What is impressive about holding a castle that has never taken by siege or storm?

The Tyrells could have easily had half of their army siege the castle while the other half joined the royal army. We know that they have the troop numbers to do this effectively. However, they didn't do this for the same reason that they did not pursue Robert after the battle of Ashford. They were not fully committed to the crown because they had no ties with the Iron Throne.

When winning the war meant that their daughter would be Queen, they routed both the Stormlands army and the Northern army with the aid of the Lannisters. 

Not entirely true. Tyrells still sent a large number of men to take part in the battle of the Trident. If stannis had surrendered the rest of the Tyrell forces would have also joined the battle of Trident making their numbers too great for Robert and the rebels.

Storm's end is noted for never being taken by a direct assault but that is not what Stannis' achievement was about. It was about not giving up in spite of nearly starving to death. Most garrisons would surrender under these conditions as attested to in most prolonged sieges in history. When it comes to starvation it was quite common for the garrison to surrender to the besieger, especially when so heavily outnumbered.

Reach army could not pursue Robert, because only the vanguard had reached Robert, and Robert did a forced march retreat. The battle of ashford was more about Robert managing to retreat in good order rather than the reach scoring a big victory. This was also after Robert had fought three consecutive battles in the Stormlands already,

 

[LordPathera]

1 hour ago, Stag_legion said:

snip

 

Speaking of Ashford, why did Robert enter and attack the Reach in the first place?

My impression of the Rebel strategy was for each primary lord-paramount (Ned; Jon; Robert; and later Hoster) to go home; gather as many of their bannermen as quickly as possible and then combine their strength (presumably in the Riverlands) for a joint attack against the Royal Army. Why did Robert risk everything by charging headfirst into an enemy capable of raising more levies than at least half of the 7 kingdoms combined?

[Stag_legion]

54 minutes ago, LordPathera said:

Speaking of Ashford, why did Robert enter and attack the Reach in the first place?

My impression of the Rebel strategy was for each primary lord-paramount (Ned; Jon; Robert; and later Hoster) to go home; gather as many of their bannermen as quickly as possible and then combine their strength (presumably in the Riverlands) for a joint attack against the Royal Army. Why did Robert risk everything by charging headfirst into an enemy capable of raising more levies than at least half of the 7 kingdoms combined?

I don't think Robert wanted to engage the main Tyrell army, he wanted to secure Ashford before the Tyrell army arrived so it could stall their advance into the stormlands long enough for it not to join up with the rest of the loyalist army. But Robert arrived too late.

Ultimately Stannis holding Storm's end for a year did what Robert had wished for.

I also reject the idea that Tyrells were not committed to the loyalist cause, they were, they thought the loyalists would win so committed to the loyalist side and hoped taking Storm's end and killing Stannis would elevate them in the eyes of the Targaryens. Its only after the rebel victory was assured and the Targaryens done for that Tyrells really considered submitting to the rebel cause. Note that the Tyrell army was the last loyalist army to submit!

 

[LordPathera]

2 hours ago, Stag_legion said:

I don't think Robert wanted to engage the main Tyrell army, he wanted to secure Ashford before the Tyrell army arrived so it could stall their advance into the stormlands long enough for it not to join up with the rest of the loyalist army. But Robert arrived too late.

Ultimately Stannis holding Storm's end for a year did what Robert had wished for.

I also reject the idea that Tyrells were not committed to the loyalist cause, they were, they thought the loyalists would win so committed to the loyalist side and hoped taking Storm's end and killing Stannis would elevate them in the eyes of the Targaryens. Its only after the rebel victory was assured and the Targaryens done for that Tyrells really considered submitting to the rebel cause. Note that the Tyrell army was the last loyalist army to submit!

 

I'd point out that Dorne did not officially yield to Robert until Jon Arryn visited and convinced Doran to accept peace in 284 AC.

[Boarsbane]

2 hours ago, Stag_legion said:

I don't think Robert wanted to engage the main Tyrell army, he wanted to secure Ashford before the Tyrell army arrived so it could stall their advance into the stormlands long enough for it not to join up with the rest of the loyalist army. But Robert arrived too late.

Ultimately Stannis holding Storm's end for a year did what Robert had wished for.

I also reject the idea that Tyrells were not committed to the loyalist cause, they were, they thought the loyalists would win so committed to the loyalist side and hoped taking Storm's end and killing Stannis would elevate them in the eyes of the Targaryens. Its only after the rebel victory was assured and the Targaryens done for that Tyrells really considered submitting to the rebel cause. Note that the Tyrell army was the last loyalist army to submit!

 

They were probably committed but the loyalist lacked a leader who could utilize them properly. We see how many men the Reach and field and it's ridiculous, Aerys, Connington, Rhaegar and the others were too arrogant and didn't think they needed the might of the Reach to defeat the rebels and so they let Mace and most his forces stay in the Stormlands.

[Stag_legion]

7 minutes ago, LordPathera said:

I'd point out that Dorne did not officially yield to Robert until Jon Arryn visited and convinced Doran to accept peace in 284 AC.

They had no army in the field opposing Robert, they merely hadn't acknowledged Robert as the new King yet. Tyrell troops really were the last major army to submit.

[LordPathera]

3 minutes ago, Stag_legion said:

They had no army in the field opposing Robert, they merely hadn't acknowledged Robert as the new King yet. Tyrell troops really were the last major army to submit.

Fair enough.

[Stag_legion]

1 minute ago, Boarsbane said:

They were probably committed but the loyalist lacked a leader who could utilize them properly. We see how many men the Reach and field and it's ridiculous, Aerys, Connington, Rhaegar and the others were too arrogant and didn't think they needed the might of the Reach to defeat the rebels and so they let Mace and most his forces stay in the Stormlands.

Sure in retrospect Moving most of the Tyrell troops to join in the battle of the Trident would have been a better move. But we have to consider that Storm's end really was an important symbolic and strategic castle for the loyalists to take. With Storm's end taken the rebel cause would have suffered a big blow to their moral and the cause might have seemed lost.

Also the loyalist army outnumbered the rebels at Trident, so yeah like you say loyalists must of thought they could do fine with what they had, and end the war as soon as possible, by killing Robert at the Trident and taking his seat of power at the same time.

[Lion of the West]

3 hours ago, LordPathera said:

Speaking of Ashford, why did Robert enter and attack the Reach in the first place?

My impression of the Rebel strategy was for each primary lord-paramount (Ned; Jon; Robert; and later Hoster) to go home; gather as many of their bannermen as quickly as possible and then combine their strength (presumably in the Riverlands) for a joint attack against the Royal Army. Why did Robert risk everything by charging headfirst into an enemy capable of raising more levies than at least half of the 7 kingdoms combined?

My idea for why this happens is that perhaps Robert was supposed to break up the Reach and create a southern front for the rebels? We know from earlier wars, Dance and Blackfyre Rebellion, that the Reach is often divided between different sides as the Tyrell authority does not run far from Highgarden. Thus I don't find it strange if the rebels and Robert hoped that a charismatic rebel leader could enter the Reach and sway Houses there to the rebel cause. Now the Tyrells seems to have showed more initiative than perhaps expected or Robert was bogged down fighting loyalists in the Stormlands for too long but I think it would have been a realistic plan.

And to that I would like to point out what a major coup it would have been to capture Storm's End as well as logistics behind Rhaegar's army. If Robert lost Storm's End he would be in a similar position to Robb after Winterfell's fall and some might wonder why they fight for a king who can't, or don't care to, protect either his home and his own kin. Or just hold Stannis and Renly as hostages if the fighting would go bad etc. Lots of possibilities and stuff from a captured Storm's End. And in regards to logistics bringing the entire might of the Reach north could have been problematic as Rhaegar seems to have been of a chivalrous character, given the quote about how the fought, and so might not have liked the idea of letting a massive army burn and eat the Riverlands into a new Dorne, if he even thought all of them necessary from the start given that the best leader and fighter of the loyalist cause, the White Bull and the Sword of the Morning, seems to have been kept away from the war.

[GallowsKnight]

You know I've gone back and forth on the Storm's End/Dragonstone issue and right now I agree it was an appropriate reward for Stannis' duties. It's the giving Renly Storm's End which I think was both inappropriate and dumb of Robert.

I would have kept Storm's End for the King/King's heir. Keep a strong power base for the Baratheon monarchy instead of the weaker one the Targ's eventually had.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

30 minutes ago, GallowsKnight said:

You know I've gone back and forth on the Storm's End/Dragonstone issue and right now I agree it was an appropriate reward for Stannis' duties. It's the giving Renly Storm's End which I think was both inappropriate and dumb of Robert.

I would have kept Storm's End for the King/King's heir. Keep a strong power base for the Baratheon monarchy instead of the weaker one the Targ's eventually had.

But Dragonstone was not a reward, it was Robert being generous to his brothers.

 

[GallowsKnight]

5 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

But Dragonstone was not a reward, it was Robert being generous to his brothers.

I'd rather not get into a long debate about the semantics of generosity versus reward.

What I'm saying is I think giving Stannis Dragonstone was a good idea. Giving Renly Storm's End wasn't. I would have kept the later.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

17 minutes ago, GallowsKnight said:

I'd rather not get into a long debate about the semantics of generosity versus reward.

What I'm saying is I think giving Stannis Dragonstone was a good idea. Giving Renly Storm's End wasn't. I would have kept the later.

He should have kept both. Allowed Stannis to sit at Dragonstone until he has sons of his own.

[Lord_Ravenstone]

58 minutes ago, GallowsKnight said:

I'd rather not get into a long debate about the semantics of generosity versus reward.

What I'm saying is I think giving Stannis Dragonstone was a good idea. Giving Renly Storm's End wasn't. I would have kept the later.

Well also consider that Renly was ready to betray his children and kill them off.

In that sense it was an enormously bad idea to give Renly the Stormlands 

[Lord_Ravenstone]

41 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

He should have kept both. Allowed Stannis to sit at Dragonstone until he has sons of his own.

In hindsight, he should've given Stannis what he wanted and made him castellan of Dragonstone 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

8 minutes ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

In hindsight, he should've given Stannis what he wanted and made him castellan of Dragonstone 

His role as Master of Ships and sitting on the Small Council supersedes being Castellan of Dragonstone. Axel Florent had been the Castellan of Dragonstone for the previous decade.

But as heir, till Joffrey was born or reached a suitable age, he should have been eligible for its incomes.

[Lord_Ravenstone]

10 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

His role as Master of Ships and sitting on the Small Council supersedes being Castellan of Dragonstone. Axel Florent had been the Castellan of Dragonstone for the previous decade.

But as heir, till Joffrey was born or reached a suitable age, he should have been eligible for its incomes.

I meant that in hindsight since Joffrey turned out not to being his, this is what he should've done