Jump to content
BigBoss1

Renly winning would have been a disaster.

Recommended Posts

One general attribute of feudal societies is that they respect laws or at least try to interpret them in one own favour.

Succession laws are one if not the most important laws in a kingdom, not respecting them meant low legitimacy and that led to rebellion.  Blood right was so important to Westerosi society that Robert was to be king just because he was the closer to the succesion after the targaryens. Robert took the throne because he had the army, the claim (being that the current dynasty was being deposed) and the charisma.

Renly on the other hand may have the army and the charisma but he certainly lacks claim. He claims the throne by right of conquest but has no dragons to enforce it. He doesn't even believe Cersei's children to be illegitimate (like most of Westeros) He is taking the throne because he can, completely skipping over his brother.

He could have definitely won the throne but the precedent of someone with a weak to no claim taking the throne just because he has a bigger army is set. Imagine the bloodshed as various warlords fight for the throne just because they can. Renly was irresponsible and obviously did not care for the consequences of his actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

That's the nature of rebellion, though. Every time. Rebels are technically traitors, until they win. Then those who rebel against them are traitors, and so on.

Westeros never had a rebellion against the ruling dynasty until Robert though. If a precedent is set, whose royal arse sit on the throne doesn't matter anymore leading to instability. Westeros would have double the wars ocurring than the previous 3 centuries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree to a certain extent. But the fact is Renly did have a claim. He was the King's brother and he'd just 'watched' (i.e. heard about) the new King command the unjust execution of a Lord Paramount as his first action as a ruler. In addition, the same King had blatantly ignored and even sancionted the illegal actions of his grandfather in invading the Riverlands. After taking the throne all Renly has to do is say that he was overthrowing a tyrant the same way his brother Robert had fifteen years earlier. Oh and Tommen shares his trecherous Lannister blood so we couldn't trust him to be King and since Stannis hadn't made a claim by the time I raised my armies so I was next in line.

And that's before Stannis sends out the letters claiming incest. That gives him an even better excuse. Whether he believes it or not, he can claim that its truth and use it to justify his claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BigBoss1 said:

Westeros never had a rebellion against the ruling dynasty until Robert though. If a precedent is set, whose royal arse sit on the throne doesn't matter anymore leading to instability. Westeros would have double the wars ocurring than the previous 3 centuries

Are you kidding? Aegon vs Maegor, The Dance, the Blackfyre Rebellions (at least the first two). They were internal to the Targaryen family but they were still rebellions against the ruling branch.

Also Lyonel Baratheon started a rebellion of independence. They settled it with single combat but still. I believe there was an attempted Ironborn uprising at one point too, with Harren the Red (did he claim Kingship?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, BigBoss1 said:

One general attribute of feudal societies is that they respect laws or at least try to interpret them in one own favour.

And yet Robert becoming king, despite not being the next in line of succession. did not encourage a breakout of cousins usurping the titles of the true heirs. The idea that this would have happened under Renly is ridiculous. 

Plus why single Renly out? Your argument applies just as much to Stannis as it does Renly as he was trying to usurp the legally acknowledged heirs Throne. We may know Stannis was the real heir, Westeros does not, they only have his claim 5 seconds after Robert's funeral that he was the real heir. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Are you kidding? Aegon vs Maegor, The Dance, the Blackfyre Rebellions (at least the first two). They were internal to the Targaryen family but they were still rebellions against the ruling branch.

Also Lyonel Baratheon started a rebellion of independence. They settled it with single combat but still. I believe there was an attempted Ironborn uprising at one point too, with Harren the Red (did he claim Kingship?)

None of those were rebellions against the ruling dynasty, you said it yourself, ruling branch. The blacfyres are as much targaryen as their more legitimate cousins, Aegon the unworthy legitimized them.

And the attempted rebellion of the laughing storm was trying to secede, not replace. None of these rebellions were trying to replace the dynasty with anything other than targaryen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

And yet Robert becoming king, despite not being the next in line of succession. did not encourage a breakout of cousins usurping the titles of the true heirs. The idea that this would have happened under Renly is ridiculous. 

Plus why single Renly out? Your argument applies just as much to Stannis as it does Renly as he was trying to usurp the legally acknowledged heirs Throne. We may know Stannis was the real heir, Westeros does not, they only have his claim 5 seconds after Robert's funeral that he was the real heir. 

 

The difference between Renly and Stannis is in motivation. Renly has not given a single reason he is the rightful king other than having a bigger army. 

Stannis on the other hand has declared Robert's children unlegitimate, even if the nobility doesn't believe him now they will have to once he wins. 

Renly hasn't given a reason to rebel and giving one once he takes the throne is too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, BigBoss1 said:

One general attribute of feudal societies is that they respect laws or at least try to interpret them in one own favour.

Succession laws are one if not the most important laws in a kingdom, not respecting them meant low legitimacy and that led to rebellion.  Blood right was so important to Westerosi society that Robert was to be king just because he was the closer to the succesion after the targaryens. Robert took the throne because he had the army, the claim (being that the current dynasty was being deposed) and the charisma.

Renly on the other hand may have the army and the charisma but he certainly lacks claim. He claims the throne by right of conquest but has no dragons to enforce it. He doesn't even believe Cersei's children to be illegitimate (like most of Westeros) He is taking the throne because he can, completely skipping over his brother.

He could have definitely won the throne but the precedent of someone with a weak to no claim taking the throne just because he has a bigger army is set. Imagine the bloodshed as various warlords fight for the throne just because they can. Renly was irresponsible and obviously did not care for the consequences of his actions.

Renly technically had a loophole.  You see, Robert took the throne from their rightful king.  Nobody can question Aerys Targaryen's right to rule.  If Robert can break the law and remove his rightful king so can Renly.  Robert's Rebellion created a loophole that was not there before.  It's a bad precedent.  Westeros would have been better off suffering Aerys Targaryen until the end of his reign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah. Renly would have united the realm in the face of the threat of the White Walkers.  The country was on the brink of civil war and Renly could have brokered that solution. He had the gift of diplomacy and was making friends with every lord he passed on the way in his campaign. He was the best shot for peace and stability. 

Renly's not an idiot, he would have adopted the story of the incest cooked up a story of how Stannis is unsuitable once he took the throne. Actually he doesn't even have to seeing as how Stannis was burning weir woods all over the place. 

People always forget Stannis had no proof of his claims of incest. To the rest of Westeros, he looked as much a usurper as Renly. Stannis would have been worse for Westeros than Renly seeenf as how he's highly unpopular, rigid and harsh at a time when Westeros needed to be united.

Edited by S. D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Renly technically had a loophole.  You see, Robert took the throne from their rightful king.  Nobody can question Aerys Targaryen's right to rule.  If Robert can break the law and remove his rightful king so can Renly.  Robert's Rebellion created a loophole that was not there before.  It's a bad precedent.  Westeros would have been better off suffering Aerys Targaryen until the end of his reign.

That absolutely makes sense. But then again Joffrey is not Aerys. Even tough Aerys was a madman, a lunatic and a sadist people still rose up to defend him because he was the rightful ruler. Joffrey is not a proven lunatic and can act charming when he wants to. Joffrey looks like a better monarch than Aerys but does not have a 300 year old dynasty's legitimacy. Would people defend him like they did Aerys or even consider him their rightful king?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, BigBoss1 said:

The difference between Renly and Stannis is in motivation. Renly has not given a single reason he is the rightful king other than having a bigger army. 

That is true of Stannis. He's not called a Great Council to decide the matter, he's assembled the largest army he can to try and usurp the Throne. Both of Joffrey's uncles are trying to take the Crown through force. 

Renly and Stannis are as bad as each other to the average Westerosi citizen. According to your own argument any relative of a recently deceased Lord can simply call all the people above him (or her) in the succession line bastards and assemble an army to take control.

Quote

Stannis on the other hand has declared Robert's children unlegitimate, even if the nobility doesn't believe him now they will have to once he wins. 

Renly can do the same, make up some trumped up law why he was the rightful heir.

Quote

Renly hasn't given a reason to rebel

Yeah, he has. His life was threatened.

Lord Renly took a step back, taut as a bowstring. "Every moment you delay gives Cersei another moment to prepare. By the time Robert dies, it may be too late … for both of us."

Ned rejects Renly's advice to arrest Cersei, Renly leaves and hears Ned being arrested and executed. He believed, rightly, that Cersei wanted him dead, rebelling was his only option of keeping his head and lands

"I lacked the strength to act alone, so when Lord Eddard turned me away, I had no choice but to flee. Had I stayed, I knew the queen would see to it that I did not long outlive my brother."

Renly is following in Robert's footsteps, the Crown wanted them dead so they had no choice but to rebel.

Quote

 

and giving one once he takes the throne is too late.

lol you just claimed everyone will have to believe Stannis once he is King. The same applies to Renly. 

 

Your argument was flawed to begin with, but pretending that Renly and Stannis, in the eyes of the average citizen, are not in the same boat is ridiculous. 

Edited by Bernie Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Renly's claim is weaker than Stannis' but it is still a strong claim. Succession laws in medieval society were often broken and whole succession was messy and not perfect as the laws apply. Often whoever had a bigger army and more supporting vassals won the throne regardless of the strength of his claim. And Renly had exactly that, so him winning would be very much a stabilising factor. Who would go against Renly as a king? People that supported him in the first place? Why? North? Dorne? Vale?... 

Yes he would have to defeat Lannisters and Stannis and maybe North but I think Robb would have given up. 

The question is what would Varys and Littlefinger do in that case. Both had to have a plan since Renly winning seemed very likely. Littlefinger would probably continue to destabilise the Kingdom while I'm not sure about Varys, would Varys want Aegon so badly on the throne to continue disrupting the realm? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

 

Your argument was flawed to begin with, but pretending that Renly and Stannis, in the eyes of the average citizen, are not in the same boat is ridiculous. 

Average citizen doesn't matters much, it is what nobles want that matters the most. And to them Renly is more suitable for the throne. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Robert's Rebellion created a loophole that was not there before.

The right of conquest is the oldest method to decide a ruler there is.  The Targaryens used it, the Andals and the first Men used it, and the Dothraki still use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original statement was "Renly winning would have been a disaster." 

I disagree with this.  In fact I think it would have been the best case scenario for Westeros.  He is definitely better than Joffrey and Cersie, and I think he would have been better than Stannis.  He had Highgarden and the Stormlands, he was amenable to treat with the North and the Riverlands would have followed. 

The war would have gone much differently, Renly was cautious, and deliberate.  Renly would not have stormed the walls of KL, he would have laid siege to the city and waited for Tywin to return. So no Blackwater Bay with the thousands of casualties, No Red Wedding because Tywin wasn't sure to win. 

KL would have been starving and the city would have rebelled. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who would have been heir of Renly? Naturally assuming that Joffrey, Tommen and Stannis would have died.

Or I suspect that if Renly had won there would have been another civil war after his death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Loose Bolt said:

Who would have been heir of Renly? Naturally assuming that Joffrey, Tommen and Stannis would have died.

Or I suspect that if Renly had won there would have been another civil war after his death.

Renly's children would have been his heirs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Renly's children would have been his heirs

He seemed to have certain problems about producing those children. After all a man who loves more about his good brother than his wife is unlikely to have any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Renly's children would have been his heirs

You mean the children of the guy impregnating Margaery for Renly. The way Renly treated Margaery in Cat's chapters strongly suggests that her marriage to Renly was as much a sham as Rhaenyra's marriage to Laenor Velaryon. Just think of Loras' reaction when Sansa mentions Margaery's name in her conversation with Loras about Renly. The woman had no real connection with Renly.

Overall, Robert's example of a successful rebellion encouraged Renly to emulate his older brother. I'm not sure he would have tried to pull that if Robert had inherited the throne. That success also weakened the monarchy as a whole.

During the Targaryen days there were two successful usurpations - Maegor's and Aegon II's - but no successful rebellion unless we want to count the rise of Jaehaerys I as one such.

The idea that there is a difference between a Targaryen/Blackfyre pretender challenging a king and a Baratheon cousin doing that doesn't hold much water. Robert rose to the throne because he was a great-grandson of King Aegon V Targaryen. His family name is pretty much irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×