why does everyone blame Renly for Stannis's mistake

[Bernie Mac]

2 minutes ago, Batbob45 said:

Alester did it for his own reasons.He did it to save himself.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Stannis would have also been saved by Alester's proposed negotiations, he would have been in a better place than he was before the war and a far better place than he currently was. 

2 minutes ago, Batbob45 said:

 

How would arranging Shireen to marry Tommen(who is a good kid) be good for Stannis and Shireen.

The terms would be that Stannis would get peace, he would get to keep Dragonstone and Storm's End and be able to pass them on to his daughter who be able to pass them onto his grandchildren. Tommen being married to Shireen would mean Storm's End and Dragonstone would still be held by people with Baratheon blood. 

I kind of doubt the Crown would have went for the deal, but that deal certainly beneifitted Stannis. Alester could have completly abandoned Stannis, made his own deal with the Crown as the majority of Stannis' men at that point were Florents. He instead, stupidly, tried to save Stannis as well. 

2 minutes ago, Batbob45 said:

The Lannister are not known for treating female well(Sansa, Tysha,and Alayaya). 

Tysha is a well kept secret. Alayaya was a whore, not a wife. Does the realm know how Sansa was treated by Joffrey? She certainly was not treated bad by her husband Tyrion. Nor for that matter were the wives of Tywin, Kevan,Tytos and Jason and obviously the Marbrands don't have a problem with the Lannisters so Tygett  could not have treated his wife badly. 

[Universal Sword Donor]

56 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I suggest that you actually read the books. I suggest you reread Cressen's prologue (where Stannis agrees with Selyse's talk that he should not try to make an alliance with Lysa Arryn or anyone), his talk about the red falcon (where he admits that he doesn't give a fig about the gods since his parents died and that he is going to use Mel's powers now to get what he wants - the crown he allegedly doesn't want), the fact that Mel had a vision of a guy in Renly's armor defeating Stannis at the Blackwater (which she reveals to Davos in ASoS, if I remember correctly), explaining why they had to take out Renly first.

If you think it was Stannis' idea to target Storm's End before KL you are mistaken. Stannis would never have come up with such a stupid plan. Just as Stannis all by himself would never have insisted that Edric Storm be handed over to him. That was all Melisandre's doing, and Stannis gave his consent to all that. Just as he sure as hell agreed that they would draw Renly to Storm's End to kill him. That was the entire point. Or do you really think Stannis is as stupid as to waste time besieging Storm's End if he doesn't have a plan to actually win? And that plan was to fuck Mel, to give her a part of his own life force through his semen so that she can magically create a shadow assassin in her womb to first kill Renly and then later Cortnay Penrose. Stannis would have never gone to Storm's End in the first place if Mel hadn't laid out the entire plan for him, sex included. Stannis is not stupid. You don't convince him to do something if you don't present good arguments. And 'I've seen it in the flames' alone isn't a good arguments. Especially not at a point in time when Stannis still has no good picture how powerful Mel actually is or how accurate her visions are.

Rolland Storm is a king's man but what makes you believe that any of those are 'devout followers of the Seven'? Not following R'hllor doesn't make you a devout follower of the Seven.

The men surrounding Stannis at the Wall we know by name are all queen's men. Whatever king's men are left remained on Dragonstone or at Storm's End, or went to Lys with Edric Storm.

Because Davos says he worships the warrior and his faith is as fierce as he is.

[Lord Varys]

23 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Yes, Robert did usurp the Crown (or more accurately, he rebelled against a Mad King.) Although justifiable, he did so in an illegal manner, and not based on a rightful claim to the throne. Now if you happen to win such a coup, and the rest of the realm accepts you as the leader of the new regime, at that point you can proclaim yourself the new, and legal King - not before. From that point on, you are the rightful King, and make the laws.

But that is just wrong. If upon the death of Elizabeth II that guy successfully usurped the British throne this event would certainly harm the monarchy of the UK to no small degree (any such attempt would most likely completely destroy the monarchy, but it is just a thought experiment).

Just as Robert's successful usurpation (and especially the way he justified it) greatly harmed the monarchy of the Seven Kingdoms. Robert's success meant that the legal principles that are the basis for a normal succession (both primogeniture and proximity) effectively mean little and less. If basically anybody with as tangible a claim as Robert can become king then being king isn't worth all that much. The king is not really as great an authority as he once were, under the Targaryens. Robert's success basically means that any cousin of a king with a few drops of royal blood can now legitimately dream to wear a crown if he only is strong enough to push the flimsy claim he has.

That is why Balon rebels shortly thereafter, it is the reason why Renly and Stannis crown themselves with impunity, and it is also the reason why Robb can secede with as much support as he as, as a new King in the North and a King of the Trident. Especially the latter shows that crowns come cheap in those days. The Starks never ruled the Riverlands but now they suddenly do because the Lords of the Trident feel like it. Just as the Lords of the Reach and the Stormlands felt that Renly should be king.

During the Targaryen reign this kind of madness was unthinkable. If there was a contested succession it was always two claimants against each other, not more. When the Old King or Viserys I died not all of their children or grandchildren thought they should be kings now, just the most senior members of competing branches tried to take the throne. And never tried entire regions to secede from the united Realm.

The War of the Five Kings is the logical endpoint of a monarchy that was in decline since the day Robert Baratheon usurped the throne. 

And the idea that Robert sitting the throne means that Robert is accepted as the true and rightful king by a majority of the Realm is also wrong. Quite a few people openly curse him as usurper and false king, and we have no idea how many held that view in secret. The Baratheon dynasty is not seen as the legitimate royal dynasty of Westeros. That's House Targaryen.

And in general. Robert's usurpation has little to do with his rebellion. We can agree that Aerys II was a mad tyrant that needed to go but that doesn't make Robert king. The rebels should have rebelled against Aerys (and perhaps Rhaegar, too) and then crowned another Targaryen monarch - either Viserys III, Aegon VI, or even a queen - instead of seating Robert on the throne. That way they could have honestly claimed they just wanted to save the Realm from a tyrant while not touching the royal bloodline or the royal succession. But they didn't. And that was a mistake.

And it is no mistake made by accident. Robert wanted to be king back them. If had not wanted to be king he would have simply refused the crown.

31 minutes ago, Batbob45 said:

Alester did it for his own reasons.He did it to save himself. How would arranging Shireen to marry Tommen(who is a good kid) be good for Stannis and Shireen. The Lannister are not known for treating female well(Sansa, Tysha,and Alayaya). Joffrey would torment  Shireen(he think that he can because he is king) if she had to stay at Red Keep. Cersei would also torment her(she petty like that). Tywin might be less mean to her since she is a noble betrothal to a Lannister(she also seem to be smarter than Cersei).Jaimie might treat her well since she would remind him a little of Tyrion. Tyrion might regret allowing the slanderous rumor that PF is Shireen's father to be created.Brienne might sympathized  with her. Granted that the Tyrell might treat her better then they would treat other member of House Florent(Oleena  and Marg might see potential in that kid). They might do as a PR move(being nice to a kid who is not consider socially accepted  in Westeros). Loras might be nice to her because she is Renly's niece.

Those things mean little and less in comparison to the fact that all Shireen can expect to get if he father continues his war and loses is to lose everything, including her very life.

To cut it short, if Stannis had given Alester explicit orders to not enter into any negotiations with Tywin or make any attempts to create a peace while he was brooding behind closed doors then Stannis had had a good justification to burn him as a traitor. But the way things were Alester had every reason to believe he was speaking with the King's Voice as the King's Hand. That's what Hands do.

If the king is present and sane the power of the Hand is very limited. But if the king is absent, incapacitated, or simply disinterested the Hand effectively is the king. And that was the case when Stannis refused to speak to anyone but Melisandre (and they combined never even made an attempt to reach out to the outside world).

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Because Davos says he worships the warrior and his faith is as fierce as he is.

Oh, okay, I had forgotten that. But still, Storm isn't exactly all that high in his king's favor, or is he? Stannis left him on Dragonstone, most likely to die or to yield to his enemies. 

And I'm pretty sure he isn't as devout as, say, Bonifer Hasty. Really devout followers of the Seven would have burned with Guncer Sunglass. They would not have idly watched while a man who claimed to be their king had delivered images of the Seven to flames.

[Universal Sword Donor]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, okay, I had forgotten that. But still, Storm isn't exactly all that high in his king's favor, or is he? Stannis left him on Dragonstone, most likely to die or to yield to his enemies. 

And I'm pretty sure he isn't as devout as, say, Bonifer Hasty. Really devout followers of the Seven would have burned with Guncer Sunglass. They would not have idly watched while a man who claimed to be their king had delivered images of the Seven to flames.

Not to use your words against you but I will. That's Davos, stannis' level headed objective advisor, saying that and he isn't a pious man as you noted. He might have left him in charge of DS but I doubt he left him there to die ("--as I doubt DS was actually stormed-- and the devout burned were burned by selyse, not stannis. Rolland storm wasn't there for the burning either.

[Valyrian Blade]

@Lord Varys You need to read the books again if you think that Florent did not deserve to be execute for treason.

 

His terms were "That Lord Stannis give up his claim to the Iron Throne and retract all he said of Joffrey's bastardy, on the condition that he be accepted back into the king's peace and confirmed as Lord of Dragonstone and Storm's End"

Stannis does not want to yield. Davos knows that, Florent knows that. HIS OWN Brother imprisoned him for treason because he knows Stannis won't yield.

 

Negotiating peace in the name of your king when YOUR king does not want peace? Nonsense.

[Universal Sword Donor]

55 minutes ago, Valyrian Blade said:

@Lord Varys You need to read the books again if you think that Florent did not deserve to be execute for treason.

 

His terms were "That Lord Stannis give up his claim to the Iron Throne and retract all he said of Joffrey's bastardy, on the condition that he be accepted back into the king's peace and confirmed as Lord of Dragonstone and Storm's End"

Stannis does not want to yield. Davos knows that, Florent knows that. HIS OWN Brother imprisoned him for treason because he knows Stannis won't yield.

 

Negotiating peace in the name of your king when YOUR king does not want peace? Nonsense.

I mean I get that part. Stannis wasn't wrong for executing him but he also wasn't right. Alester got him a helluva deal all things considered and frankly when someone can't or won't make decisions themselves, someone makes them for him.

[John Doe]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The thing is, a majority of the Realm doesn't care about a line of succession. They really don't. Renly and Robert and Stannis are all great-grandsons of Aegon V. That is their blood claim. Not their order of birth.

Viserys is no Aegon III. 

Whether Robert was justified or not is completely besides the point, it does not make Renly justified. Besides, you're wrong. their order of birth does actually incluence their claim.

Quote

Bran can't be Lord of Winterfell before me, and Renly can't be king before Lord Stannis."

At this point you're just neglecting what's in the books so that you can continue holding to your point of view. 

11 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

How is it Stannis' crown if he declares himself king before Stannis puts a claim forth and no one knows Joffrey and co are illegitimate children?

Granted, as King Tommen's man -- he with the strongest claim after all -- Renly was a treasonous usurper, but he can't deny a crown to Stannis that Stannis neither possessed nor claimed. To say otherwise is just baby town frolics.

Stannis comes before Renly. Do I have to repost the same point time and time again until it sticks?

 

Quote

Renly Baratheon has claimed his brother's crown."

"Renly?" she said, shocked. "I had thought, surely it would be Lord Stannis …"

"So did we all, my lady," Galbart Glover said.

 

 

[Darkstream]

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Perhaps because he had difficulties believing Stannis' tale? He read that book, did he not? He wanted to gather 'evidence'

Oh Ok, so the same reasoning I put forth as a possible excuse for Stannis' hesitancy isn't plausible for him, but is a perfectly legit excuse for Aryn. If both men took the same concerns and evidence to Robert, which one do you think Robert would likely listen to, and which one do you think he would disregard, while scoffing in his face?  

Quote

I don't have to like a character to speculate about his intentions. But what do you think motivated Stannis to support his brother - a man he clearly did not love, as he himself repeatedly says - instead of his king? And what reason do you have to believe that Stannis did not secretly wish Robert was dead or never even existed? 

Duty. That is one of Stannis' greatest strengths...and due to his stubbornness, and inability to 'bend without breaking' it is also one of his most detrimental traits. He is insatiable to a fault in his convictions, and he cannot comprehend the idea of relenting on his duty, even if it's the most practical, beneficial, or even moral, humane, and proper thing to do.

Stannis' decision to support his brother in the rebellion would not have been as easy to make for Stannis, as it would be for most other men in his position. He was greatly conflicted between his duty to his King, and that to his own estranged brother. But, contrary to the kind of man you would have us believe Stannis is, he begrudgingly supported the brother who constantly disparaged, mocked, and shunned him since they were children. Yet after that, Robert's denigrating ways towards Stannis only continued, and even escalated.

So yeah, Stannis certainly didn't love Robert, but he was always dutiful to him; Not out of admiration or respect for Robert, but because of his own commendable, but flawed traits.

So, was Robert's decision to make Ned the Hand what finally made Stannis break? Was it what made him turn his back on his brother, and abandon him to his fate? Possibly, I'd say likely. But nobody knows for sure what his intentions were up until Robert was murdered, and he certainly couldn't have had the foresight to know what was going to happen, considering the situation when he left, and all of the events that happened since then that lead up to Robert's murder. All he knew - or rather suspected - was that Cercei's children were illegitimate. He didn't know that she had ambitions to dispose of Robert by arranging his murder - Something I would posit was independent of her involvement in Aryn's murder, and her fears of her secret being discovered.

I've stated several times that I agree Stannis neglected his duty by fleeing to Dragonstone. However, I don't believe it was with the motives, or to the extent that you would put forth, or at least not in a manner that was an active opposition to Robert, or his well being. Essentially, I think he just finally broke, and said "fuck it, I'm outta here!"

It is said of Stannis that he will break before he bends, which holds true to his character for the most part. The problem with viewing him that way is that Stannis - as is also the case with both of his brothers - has always been a broken man; Or at least, going back to the day he watched his parents die right before his eyes.

[Darkstream]

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But it is a lie. Stannis does not live up to his own standards, not in politics, nor in private life. He condemns whoring yet commits adultery with Melisandre. He considers himself just, and allows Cressen to be humiliated in public. He betrays his king (both Robert and Aerys) yet he executes people when they betray him, etc. 

All of these actions that you continue to site may be true, yet you constantly disregard the context, and try to twist what is really happening in order to support your agenda. Now I'm not implying that the context makes these actions better, or excusable, however when you are assessing the traits and motives of a character, it does matter. Since you refuse to acknowledge the truth and context of the actions and decisions made by Stannis, as@John Doe stated, and I completely agree with him, you have a fundamentally flawed view on Stannis' character.

Quote

He only does the right thing when a man of deep integrity like Davos forces him to do so.

No, he only does the wrong thing when it directly conflicts with his convictions, and these convictions are the driving force behind all of his goals, and everything that he does.

And who is forcing Stannis to keep Davos around? The man Stannis in fact gave the position to of his most trusted advisor, and the only man with the authority to act and speak on his behalf.

 

[Bernie Mac]

3 hours ago, John Doe said:

Stannis comes before Renly. Do I have to repost the same point time and time again until it sticks?

 

That last quote is a little disingenuous, First of all, though I'm sure you realise, the brother's crown quote is about Robert, not Lord Stannis. It is Robert's crown that Renly hopes to get. 

Secondly that whole chapter shows how divided they were, there are some people arguing to support Renly over Stannis.  Men like Piper give very good reasons why Renly, despite a lesser claim, is the better option. 

Quote

"Renly is crowned," said Marq Piper. "Highgarden and Storm's End support his claim, and the Dornishmen will not be laggardly. If Winterfell and Riverrun add their strength to his, he will have five of the seven great houses behind him. Six, if the Arryns bestir themselves! Six against the Rock! My lords, within the year, we will have all their heads on pikes, the queen and the boy king, Lord Tywin, the Imp, the Kingslayer, Ser Kevan, all of them! That is what we shall win if we join with King Renly. What does Lord Stannis have against that, that we should cast it all aside?"

Blackwood also has no problem accepting Renly as a possible King

Quote

Lord Blackwood agreed, to Catelyn's surprise and dismay. "And if we do make peace with King Joffrey, are we not then traitors to King Renly? What if the stag should prevail against the lion, where would that leave us?"

It is a hugely complicated matter, which the lords gathered at Riverrun only make worse by making yet another King. 

Stannis' claim is better than Renlys, but his chances of success are slimmer. An argument could very well be made that actually weakens his claim on the Throne as to actually claim a seat that someone else is currently sitting in requires more than 'right'. It also requires the ability to keep it by keeping the vassals happy. Two areas were Renly seems a better option that Stannis. 

Though I find this question a little  weird in Westeros as our own medieval Kings and Queens would often claim that it is the Gods who gave them the right to rule their seats. There is no such statements made in Westeros, so ruling through conquest and usurpation seems less of a deal breaker in Westeros than it does in our medieval world were the Pope had a big say on who a 'rightful' ruler was. 

[Universal Sword Donor]

3 hours ago, John Doe said:

Stannis comes before Renly. Do I have to repost the same point time and time again until it sticks?

You can repost it, but a claim means nothing (popular support or otherwise) unless someone presses it, 3rd party or primary, and succeeds.

This is basic inheritance stuff laid out by ASOIAF.

[Universal Sword Donor]

3 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

That last quote is a little disingenuous, First of all, though I'm sure you realise, the brother's crown quote is about Robert, not Lord Stannis. It is Robert's crown that Renly hopes to get. 

Secondly that whole chapter shows how divided they were, there are some people arguing to support Renly over Stannis.  Men like Piper give very good reasons why Renly, despite a lesser claim, is the better option. 

Blackwood also has no problem accepting Renly as a possible King

It is a hugely complicated matter, which the lords gathered at Riverrun only make worse by making yet another King. 

Stannis' claim is better than Renlys, but his chances of success are slimmer. An argument could very well be made that actually weakens his claim on the Throne as to actually claim a seat that someone else is currently sitting in requires more than 'right'. 

Though I find this question a little  weird in Westeros as are own medieval Kings and Queens would often claim that it is the Gods who gave them the right to rule their seats. There is no such statements made in Westeros, so ruling through conquest and usurpation seems less of a deal breaker in Westeros than it does in our medieval world were the Pope had a big say on who a 'rightful' ruler was. 

Look Bernie we just have to be King Tommen's men. He has the strongest claim. Popular support means nothing, just blood. Stannis proves as much when he tries and fails to usurp the throne based on his superioriest claim. 

[Darkstream]

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

So did then Ned also betray his king when he was condemning Gregor Clegane in the name of his king, something his king would most likely never have done had he been the one making the call?

You're not actually comparing Ned ordering the arrest of a serial murdering, serial rapist, torturing war criminal, after the testimonial of an entire town - or what was left of the town after Gregor sacked it - to that of Florent, who made a self serving deal with his King's enemies, even though he knew the terms forfeited everything Stannis was fighting for, and that he would never agree to them, are you?

Quote

Making peace with Stannis' enemies was Alester's duty as his Hand.

Wrong. Representing the King, and seeing to the implementation of his will is the Hand's job. Not using his position to further his own agenda, especially when it conflicts with that of his King's.

Don't forget, the King eats, and the Hand takes the shit.

Quote

That was a good deal.

You don't really think that do you? If so, I would say that's proof you really don't understand Stannis at all.

Quote

But this wasn't treason. Treason is if you act against your lord or king's wishes when you know them. But Alester had no idea that Stannis would insist to continue the fight, nor did he have any reason not to believe Stannis wanted to save whatever life and future he and his family might still have.

If Florent had known Stannis' wishes it would have been treason. But the Hand is the king in the king's absence and can only act against the king's wishes and interests if he knows them. If he doesn't (for whatever reason) then the Hand effectively is the king, and the king is bound by any decrees or arrangements the Hand makes. If the king doesn't like that he shouldn't have a Hand.

Well the text would dispute all of this.

[Darkstream]

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There are better quotes to back that up. Cersei herself saying it, for instance, back in Bran 2

I'd no trust Varys.

Ha, I'm going to take that as a meta reference on your part.

And yes, I know there are better quotes, but it wasn't necessary for me to find them, was it?

[Darkstream]

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But the point I was making is that Cersei did not, in fact, have a direct hand in Robert's death as it happened. It doesn't matter that she may have tried a more direct approach if it had failed (perhaps she wouldn't have because Ned would have gotten to Robert first, told him about the twincest, and then Cersei would have been arrested?).

If I intend to murder you directly but you got yourself killed all by yourself after you drank some wine I handed to you without double checking how much alcohol it contained then I'm not exactly a murderer. And neither is Cersei.

But Stannis has neither proof nor a very good picture about how Robert's death came about. His claim that Cersei was behind it isn't based on facts.

So then, there goes the argument that you used to claim Stannis should have known Cercei was going to murder Robert.

[Darkstream]

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But that is just wrong. If upon the death of Elizabeth II that guy successfully usurped the British throne this event would certainly harm the monarchy of the UK to no small degree (any such attempt would most likely completely destroy the monarchy, but it is just a thought experiment).

Just as Robert's successful usurpation (and especially the way he justified it) greatly harmed the monarchy of the Seven Kingdoms. Robert's success meant that the legal principles that are the basis for a normal succession (both primogeniture and proximity) effectively mean little and less. If basically anybody with as tangible a claim as Robert can become king then being king isn't worth all that much. The king is not really as great an authority as he once were, under the Targaryens. Robert's success basically means that any cousin of a king with a few drops of royal blood can now legitimately dream to wear a crown if he only is strong enough to push the flimsy claim he has.

That is why Balon rebels shortly thereafter, it is the reason why Renly and Stannis crown themselves with impunity, and it is also the reason why Robb can secede with as much support as he as, as a new King in the North and a King of the Trident. Especially the latter shows that crowns come cheap in those days. The Starks never ruled the Riverlands but now they suddenly do because the Lords of the Trident feel like it. Just as the Lords of the Reach and the Stormlands felt that Renly should be king.

During the Targaryen reign this kind of madness was unthinkable. If there was a contested succession it was always two claimants against each other, not more. When the Old King or Viserys I died not all of their children or grandchildren thought they should be kings now, just the most senior members of competing branches tried to take the throne. And never tried entire regions to secede from the united Realm.

The War of the Five Kings is the logical endpoint of a monarchy that was in decline since the day Robert Baratheon usurped the throne. 

And the idea that Robert sitting the throne means that Robert is accepted as the true and rightful king by a majority of the Realm is also wrong. Quite a few people openly curse him as usurper and false king, and we have no idea how many held that view in secret. The Baratheon dynasty is not seen as the legitimate royal dynasty of Westeros. That's House Targaryen.

And in general. Robert's usurpation has little to do with his rebellion. We can agree that Aerys II was a mad tyrant that needed to go but that doesn't make Robert king. The rebels should have rebelled against Aerys (and perhaps Rhaegar, too) and then crowned another Targaryen monarch - either Viserys III, Aegon VI, or even a queen - instead of seating Robert on the throne. That way they could have honestly claimed they just wanted to save the Realm from a tyrant while not touching the royal bloodline or the royal succession. But they didn't. And that was a mistake.

And it is no mistake made by accident. Robert wanted to be king back them. If had not wanted to be king he would have simply refused the crown.

Was Robert coronated as the legal King of Westeros? 'Cause if the answer is yes, then that entire, long ass post you just rambled on forever in is irrelevant and pointless.

[Darkstream]

12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Name me one 'devout follower of the Seven' who is also following Stannis. Davos doesn't count. He is not devout in any real sense, and he only discovered his religion (if you want to call it that) after the Blackwater.

Yes, I misspoke. I shouldn't have said "devout." The point was that Stannis has followers of both faiths coexisting together under his rule. Your claim that he has, or would continue to engage in a religious crusade is baseless. Again you are twisting facts, and disregarding context.

[Lord Varys]

8 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Not to use your words against you but I will. That's Davos, stannis' level headed objective advisor, saying that and he isn't a pious man as you noted. He might have left him in charge of DS but I doubt he left him there to die ("--as I doubt DS was actually stormed-- and the devout burned were burned by selyse, not stannis. Rolland storm wasn't there for the burning either.

It is true that Sunglass and the others were burned by Selyse and Mel, not Stannis. But do you know what is also true? That Stannis did not burn Selyse and Mel, in turn, for this disobedience and treachery. He may not have been commanded but he sanctioned it after the fact by not punishing them for their crime. Where is the just Stannis there, the Stannis who knighted Davos and cut off his finger tips? There are different rules for Stannis' wife and Stannis' mistress than there are for average people. Assuming Stannis wasn't okay with the entire thing. I mean, it is not unlikely that he had given Melisandre leave to burn these people when he sent her back to Dragonstone, no?

7 hours ago, Valyrian Blade said:

@Lord Varys You need to read the books again if you think that Florent did not deserve to be execute for treason.

His terms were "That Lord Stannis give up his claim to the Iron Throne and retract all he said of Joffrey's bastardy, on the condition that he be accepted back into the king's peace and confirmed as Lord of Dragonstone and Storm's End"

Stannis does not want to yield. Davos knows that, Florent knows that. HIS OWN Brother imprisoned him for treason because he knows Stannis won't yield.

Negotiating peace in the name of your king when YOUR king does not want peace? Nonsense.

I know what the terms were. And as I've said earlier, Stannis made Lord Alester his Hand and then retreated to his apartments, only allowing Melisandre to see him and speak to him. Dragonstone was ruled by Florent in those days and weeks. You cannot make a man your Hand and then complain when he rules in your name while you give in to your depression, refusing to do you royal duties.

You would have a point if you could prove that Florent knew Stannis' wishes when he contacted Tywin. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Else the man wouldn't have done what he did in the first place. He just didn't know Stannis' mind on the matter, and that was Stannis' fault not his.

And again - no lasting harm was done. Stannis did not bend the knee, nor was Shireen delivered to Tywin. There was no need to throw that man into the dungeon or burn him alive later on. He was, after all, Selyse's own uncle and a strong supporter of Stannis during his failed campaign.

5 hours ago, John Doe said:

Viserys is no Aegon III.

What is the difference there? Sure as hell there were some adult Targaryen cousins around there who would have been better kings than that boy? Why not crush his head against a wall and crown one of those instead? The men running the Realm in his name could easily have done that, just as one of them arranged the death of Queen Jaehaera.

Quote

Whether Robert was justified or not is completely besides the point, it does not make Renly justified. Besides, you're wrong. their order of birth does actually incluence their claim.

Robert also came after Rhaegar, Aegon, Viserys, Rhaenys, Daenerys, and Rhaella. But nobody cared. Just as Renly's supporters didn't give a damn about a line of succession. It didn't matter to them just as it hadn't mattered to Maegor after Aenys I died.

Just because Robb at first thinks the birth order is relevant doesn't prove anything. He ended up going along with becoming King in the North and King of the Trident himself, something he also had no right or claim to, either.

People recognize that birth order sort of can be important. Even Renly does, when talking to Stannis. But people can ignore it. That is not 'illegal' or 'against the law'. The law is what people make of it, not what Stannis (or you) think it should be.

4 hours ago, Darkstream said:

Oh Ok, so the same reasoning I put forth as a possible excuse for Stannis' hesitancy isn't plausible for him, but is a perfectly legit excuse for Aryn. If both men took the same concerns and evidence to Robert, which one do you think Robert would likely listen to, and which one do you think he would disregard, while scoffing in his face?

The point is that neither Stannis nor Arryn had any proof whatsoever. They had nothing. A book and the looks of some bastards. That proves nothing. Yet Stannis thinks he claim Joffrey's crown anyway. That is treason, plain and simple. He cannot declare Cersei's children bastards on the basis of his non-existing authority. He would have to convince his royal brother first. Only Robert could have done, or perhaps the Hand if Robert was incapacitated, not the Master of Ships.

Not telling the king and then turning against his wife and legal children as soon as the king was dead was simply treason, plain and simple.

Quote

Duty. That is one of Stannis' greatest strengths...and due to his stubbornness, and inability to 'bend without breaking' it is also one of his most detrimental traits. He is insatiable to a fault in his convictions, and he cannot comprehend the idea of relenting on his duty, even if it's the most practical, beneficial, or even moral, humane, and proper thing to do.

Is it? Can you actually give examples where he does anything that does not also profit himself in some fashion?

Quote

Stannis' decision to support his brother in the rebellion would not have been as easy to make for Stannis, as it would be for most other men in his position. He was greatly conflicted between his duty to his King, and that to his own estranged brother. But, contrary to the kind of man you would have us believe Stannis is, he begrudgingly supported the brother who constantly disparaged, mocked, and shunned him since they were children. Yet after that, Robert's denigrating ways towards Stannis only continued, and even escalated.

Stannis was completely dependent on Robert. His king was not feeding and clothing him, Robert was. His lord. The Lord of Storm's End. Stannis was nothing without his lordly brother, just as any second son is nothing by himself if his father or elder brother throws him out of his castle. The idea that Stannis had any choice but to support Robert is actually pretty silly. Stannis had no incomes, men, or other resources he could offer King Aerys. He may have been able to betray Robert to Aerys after Robert marched to war and (presumably) left Stannis in charge of Storm's End as castellan, but that is basically all the treason Stannis would have been capable of. No Stormlord would have followed the ugly little brother. They had Robert to look up to and follow.

And also note that Robert had done nothing to wrong King Aerys. The Mad King just decided on a whim he wanted his head. Stannis would not have considered this just and should thus have had no problem denouncing that king, regardless whether Robert treated him like shit during their childhood or not.

And by the way - making Stannis Lord of Dragonstone was a reward. Stannis has no right to any castle. Robert is Lord of Storm's End, Robert is also the king later on. He could have given Dragonstone to Joffrey and Storm's End to Tommen. He could have kept them all for himself. He could have given to other people, establishing new noble lines. The fact that Stannis constantly complains about this shows how ambitious and greedy he actually is. He wants to more than he actually is. He wants to be the Lord of Storm's End because that's what Robert was once. And later he wants to be king because Robert was king, too. He wants to show everyone that he, too, can be a great king. Look how he reacts when Robert is brought up in his presence in ADwD. He interprets this as a personal attack on his competence and capabilities as a leader and commander.

Robert was not morally obliged to give castles to his brothers. And he better shouldn't because that enabled those ingrates to plot and rebel against his own children before his corpse was cold. If Stannis and Renly had just been household knights in the service of their brother - like Kevan is - there wouldn't have been a War of the Five Kings.

Quote

So, was Robert's decision to make Ned the Hand what finally made Stannis break? Was it what made him turn his back on his brother, and abandon him to his fate? Possibly, I'd say likely. But nobody knows for sure what his intentions were up until Robert was murdered, and he certainly couldn't have had the foresight to know what was going to happen, considering the situation when he left, and all of the events that happened since then that lead up to Robert's murder. All he knew - or rather suspected - was that Cercei's children were illegitimate. He didn't know that she had ambitions to dispose of Robert by arranging his murder - Something I would posit was independent of her involvement in Aryn's murder, and her fears of her secret being discovered.

We know Stannis closed down Dragonstone as soon as he arrived there, months before Robert died. The man was preparing to rebel as soon as he got there. Either he intended to turn against Robert himself (which I consider to be not all that likely) or he intended to wait until he was dead. But he certainly was no longer a loyal subject to his king and brother by the time he left the capital. Else he would have replied to Ned's letters or tried to warn Robert.

He also has Saan and the Myrish sellswords backing him by the time of Prologue, meaning he must have made contact with them months ago. They didn't just pop into existence the moment Robert died.

Quote

I've stated several times that I agree Stannis neglected his duty by fleeing to Dragonstone. However, I don't believe it was with the motives, or to the extent that you would put forth, or at least not in a manner that was an active opposition to Robert, or his well being. Essentially, I think he just finally broke, and said "fuck it, I'm outta here!"

Which is him being a traitor, not a man doing his duty. He deserved to be punished for that dereliction of duty. And a proper king would have done that, taking Dragonstone from him or even exiling him. Hell, a stern king could even have taken his head for that. Taking the majority of the royal fleet to his island stronghold was treason.

4 hours ago, Darkstream said:

All of these actions that you continue to site may be true, yet you constantly disregard the context, and try to twist what is really happening in order to support your agenda. Now I'm not implying that the context makes these actions better, or excusable, however when you are assessing the traits and motives of a character, it does matter. Since you refuse to acknowledge the truth and context of the actions and decisions made by Stannis, as@John Doe stated, and I completely agree with him, you have a fundamentally flawed view on Stannis' character.

Okay, let's take an example that illustrates the point. You can see how Stannis is using special pleading to excuse himself while punishing others as harshly as he can. When Selyse and Axell push him to attack Claw Isle after the Blackwater, to punish Lord Celtigar for his 'treason', Davos is able to convince Stannis not to do this. But would Stannis also have rejected that idea if Davos hadn't been there? Had Stannis gone to the Wall to save the Realm from the wildlings if Davos hadn't been there? No, he wouldn't.

Stannis has to be pushed in the right direction to do good things, he isn't a good or just man by himself. 

Stannis uses the people around him like puppets and tools. Like things that only exist to do what he asks of them. Just look how he treats and talks about the men around him in his truly private moments, his little talks with Theon in Theon 1. He knows what kind of men Massey, Horpe, and Suggs are. But he doesn't care as long as they help him get what he wants. He also knows the character and mind of his wife and her uncle. But he doesn't care. He don't punish those people for their actions. At least not yet. But Selyse, Melisandre, and Davos are not safer from Stannis 'justice' as Lord Alester. Their time will come soon if they are no longer useful or if they fail or disappoint him.

Quote

No, he only does the wrong thing when it directly conflicts with his convictions, and these convictions are the driving force behind all of his goals, and everything that he does.

Then why did he need Davos to point out to him not to attack Claw Isle?

Quote

And who is forcing Stannis to keep Davos around? The man Stannis in fact gave the position to of his most trusted advisor, and the only man with the authority to act and speak on his behalf.

Stannis didn't give a fig about Davos while he had other men to rely on. Reread ACoK. Davos is only needed for the secret mission to the Stormlands in the beginning and then later for the murder of Penrose. He only ends up in Stannis' inner circle after the Blackwater when Stannis has lost most of his other men. Only then is Davos made a lord and named Stannis' Hand.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

You're not actually comparing Ned ordering the arrest of a serial murdering, serial rapist, torturing war criminal, after the testimonial of an entire town - or what was left of the town after Gregor sacked it - to that of Florent, who made a self serving deal with his King's enemies, even though he knew the terms forfeited everything Stannis was fighting for, and that he would never agree to them, are you?

Sure I do. There was no proof that Gregor Clegane was the man behind, just circumstantial evidence.

And can you by any chance prove to me that Lord Alester Florent knew in advance that Stannis would not agree to the terms he made, that he knew Stannis would consider this attempt at a peace treason, or that Lord Alester did not actually try to talk this through with Stannis before he wrote his letters but was not allowed to speak to his king?

The impression one gets is that Stannis was brooding and whining and fucking Melisandre behind closed doors, and then overreacting when he finally put himself back together, complaining that his Hand was doing stuff in his name. That is childish behavior on his part, not treason on Alester's.

Quote

Wrong. Representing the King, and seeing to the implementation of his will is the Hand's job. Not using his position to further his own agenda, especially when it conflicts with that of his King's.

But if the king doesn't say anything the Hand still has to act. Somebody has to rule the kingdom, you know. Even if it is just Dragonstone.

Quote

Don't forget, the King eats, and the Hand takes the shit.

Sure, but that means the king is an unjust ass, just like Stannis is.

Quote

You don't really think that do you? If so, I would say that's proof you really don't understand Stannis at all.

Well, I guess you are aware that the Others, Roose, Ramsay, Euron, Aegon, or Daenerys won't give Stannis such a good deal, right?

Quote

Well the text would dispute all of this.

It doesn't. Treason has to be conscious act. You have to want to want to betray your king. Anything else is just you making an honest mistake. And nobody deserves to be burned alive for making an honest mistake.

58 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

So then, there goes the argument that you used to claim Stannis should have known Cercei was going to murder Robert.

No, it doesn't. Stannis not having proof that Cersei did, in fact, arrange Robert's death doesn't mean he did not also believe Cersei wanted to kill Robert. He also believes that the Lannisters murdered Jon Arryn (which they did not, and for which Stannis also has no evidence). If Stannis believes Cersei's children are not Robert's and if he believes Cersei killed Arryn to ensure that Robert doesn't find out the truth then you don't have to be a rocket scientist to conclude that killing Robert before he finds out the truth is what Cersei is likely to do.

And that's what Stannis prepared for after he left the capital. He built up his strength, waiting for Robert's death so that he could avenge him and kill Cersei and her children to take Robert's crown. And he actually thought the Stormlords would help him with that kind of treason. Well, he was wrong.

40 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Was Robert coronated as the legal King of Westeros? 'Cause if the answer is yes, then that entire, long ass post you just rambled on forever in is irrelevant and pointless.

There is no correct answer to that. Robert was crowned and anointed but he also is a usurper. As such he is no true king of the same authority as a man who properly inherited the crown from his father or grandfather. The idea that people are just to forget how Robert took the crown after his coronation because that suddenly makes everything legal and legitimate is just childish. That's not how things go. Robert began as an outlaw rebel and he usurped the crown. People may have made their peace with the new Baratheon dynasty during the reign of Robert's grandchildren or great-grandchildren (assuming the Targaryens were all dead and gone by then). But fifteen years after the death of Aerys II the true kings of Westeros are not yet forgotten. Far from it, actually.

2 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Yes, I misspoke. I shouldn't have said "devout." The point was that Stannis has followers of both faiths coexisting together under his rule. Your claim that he has, or would continue to engage in a religious crusade is baseless. Again you are twisting facts, and disregarding context.

Well, just wait and see. Those king's men are all gone now. Stannis needed every men he could get back in ACoK and ASoS. He could not afford persecuting people for their religion yet. But he still desecrated septs, burned images of the Seven, and the ancestral godswood of Storm's End. The King on the Iron Throne traditionally defends the Faith of the Seven, however, since the days of Jaehaerys I. Is Stannis doing that? No. He is a heretic waging a war against the majority religions in Westeros.

The fact that he suffers followers of the Seven among his people as long as they shut the hell up and continue to follow his command doesn't make any difference. Stannis also allows those queen's men to intimidate the others. It is pretty clear who is charge there.

[Sullen]

9 hours ago, Darkstream said:

So yeah, Stannis certainly didn't love Robert, but he was always dutiful to him; Not out of admiration or respect for Robert, but because of his own commendable, but flawed traits.

Not always, evidently, else he would have not holed himself in Dragonstone and waited instead of warning his brother, or people he knew his brother loved and that the Lannisters loathed (Either Eddard or Renly).

Fact is, once Jon Arryn died and Robert "slighted" Stannis by deciding to make Ned the Hand, Stannis pretty much abandoned Robert to his fate despite "knowing" what the Lannisters were capable of. That is treason, undutiful, disloyal.