Robert giving Renly Storm's End was stupid

[Morte]

51 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

I think you are referring to historical Tiberius, recorded by Suetonius and other people, for example, who is a bit different than Tiberius in I, Claudius, who served as an inspiration for George Martin's Stannis.

Might be.

Never seen the show, just read the book quite a long time ago, and while it does depict Claudius quite well (as far as we know today), it was a little too cliché on the other members of the Iulia-Claudia. But was it that much a caricature? Hm, can't say anymore, really.

[The Sunland Lord]

18 minutes ago, Morte said:

Might be.

Never seen the show, just read the book quite a long time ago, and while it does depict Claudius quite well (as far as we know today), it was a little too cliché on the other members of the Iulia-Claudia. But was it that much a caricature? Hm, can't say anymore, really.

No, it's not a caricature, not at all, but not the same in details with historical Tiberius, of course. (Who really can know)

GRRM specifically based Stannis on the show Tiberius, well portrayed by the actor George Baker.

 

[Morte]

4 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

No, it's not a caricature, not at all, but not the same in every day details with historical Tiberius, of course. 

GRRM specifically based Stannis on the show Tiberius, well portrayed by the actor George Baker.

 

Hm, thank you. Will give it a try, when I have more free time left.

I do recommend the book, while it is fiction, it is well made and one can see that the author did do his research.

[The Sunland Lord]

21 minutes ago, Morte said:

Hm, thank you. Will give it a try, when I have more free time left.

I do recommend the book, while it is fiction, it is well made and one can see that the author did do his research.

Welcome. I think it's a great show.

I haven't read the book, but I mean to. I can tell from the show that the fiction and history are wonderfully combined, too.

I am almost certain that Martin put Stannis on Dragonstone as a nod to Tiberius from I, Claudius, a man "who sits on a rock".

[Lord Varys]

I'm not aware that we got any good none-Suetonius/Tacitus (private life) information of Tiberius. There aren't many sources for his life, which seems to be the reason why, unlike other early Roman emperors, there are very few academic or popular biographies written about him.

The Stannis portrayal is based on the I, Claudius show, but it is a pretty accurate adaptation of the books, but this whole arc about Tiberius being sort of a man between good and bad traits who then turns bad because of his brother's death and the corrupting influence of his overbearing mother is something that seems to be taken from a couple of very crucial scenes in the show. This is where we get with the whole Davos-Stannis-Mel triangle.

Overall, though, I find I, Claudius horribly misogynistic (the book more so than the show), written by a man whose biggest nightmare must have been that a woman might exert some influence over the state ... which then has to mean she runs everything. And the idea that she has to murder pretty much the entire Imperial family is just so far over the top that you cannot really take it seriously.

I mean, some of that stuff is utterly mad like Livia running the entire secret police to the degree that Tiberius cannot even cut her off from power after he has taken over, because she has some leverage over Tiberius himself. This is Rome, where women have no place in public life at all. Or this ridiculous image of Augustus as a guy who accidentally overthrew the republic and accidentally remained emperor - just to please his wife. That is worse than a caricature.

It is, at times, a rather well-written take on the contemporary sources, but the idea to have the whole Iulia affair as just a sex scandal is not, well, all that likely, especially in light of the crucial executions and exiles taking place at the same time.

[Dreadscythe95]

Robert could have given Stannis Storm's End and Renly Dragonstone. They are Baratheons and not Targaryens, they don't need to follow Targaryen tradition.

They should not all sit in the small counsil though. Three Baratheons in the small counsil it too much, not even the Targaryens did this frequently. He should give Stannis Storm's End and the Stormlands and Renly Dragonstone and a position in his small council.Robert shoud also use The Hightowers, The Redwynes and The Tyrells as a means to balance the might of The Lannisters. He should put one of these three houses in the small council and marry a daughter of the others one to Stannis and Renly. Marrying Stannis into a Florent was a very bad political move. He should also add a lord from The Iron Isles to the small council, to keep them divided and prevent rebellions. Rodrik Harlaw would be a great option as he would also be a great asset to the council. Robert should also divide Harrenhall castle and it's lands in two and give half of it to The Tullys and the other half to his secdond son, making a cadt brand of House Baratheon in The Riverlands. This way he would increase House Tully's power and influence over The Riverlands which is pretty weak for a Great House and also add some influence over there himsef.

That's what I would do if I was Robert.

[Morte]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not aware that we got any good none-Suetonius/Tacitus (private life) information of Tiberius. There aren't many sources for his life, which seems to be the reason why, unlike other early Roman emperors, there are very few academic or popular biographies written about him.

Velleius Parteculus would be a good source to balance Suetonius, and especially Tacitus on Tiberius' account. Some historians don't take him serious because he served under Tiberius and is clearly was very found of him - that's funny because they believe everything Tacitus is writing, even fully aware of the fact that Tactius outright hated Tiberius...

Zvi Yavetz wrote a nice little biography on Tiberius, I don't know if it was published in English, it was in Germany - "Der traurige Kaiser".

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Overall, though, I find I, Claudius horribly misogynistic (the book more so than the show), written by a man whose biggest nightmare must have been that a woman might exert some influence over the state ... which then has to mean she runs everything. And the idea that she has to murder pretty much the entire Imperial family is just so far over the top that you cannot really take it seriously.

I mean, some of that stuff is utterly mad like Livia running the entire secret police to the degree that Tiberius cannot even cut her off from power after he has taken over, because she has some leverage over Tiberius himself. This is Rome, where women have no place in public life at all.

Well, that comes directly from Suetonius and Tacitus, because both had a major problem with Augustus' and Livia's happy marriage and her indeed being one of Augustus' consultants. With is funny, because it wasn't something exotic at all in Roman society for a man asking his wife for advise.

And it gets completely idiotic with the plot of murdering one of her sons and her grandson for her other son to become princeps... But well, it took historians a few centuries to stop believing that bullshit.

6 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

They should not all sit in the small counsil though. Three Baratheons in the small counsil it too much, not even the Targaryens did this frequently. He should give Stannis Storm's End and the Stormlands and Renly Dragonstone and a position in his small council.Robert shoud also use The Hightowers, The Redwynes and The Tyrells as a means to balance the might of The Lannisters. He should put one of these three houses in the small council and marry a daughter of the others one to Stannis and Renly. Marrying Stannis into a Florent was a very bad political move. He should also add a lord from The Iron Isles to the small council, to keep them divided and prevent rebellions. Rodrik Harlaw would be a great option as he would also be a great asset to the council. Robert should also divide Harrenhall castle and it's lands in two and give half of it to The Tullys and the other half to his secdond son, making a cadt brand of House Baratheon in The Riverlands. This way he would increase House Tully's power and influence over The Riverlands which is pretty weak for a Great House and also add some influence over there himsef.

Actually the non-existing integration- and marriage-politics, especially concerning the Iron Isles, are one of the strange things about Westeros (not just during Robert's reign).

[Lion of the West]

23 hours ago, Morte said:

Tiberius most likely didn't do any of the things told about him in Capri, after the Seianus-incident he had no temper left for the Senators, but that's it.

However, neither was he send to Rhodos (he left because he was fed up), nor was he unloved by his men. In fact, he was very much loved, not only feared and respected like Stannis, by his soldiers. He just wasn't as charismatic as his brother or nephew (with which Tiberius had no problem, contrary to Stannis), nor could he fake interest or disguise his distaste very well (this he has in common with Stannis). But yes, he was forced to divorce his beloved wife to marry Iulia, and he also was descripted as the "saddest of all men" - but I don't think that this one fits very well with Stannis.

In fact, and I have said this somewhere here already, Tiberius was more a mixture of Viserys II and Aegon III - and he would have happily worked under his brother, doing all the work and not informing the dumb-head on anything important he could mess up (if Drusus had lived and would have been as incompetent as Robert, which he wasn't).

Entirely possible. I do not find myself schooled enough with Roman emperors to deny the specific details about Tiberius.

*****

But speaking of Stannis. Am I the only who thinks that if Eddard had managed to make Stannis into Robert's heir, Stannis' reign would have been a Westerosi-style copy-paste of Antigonus I Monophthalmus, but without the whole realm fracturing?

[Aldarion]

On 5/25/2020 at 3:59 PM, Lord Varys said:

Robert shouldn't have given either Stannis or Renly anything. They were both not deserving of such high honors nor were they particularly trustworthy. Renly is no worse a traitor than Stannis considering Stannis has no proof about the twincest and was willing to murder his sister-in-law and his nephews and niece over an issue that was clearly not the children's fault.

They also didn't deserve any seats on the council considering that neither was a particularly gifted individual, especially not Renly.

And Stannis was never the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne. At best he was the presumptive heir while Robert hadn't gotten any children from Cersei, but even there we don't know whether Robert ever formally named or acknowledged Stannis as his heir while he didn't have any children yet.

He was given Dragonstone not as an honor but because Robert needed somebody he thought he could trust to hold Dragonstone against the Targaryens.

Bottom line is, Robert should have given the seats he had to give to his own children, not his ungrateful, scheming brothers. They deserved nothing.

Stannis supported him in rebellion while Renly was too young. You are assuming that Robert ought to have had power of future sight / clairvoyance, when he has trouble enough with present. At the end of the rebellion, there was no reason for him not to give Stannis either Dragonstone or Storm's End. In fact, consdering how crucial Stannis was for his campaign, Dragonstone could be considered "not enough" (if one forgets its symbolic value).

Question is, why did he let Stannis have Dragonstone still after he got an (apparent) Heir Apparent?

19 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

Robert could have given Stannis Storm's End and Renly Dragonstone. They are Baratheons and not Targaryens, they don't need to follow Targaryen tradition.

Seven Kingdoms themselves are a Targaryen tradition. So it makes sense to follow Targaryen traditions when it comes to ruling, as it would basically be a statement "look, not much has changed".

Realistically though, Seven Kingdoms should have fallen apart into seven (or nine) kingdoms by the end of the Robert's Rebellion.

[Lord Varys]

12 hours ago, Morte said:

Velleius Parteculus would be a good source to balance Suetonius, and especially Tacitus on Tiberius' account. Some historians don't take him serious because he served under Tiberius and is clearly was very found of him - that's funny because they believe everything Tacitus is writing, even fully aware of the fact that Tactius outright hated Tiberius...

I'd have to look that one up. It seems to me that Tiberius fell victim to his long life and the fact that he lost his grasp on things in his later years with all that Seianus business, not to mention the fact that he was out of touch with things in Rome - and people in Rome out of touch with him. The idea that he was more depraved than the average wealthy Roman with an army of easily available sex slaves is not exactly all that likely.

And one imagines that the rivalry between him and Germanicus and Agrippina was very real, considering the succession agreement wasn't exactly a done deal. Tiberius wasn't Augustus desired successor, nor was he a great idea by the time the old man died - being an old man himself by then.

With Rome actually never being a proper monarchy unless, perhaps Late Antiquity (although I'd not even count the Byzantine Empire a proper monarchy, since the army remained the deciding political player until the later middle ages), especially not in those early days, it is rather obvious that every descendant blood relative of Augustus and Caesar thought he would have a shot at the ultimate power.

12 hours ago, Morte said:

Zvi Yavetz wrote a nice little biography on Tiberius, I don't know if it was published in English, it was in Germany - "Der traurige Kaiser".

Yeah, I know that this one exists, but I haven't read it yet. If your German is good enough reading Christiane Kunst's Livia biography might be a good treat. I also very much like Aloys Winterling's take on Caligula which has been translated into English - as has Jochen Bleicken's big Augustus biography (which some people might have the same issues as with Gyldayn's take on Jaehaerys I, focusing so many chapters on Augustus' youth and the civil war, rather than the long reign). I also greatly enjoyed Ronald Syme's The Roman Revolution years ago.

By the way, I'm still trying to read Christian Meier's supposedly famous Caesar biography which also has been translated, but that thing borders on the unreadable for me, with all that apology stuff in there - I get it that he is apparently better than Mommsen and Burckhardt, but apparently that's not enough.

12 hours ago, Morte said:

Well, that comes directly from Suetonius and Tacitus, because both had a major problem with Augustus' and Livia's happy marriage and her indeed being one of Augustus' consultants. With is funny, because it wasn't something exotic at all in Roman society for a man asking his wife for advise.

Yeah, but neither of them include stuff like Augustus never being able to consummate his marriage with Livia because he stole her from her husband and felt bad about that, nor does it make any sense she wouldn't want to have children with him to secure her own role as the wife at his side. Some of the stuff Graves used was from Cassius Dio, I think.

How successful that marriage must have been can be seen by the status and rank Livia gained in her husband's testament - turning that all in some kind of vile scheme is really horrible misogyny. And from her family background neither she nor her husband and father's family would have had any interest in this republic nonsense. They were foremost Roman nobility, and would have been among the men who wanted to be Anthony and Octavian themselves, not share the power they could have. This also an aspect that's unrealistic in Graves' portrayal - that weird dichotomy between genuine aristocratic republicans and those evil monarchistic who are embodied by Livia.

But then, the whole point of the novel is to have Claudius as one of those republicans which would also be bogus, or else his reign would have gone much more different. It seems that his marriage to Agrippina the Younger wasn't something done out stupidity but rather to actually strengthen his power and legitimacy considering he wasn't pretty much just a Claudian, related to Augustus only by means of his grandmother Octavia.

12 hours ago, Morte said:

And it gets completely idiotic with the plot of murdering one of her sons and her grandson for her other son to become princeps... But well, it took historians a few centuries to stop believing that bullshit.

I don't think there are very good contemporary sources for the claims that she destroyed Iulia, and had Gaius and Lucius killed, not to mention that Marcellus nonsense in the beginning.

 

[frenin]

10 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Realistically though, Seven Kingdoms should have fallen apart into seven (or nine) kingdoms by the end of the Robert's Rebellion.

I don't really think so. Once the Realm is united people wanted to rule it all, not bits of it. There is no reason why the Reach lords would want independence and the most of the power centres had already pledged to Robert.

Dorne should have been able to be independent tho but Doran is a pushover.

[Dreadscythe95]

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Stannis supported him in rebellion while Renly was too young. You are assuming that Robert ought to have had power of future sight / clairvoyance, when he has trouble enough with present. At the end of the rebellion, there was no reason for him not to give Stannis either Dragonstone or Storm's End. In fact, consdering how crucial Stannis was for his campaign, Dragonstone could be considered "not enough" (if one forgets its symbolic value).

Question is, why did he let Stannis have Dragonstone still after he got an (apparent) Heir Apparent?

Seven Kingdoms themselves are a Targaryen tradition. So it makes sense to follow Targaryen traditions when it comes to ruling, as it would basically be a statement "look, not much has changed".

Realistically though, Seven Kingdoms should have fallen apart into seven (or nine) kingdoms by the end of the Robert's Rebellion.

They can still change things.

[Dreadscythe95]

1 hour ago, frenin said:

I don't really think so. Once the Realm is united people wanted to rule it all, not bits of it. There is no reason why the Reach lords would want independence and the most of the power centres had already pledged to Robert.

Dorne should have been able to be independent tho but Doran is a pushover.

Also economy is far stronger when the kingdoms are united.

[frenin]

19 minutes ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

Also economy is far stronger when the kingdoms are united.

True but most of the lords can't really tell that.

[Bernie Mac]

On 6/4/2020 at 1:08 AM, Dreadscythe95 said:

Robert could have given Stannis Storm's End and Renly Dragonstone. They are Baratheons and not Targaryens, they don't need to follow Targaryen tradition.

Robert needed a strong leader for the Narrow Sea Islands, given they would be the most hardcore Targ loyalists, and they play a big part in the defence of the Capital from Essos (were the Targs where based).

Quote

They should not all sit in the small counsil though.

Why? Robert barely went, no reason both his brothers could not have positions.

Quote

 

Three Baratheons in the small counsil it too much, not even the Targaryens did this frequently.

? You just claimed that the Baratheons should not follow Targaryen traditions.

For most of Robert's reign Renly did not sit on the Small Council and Robert likely left the governing to others, meaning Stannis was probably the most involved.

Quote

 

 

He should give Stannis Storm's End and the Stormlands and Renly Dragonstone and a position in his small council.

Renly was a child. He could neither sit on the Small Council or rule the Targareyn loyalists of the Narrow Sea Islands.

Making Stannis Lord of Dragonstone and Master of Ships seems far more logical. You are jumping through hoops to try and appease Stannis at the risk of common sense.

Quote

 

Robert shoud also use The Hightowers, The Redwynes and The Tyrells as a means to balance the might of The Lannisters.

Robert did not have an issue with the power of the Lannisters. Robert was doing what many kings, in fiction and IRL, do. Granting power and influence to his in-laws, as logically they have the best interests of his heirs.  Robert wants his heir to have an easy succession, that is not achieved by making potential rivals to his power.

Robert should not be basing his decisions on the idea that he is being cuckolded. The only King we have seen do that, Aegon IV, caused the Blackfyre Rebellion by doing so.

Quote

 

He should put one of these three houses in the small council and marry a daughter of the others one to Stannis and Renly.

Yes, there is nothing wrong with those options.

But we have no idea if they were willing to make such an alliance when Stannis was betrothed. We are missing key parts of the story to be criticizing this part.

Quote

 

Marrying Stannis into a Florent was a very bad political move.

How can you say that? We have no idea the relationship between Robert and the Reach Lords in the first decade of his reign.

For all we know it was a political jackpot, as Stannis married to a Florent, the rivals to the Tyrells, caused them to be more loyal with the threat.

Again, there are conclusions being jumped to because people want to whine about how unfair it was for Stannis.

Quote

 

He should also add a lord from The Iron Isles to the small council, to keep them divided and prevent rebellions.

Do you think an Ironborn Lord hostage would have stopped Balon from rebelling if he thought there was an opportunity to win?

An Ironborn in charge of the Royal fleet could actually backfire given he could take control of a large part of it (similar to what Aurane did) and use it to rebel. 

Quote

 

Rodrik Harlaw would be a great option as he would also be a great asset to the council.

For what position?

Quote

 

Robert should also divide Harrenhall castle and it's lands in two and give half of it to The Tullys and the other half to his secdond son, making a cadt brand of House Baratheon in The Riverlands.

He could have done that down the line. None of his sons were old enough to start their own cadet branches during the series.

But stripping the Whents of their power seems to be only a good idea if they did not support Hoster and Robert during the rebellion. If they did then this is a pretty bad form of Tyranny on Robert's part, at least while the Whents still lived.

 

[Trigger Warning]

On 6/4/2020 at 1:08 AM, Dreadscythe95 said:

Robert shoud also use The Hightowers, The Redwynes and The Tyrells as a means to balance the might of The Lannisters.

 

Why would he want to balance the power of the family propping up his reign? It's in his and Joffrey's interest that they be powerful. The reality of Cersei's scheming and his children's bastardy has no impact on decisions from his perspective. 

[Morte]

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea that he was more depraved than the average wealthy Roman with an army of easily available sex slaves is not exactly all that likely.

Especially since the archaeological findings of his villa on Capri show it was primary an administrative hub. Sure, it was also a - fairly big - villa, but it was build to house the administration of the empire.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And one imagines that the rivalry between him and Germanicus and Agrippina was very real, considering the succession agreement wasn't exactly a done deal. Tiberius wasn't Augustus desired successor, nor was he a great idea by the time the old man died - being an old man himself by then.

Well, I don't see any rivalry between him and Germanicus: When Germanicus visits Egypt, he essentially goes on the Grand Tour of a Crown Prince. He visits every important structure, collects reports and petitions to his uncle, but also visits all the temples relevant for a succession - and not as a tourist. If you know the nature of the province (no noble was allowed to enter without permission of the princeps, much less visiting all the places Germanicus has been - and this is the Principate, so the praefectus aegypti would not let Germanicus tour the land without the proper papers), the fact and nature of Germanicus' visit there contradicts everything we hear from the senatorial historians.

I think Tiberius was quite content to have his brothers son as his successor, unfortunately Germanicus did not live long enough.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

With Rome actually never being a proper monarchy unless, perhaps Late Antiquity (although I'd not even count the Byzantine Empire a proper monarchy, since the army remained the deciding political player until the later middle ages), especially not in those early days, it is rather obvious that every descendant blood relative of Augustus and Caesar thought he would have a shot at the ultimate power.

Actually the testament is much "thicker than blood" in Rome. Caesarion is a special case, as it wasn't just Caesar's blood in him, but he also was his mother's son and Egypt was notorious concerning uprisings and much too important to let it implode because of it's grain.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

eah, but neither of them include stuff like Augustus never being able to consummate his marriage with Livia because he stole her from her husband and felt bad about that, nor does it make any sense she wouldn't want to have children with him to secure her own role as the wife at his side. Some of the stuff Graves used was from Cassius Dio, I think.

How successful that marriage must have been can be seen by the status and rank Livia gained in her husband's testament - turning that all in some kind of vile scheme is really horrible misogyny.

It was very much a love marriage from both sides, and the testament and fact that they were together till the very end tells us that it never turned sour, not even after they didn't manage to have children together and everybody died around them. And she must have been a very intelligent and resolute woman, one can easily see why Augustus had fallen in love with her and looked for her council, just as much as one can see (from the few things we know about Augustus' personality outside of politics) why she loved him and stayed at his side.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, I know that this one exists, but I haven't read it yet. If your German is good enough reading Christiane Kunst's Livia biography might be a good treat. I also very much like Aloys Winterling's take on Caligula which has been translated into English - as has Jochen Bleicken's big Augustus biography (which some people might have the same issues as with Gyldayn's take on Jaehaerys I, focusing so many chapters on Augustus' youth and the civil war, rather than the long reign). I also greatly enjoyed Ronald Syme's The Roman Revolution years ago.

By the way, I'm still trying to read Christian Meier's supposedly famous Caesar biography which also has been translated, but that thing borders on the unreadable for me, with all that apology stuff in there - I get it that he is apparently better than Mommsen and Burckhardt, but apparently that's not enough.

I don't agree on Bleicken's analysis of Augustus' character, like - at all (and his writing style is also quite tiresome); Meier's Caesar is really just apologetic stuff, he agree here; Syme is nice - I would recommend Christ's take on the Late Republic here, too (Krise und Untergang der Römischen Republik). An interesting take on Octavianus, and an imho good analysis of his character, is Angela Pabst's biography (Kaiser Augustus. Neugestalter Roms), it's quite short and focusses on what we can know and deduct about the person himself.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But then, the whole point of the novel is to have Claudius as one of those republicans which would also be bogus, or else his reign would have gone much more different. It seems that his marriage to Agrippina the Younger wasn't something done out stupidity but rather to actually strengthen his power and legitimacy considering he wasn't pretty much just a Claudian, related to Augustus only by means of his grandmother Octavia.

Yes, and with the tendencies of young and healthy Iulia-Claudia to die idiotic deaths, having two direct heirs is better than having just one. In fact, him having no problem with the older Nero coming first in line with the marriage shows us how healthy the relationships within the family are.

Claudius is first and foremost a historian ( a pity none of his works survived), the Senators have made it clear that they aren't able to rule any longer, it was the Senate (the Optimates) who destroyed the Republic (yes, Tacitus doesn't want to see this, but that's not the problem of the princeps), trying to turn it into an Oligarchy. There was no way back, as the Senate had shown at the start of Tiberius' reign. So no, Claudius wasn't a Republican, as we also see by the way he rules, but he was a good princeps, overall.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't think there are very good contemporary sources for the claims that she destroyed Iulia, and had Gaius and Lucius killed, not to mention that Marcellus nonsense in the beginning.

Nothing to be taken serious, at least. It is all rumours from spiteful men, nothing else. Livia and Augustus simply were very unlucky in the successor-department.

12 hours ago, Lion of the West said:

But speaking of Stannis. Am I the only who thinks that if Eddard had managed to make Stannis into Robert's heir, Stannis' reign would have been a Westerosi-style copy-paste of Antigonus I Monophthalmus, but without the whole realm fracturing?

Do you care to elaborate which part of Antigonus reign you would copy-paste for Stannis? I am curious but forgot to ask earlier.

[Aldarion]

12 hours ago, frenin said:

I don't really think so. Once the Realm is united people wanted to rule it all, not bits of it. There is no reason why the Reach lords would want independence and the most of the power centres had already pledged to Robert.

Dorne should have been able to be independent tho but Doran is a pushover.

It is not a question of "wanting", it is a question of "being able to". Robert had no dragons, and no claim to rule of Seven Kingdoms as strong as Targaryens had. Targaryen rule over Westeros was based on dragons, and after dragons died out, it was based on tradition. This tradition was broken by Robert's Rebellion. From that point, there should have been nothing keeping the kingdoms together.

[SirArthur]

Besides the crackpot that Renly is Robert's son because of the age difference and some timing ... I agree that giving Storm's End to Renly was not a good choice. For completely different reasons however.

Robert styles himself in Targaryen tradition with a Targaryen title, exclusively held by Targaryens up until his rebellion. Meaning Dragonstone is the seat for the heir according to Targaryen tradition.

At that point in time the Lannister marriage was already secured, Cersei supposed to birth an heir. And the title of Dragonstone should have gone to the future heir to continue the tradition. Or at least signal a continuation to the rest of the realm. 

For me the question is not if the action was stupid or not ... the question is the motivation behind it. Was it too dangerous to give the strongest castle to the man who defended it against all odds ?

[frenin]

1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

It is not a question of "wanting", it is a question of "being able to". Robert had no dragons, and no claim to rule of Seven Kingdoms as strong as Targaryens had. Targaryen rule over Westeros was based on dragons, and after dragons died out, it was based on tradition. This tradition was broken by Robert's Rebellion. From that point, there should have been nothing keeping the kingdoms together.

The exact same tradition.  Robert was perfectly able to keep the country together. As i said, people don't care about independence and most of the power centres had already pledged fealty  to Robert either at Trident or at the Sack, the Reach had zero interest in fighting a lost cause and they were never typically independent or rebellious. The only regions that could or would rebel under those circumstances were Dorne and the Iron Islands. Robert got lucky that Doran is a coward and the Iron Islands were smashed.

And Robert was a charismatic young man which made things far easier. Robert had the great advantage that 4 Great Lords wanted to make him King and that he himself was a Great Lord. He controlled already most of the country.