Robert giving Renly Storm's End was stupid

[Ran]

26 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

For me the question is not if the action was stupid or not ... the question is the motivation behind it.

The motivation is that he had given Stannis Dragonstone, and so that left Renly with Storm's End. As GRRM said:

Quote

Stannis always resented being given Dragonstone while Renly got Storm's End, and took that as a slight... but it's not necessarily true that Robert meant it that way. The Targaryen heir apparent had always been titled Prince of Dragonstone. By making Stannis the Lord of Dragonstone, Robert affirmed his brother's status as heir (which he was, until Joff's birth a few years later). Robert could just as lawfully retained both castles for his sons, and made Joffrey the Prince of Dragonstone and Tommen the Lord of Storm's End. Giving them to his brothers instead was another instance of his great, but rather careless, generosity.

 

[Bernie Mac]

23 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

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 ?

 

It should be noted that Stannis fans in the fandom think of Stannis' actions in Robert's Rebellion as far more impressive than the people who live in Westeros, including Stannis himself.

What he did at Storm's End proved he was a capable commander, but it was not something that others could not have achieved.

And it should also be noted that Castellan's defend castles while Lords are away frequently. They don't expect to be gifted the castle as a reward.

 

In the aftermath of Robert's Rebellion Robert needed a Master of Ships and someone to keep the Narrow Sea Island lords in line. 21 year old Stannis was gifted both.

A couple of years later Robert, with his heir either being born or close to it, was generous to his other brother giving him Storm's End. He used Renly to help improve relations between the Crown and the Reach lords.

 

It should also be noted that had Stannis been given Storm's End instead of Dragonstone he'd be in exactly the same position. He'd not have enough military support to usurp the throne. All that changes is Renly's support, he also might not have enough to usurp the throne.

[SirArthur]

 

40 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

It should be noted that Stannis fans in the fandom think of Stannis' actions in Robert's Rebellion as far more impressive than the people who live in Westeros, including Stannis himself.

Jesus man, chill. In what fan faction war did I just participate ? Who am I fighing against ? Not fandom sources ? Dark side Stannis fans ? 

At least Davos thinks it's worth bringing up in an argument.  

A Dance with Dragons - Davos I

Quote

 

Candlelight gleamed in Lord Godric's black eyes. "If it were, you'd be in chains. It's the queen who rules."

Davos understood. He nurses doubts. He does not want to find himself upon the losing side. "Stannis held Storm's End against the Tyrells and the Redwynes. He took Dragonstone from the last Targaryens. He smashed the Iron Fleet off Fair Isle. This child king will not prevail against him."

"This child king commands the wealth of Casterly Rock and the power of Highgarden. He has the Boltons and the Freys." Lord Godric rubbed his chin. "Still … in this world only winter is certain. Ned Stark told my father that, here in this very hall."

 

Two of the three things Davos thinks worth mentioning as reasons to support Stannis were done by Stannis, before Dragonstone was given to him. So I guess Stannis gets some credit for holding Storm's End, although it may not be enough credit against "the wealth of Casterly Rock and the power of Highgarden". 

[Bernie Mac]

1 hour ago, SirArthur said:

 

Jesus man, chill. In what fan faction war did I just participate ? Who am I fighing against ? Not fandom sources ? Dark side Stannis fans ? 

Perfectly chill. If you don't think the generalization I used represents you then you have no reason to take offence.

 

1 hour ago, SirArthur said:

At least Davos thinks it's worth bringing up in an argument.  

A Dance with Dragons - Davos I

Two of the three things Davos thinks worth mentioning as reasons to support Stannis were done by Stannis, before Dragonstone was given to him. So I guess Stannis gets some credit for holding Storm's End, although it may not be enough credit against "the wealth of Casterly Rock and the power of Highgarden". 

eh? I have no idea what this has to do with what I said? He's comparing Stannis to a child King. Of course Stannis' achievements are going to look greater.

And for the record, Stannis has a great military career. The pinnacle being his victory against the Ironborn. But I never claimed him holding Storm's End was bad, but that in universe and by the author himself it is pretty much accepted that any competent commander could have done the same. 20/21 year old Stannis proved his competency in that siege.

[frenin]

15 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Perfectly chill. If you don't think the generalization I used represents you then you have no reason to take offence.

 

eh? I have no idea what this has to do with what I said? He's comparing Stannis to a child King. Of course Stannis' achievements are going to look greater.

And for the record, Stannis has a great military career. The pinnacle being his victory against the Ironborn. But I never claimed him holding Storm's End was bad, but that in universe and by the author himself it is pretty much accepted that any competent commander could have done the same. 20/21 year old Stannis proved his competency in that siege.

Ned considers it an impressive feat and so does Rowan, when Martin has said that anyway?? I read him saying that  Storm's End would hold out under Penrose but Penrose would not be starved to death, Stannis's feat was holding the castle while starving i doubt any competent commander would've endured it.

[Dreadscythe95]

20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

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).

 

They don't have that much power to revolt though, Houses Velarion and Celtigar a shadow of their former strength. On the other hand the strength of Storm's End is very important in a War.

 

20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

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

The fact that he barely went is not what a King should think when creating a small council.

20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

? 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.

I meant that even the Targaryens with Dragon power to back them up were not that naive.

These are still 2 small council positions occupied by the King's brother. That's a bad political move.

20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

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

He could give him a "stewart" of trust to help him rule Dragonstone till Renly came of age, that was a common practise. Again, yes the narrow sea islands are strategic holdings but they don't pose a big threat after the decline of House Velaryon.

 

20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

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.

 

I disagree. He was the second brother and Storm's End was much more suited for him. He could make far better use of the massive strength of the Stormlands rather than just the fleets of the crown. He would also be far more satisfied with it which would make him a better ally. Renly was a better political figure than Stannis anyway and Dragonstone needs more a good politician rather than a soldier since the Castle is gives a lot of prestige and a position close to the capital but not a big fighting force.

 

20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

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.

 

A King that thinks about a dynasty should. If the Lannisters get overpowered a power vacuum is created and then war is inevitable. The Lannisters will not be the Queen's House in 20 years (as it did happen when the Tyrells challenged them) and then they suddenly are enemies. There should always be balance in the power of The Houses.

20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

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.

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

It's politicaly obvious that Stannis was wed into a Florent as a means to keep Highgarden at bay. Martin has pointed out many time sthat The Florents try to claim Highgarden for themselves and they have the strongest claim of all the house sin The Reach. We also know that The FLorents are not that powerful when it comes to armies compared to other houses of the Reach. We also knwo that The Tyrells fought against Robert and sieged Stannis at Storm's End. It's obvious that this marriage was a threat. If the Tyrells did anything against the crown then the crown would back the Florents up into their Wardens of the South. This may sound good at first but it leaves Stannis with a weak marriage and The Tyrells with a strong reason to never allow Stannis to become King if Robert dies early. If they wanted to follow this policy (with which I disagree since the Tyrells would be far more valuable close allies at that point) I think that marrying Stannis with a Hightower or a Redwyne would be a FAR better option.

 

20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

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. 

For what position?

If the Ironborn Lord gained from this position influence, power and wealth he would not rebel simplyt\ because a fleet alone can't win The Iron Islands a war against Westeros. The Ironborn have the storngest fleet in Westeros and they still lose because they don't have have the resources to have a prolonged war. This means that Robert could take the risk because he could gain a lot more if he actually managed to truly unite The Iron Islands with Westeros more in culture, economy and reliance.

The Reader could be a great Mater of Ships (though this could create some problems with the Greyjoys so maybe not).

Quote

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.

Yes, this is my bad, I somehow had in mind that The Whents fell from power during Robert's rebelion (which is xD). Sorry for that.

[Lord Varys]

The point why I criticize the whole Baratheon lords thing with those crucial castles is that Robert himself won his throne violently - and stupidly spread the tale that he was king because his war hammer was the biggest.

Historically, showing favor to brothers and other close kin you don't get along all that well (King Aenys with his half-brother Maegor, Daeron II with his Blackfyre half-brother and that ungrateful prick, Bittersteel) is a bad idea, something Robert should have known. Even more so if he had taken a page from his own Baratheon history, i.e. the troubles Rogar Baratheon had with his younger brother(s).

This also pretty clear in real-world history - if you take the example of the brutality of Richard III (assuming you see him as the man behind the death of the princes in the tower) then, in context, it makes sense he and the Woodvilles would fight this out to the death because they lived in an era of bloodshed and savagery where, during the Wars of the Roses, murders within the royal family had become a common practice - which it wasn't when the conflict started.

Setting up two Baratheon lords who have their own claims to the throne is not a good idea - especially not with Stannis, actually, a man Robert never got along well throughout his life. Even Stannis had, for some reason, loved Cersei - the fact that he loathed Robert could have still made him turn against Robert's children.

The time to actually reward Stannis and Renly with great seats would have been at a point when Robert could be certain that he and his brothers were on the same page - not just in the sense that they were all Baratheons, but that they all got along very well, including with the queen and the king's children and the other in-laws.

This is why George himself characterizes Robert's generosity there as 'careless' - he didn't think ahead, although he could have. It wouldn't have been that hard.

[Lord Varys]

16 hours ago, Morte said:

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.

Yeah, I guess that was pretty much the standard cliché narrative - some kind of powerful/rich man hangs around all day in his private resort: What's going on there??? What's going on??? It must be depraved...

16 hours ago, Morte said:

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.

Yeah, I more meant that stuff with Agrippina and her children later on - that's pretty ugly business, even if Seianus is to be blamed for some of that. I expect the great praise both Germanicus and Drusus get go simply back to the fact that they died early and thus could be seen as the 'better alternative' since they never actually had to rule.

But I also meant that the Graves narrative sort of breaks down with this Livia-Tiberius-Germanicus business. The 'I want my son to be emperor' plot is pretty straightforward, the 'I want my own grandson to die so the empire I effectively singlehandedly built might start to crack' plot not so much.

16 hours ago, Morte said:

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.

Yeah, anointing a successor usually worked, but since there was no proper 'line of succession' stuff going on all males in the imperial family could fancy themselves potential future principes - and all the women wives of future principes. This seems to be what explains many of those dynastic murders.

It is very telling that even in the seemingly peaceful era of the Five Good Emperors crucial family members were eliminated when the succession was settled - either before the new princeps rose to power, or shortly after he had. Not to mention that most of the adopted guys were related to their new fathers to some degree - Hadrian was Traian's great-nephew, for instance.

16 hours ago, Morte said:

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.

Bleicken doesn't exactly have great style, but I find the view of Augustus as a, well, cruel person pretty believable. I don't recall if he also doesn't see him as particularly competent - there he might be wrong. I'll check out that biography you mentioned - collecting Augustus biographies is actually a hobby of mine. I haven't yet Christ's take on the fall of the Republic, but back in school I read his history of the Roman Empire.

The whole 'outsider stuff' with Meier has me cringe every time he brings up that stuff - why didn't he write such a biography about Hitler? Surely he was also 'an outsider' in the 1920s...

16 hours ago, Morte said:

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.

Overall I'd expect that even in the days of Caesar the actual desire of the nobility wasn't to draw their peers back into the fold, but to actually rise as high as you could - you certainly bandied together to destroy a guy who had risen too high for your taste ... and wasn't your friend. But I'd not hold my breath that Cato would have done things much different than Caesar if he had won - Pompey certainly wouldn't have, and for Brutus there seems to be a consensus that he wouldn't have done things differently.

Perhaps, though, if Antony had won history really would have taken a different turn, and Rome would have become more a hellenistic monarchy emulating the Ptolemies rather than the military dictatorship hybrid system Augustus built. Although on the dynastic not so much political propaganda level the marriages within the family (culminating in the incestuous union of Claudius and Agrippina the Younger) certainly show that they weren't that much different in practice.

But somehow we are getting off topic here.

[Bernie Mac]

13 hours ago, frenin said:

Ned considers it an impressive feat and so does Rowan, when Martin has said that anyway??

No, Ned says Stannis proved himself, not that it was impressive.

"Stannis proved himself at the siege of Storm's End, surely."

I don't think that equals impressive feat, but we may be arguing semantics here. I see far too many times were people only accept something as good or bad and you may be interpreting that not calling it impressive means I think it was bad, which is not the case.

It is possible that you are referring to an other Rowan quote on the subject, but my knowledge is just on the rat eating. It is a comment on Stannis' stubborness, but not that what he did during that siege was impressive.

GRRM on the subject of Storm's End during the War of the Five Kings

Storm's End is a hugely formidable castle, and should have been able to hold out much longer, as it did during Robert's Rebellion when Stannis was inside rather than outside.

Which is backed up by Stannis himself

Estermont will favor settling down to starve them out, as Tyrell and Redwyne once tried with me. That might take a year, but old mules are patient.

 

13 hours ago, frenin said:

Ned considers it an impressive feat and so does Rowan, when Martin has said that anyway?? I read him saying that  Storm's End would hold out under Penrose but Penrose would not be starved to death, Stannis's feat was holding the castle while starving i doubt any competent commander would've endured it.

All sieges will suffer from low supplies. Why do people presume that Stannis is the only one who has suffered from this? The fact that Stannis was helped by Davos bringing fish and onions is an advantage that others may not get.

Why would Penrose have better supplies than Stannis? When does GRRM claim this?

 

 

 

[Bernie Mac]

2 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

They don't have that much power to revolt though, Houses Velarion and Celtigar a shadow of their former strength. On the other hand the strength of Storm's End is very important in a War.

As is the Royal Fleet, which is primarily supplied by the Narrow Sea Islands.

Robert needs those Lords back to a decent sized strength in order to defend his coast, yet he also needs a strong leader to keep them in line.

The Royal Fleet is of greater importance to Robert than the armies of Storm's End. Should be pointed out that winning the Crown Robert had greater help from the Vale and North than he did his homeland.

2 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

 

The fact that he barely went is not what a King should think when creating a small council.

Sure, but Robert is Robert. We are discussing Robert's reign, not some other kings.

2 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

I meant that even the Targaryens with Dragon power to back them up were not that naive.

How was it naive? And how do you know this?

Daeron the Good had multiple family members on his Council. Many Kings had at least one family member on the Council. I'm not sure how 1 is acceptable but 2 is not.

2 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

These are still 2 small council positions occupied by the King's brother. That's a bad political move.

How so? Which regions were offended by this?

Can you supply evidence of other realms being hurt by this? This seems to be more a problem that is in your head, rather than one that existed in the books.

For most of the Robert's reign there was only two Baratheons on the Small Council, Renly coming on, with his great relationship with the Reach, was hardly detrimental.

2 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

He could give him a "stewart" of trust to help him rule Dragonstone till Renly came of age, that was a common practise. Again, yes the narrow sea islands are strategic holdings but they don't pose a big threat after the decline of House Velaryon.

Of course they offer a threat, especially when Robert is mostly concerned with the Targs invading by sea with a foreign army.

You may be underestimating the threat those Islands could be in the wrong hands or not controlled properly.

2 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

 

I disagree. He was the second brother and Storm's End was much more suited for him.

How? Explain how it was much better suited for him?

2 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

 

He could make far better use of the massive strength of the Stormlands rather than just the fleets of the crown.

The Stormlands does not have massive strength. They are likely the second or third least powerful realm and one of the poorest.

Please be less vague and give actual reasons rather than claims.

2 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

 

 He would also be far more satisfied with it which would make him a better ally.

Wait? Robert, the King, should do things to appease Stannis?

He's already made him a Lord. Already gave him a position on the Small Council. He's already been pretty generous to his brother.

It sounds like you think it would be better off giving Stannis nothing, keeping him as a landed knight as a Lordship was not enough to buy his loyalty. Is that really what you think?

2 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

Renly was a better political figure than Stannis anyway and Dragonstone needs more a good politician rather than a soldier since the Castle is gives a lot of prestige and a position close to the capital but not a big fighting force.

It controls the Royal Navy. The Master of Ships is the more important military positon.

Renly was able to make good political alliances with the Reach lords and Stormlords. Stannis could not do what both his brothers could when it came to making alliances. Stannis was a bad fit for the Stormlands.

2 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

 

A King that thinks about a dynasty should. If the Lannisters get overpowered a power vacuum is created and then war is inevitable. The Lannisters will not be the Queen's House in 20 years (as it did happen when the Tyrells challenged them) and then they suddenly are enemies.

lol this is getting ridiculous. He had to think of his heir, not his heirs heir.

2 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

 

 

There should always be balance in the power of The Houses.

No, that is not a view shared by most real life medieval monarchs.

Can you give these examples of balance of power in the medieval world?

2 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

It's politicaly obvious that Stannis was wed into a Florent as a means to keep Highgarden at bay. Martin has pointed out many time sthat The Florents try to claim Highgarden for themselves and they have the strongest claim of all the house sin The Reach.

True. Not sure your point on this.

2 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

We also know that The FLorents are not that powerful when it comes to armies compared to other houses of the Reach.

We don't know that. We know they are less powerful than two or three Houses. Beyond that we don't know they may well be the fourth most powerful House in the Reach.

2 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

 

We also knwo that The Tyrells fought against Robert and sieged Stannis at Storm's End. It's obvious that this marriage was a threat.

Partly so, yes.

2 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

 

If the Tyrells did anything against the crown then the crown would back the Florents up into their Wardens of the South. This may sound good at first but it leaves Stannis with a weak marriage and The Tyrells with a strong reason to never allow Stannis to become King if Robert dies early.

lol I don't get your argument?

Robert was not making decisions on Stannis becoming King. You seem to be under the impression that should have been Robert's primary goal, making Stannis as powerful as possible. It was not. You are operating under a flawed primise.

2 hours ago, Dreadscythe95 said:

 

If they wanted to follow this policy (with which I disagree since the Tyrells would be far more valuable close allies at that point) I think that marrying Stannis with a Hightower or a Redwyne would be a FAR better option.

It is only a better option if such alliances were possible at the time. We have no idea if they were. You get that right?

 

[dsjj251]

On 6/5/2020 at 5:25 PM, Dreadscythe95 said:

 

It's politicaly obvious that Stannis was wed into a Florent as a means to keep Highgarden at bay.

 

No , its not. 

 

Quote

Martin has pointed out many time sthat The Florents try to claim Highgarden for themselves and they have the strongest claim of all the house sin The Reach.

 

Many equals exactly 3 references in the main story, and like 1 from TWOIAF,

 

and Florents having the strongest claim to Highgarden is in universe, not Martins actual thoughts. 

Tyrells obviously married Gardeners which is stated in TWOIAF, so this becomes a who is closer to the current ruling line at that time. The last Princess of house Gardener ever mentioned married a Tyrell. 

 

Quote

We also know that The FLorents are not that powerful when it comes to armies compared to other houses of the Reach. We also knwo that The Tyrells fought against Robert and sieged Stannis at Storm's End. It's obvious that this marriage was a threat. If the Tyrells did anything against the crown then the crown would back the Florents up into their Wardens of the South. This may sound good at first but it leaves Stannis with a weak marriage and The Tyrells with a strong reason to never allow Stannis to become King if Robert dies early. If they wanted to follow this policy (with which I disagree since the Tyrells would be far more valuable close allies at that point) I think that marrying Stannis with a Hightower or a Redwyne would be a FAR better option.

This, I can agree with. 

[Dreadscythe95]

On 6/7/2020 at 3:52 AM, dsjj251 said:

Tyrells obviously married Gardeners which is stated in TWOIAF, so this becomes a who is closer to the current ruling line at that time. The last Princess of house Gardener ever mentioned married a Tyrell. 
 

If you use biology then yes, The Tyrells are probably the closest to the Gardeners because of their 10 marriages, with most of them happening in the latest years of their dynasty. In Westeros though they use the Age of Heroes to trace their linages and to sustain the power of the Houses and in that ragard The Tyrells will always have inferior blood to the older Houses of The Reach that are First Men and descent from Garth Greenhand's children. That's why the Tyrells had problems to consolidate their power in the early Targaryen Era (in F&B) and that's why the intermarried a lot in these years with Hightowers, Redwynes etc to strenghten their position in The Reach, something that they manages to do in the latest days of The Targs and during The Baratheon reign. This is somewhat contrasted to The Tullys that never managed to consolidate their power in The Riverlands because their Lands didn't give them the dominance needed to truly subjucate Harrenhal and The Freys. 

[Minsc]

On 6/5/2020 at 5:34 AM, SirArthur said:

 

Jesus man, chill. In what fan faction war did I just participate ? Who am I fighing against ? Not fandom sources ? Dark side Stannis fans ? 

At least Davos thinks it's worth bringing up in an argument.  

A Dance with Dragons - Davos I

Two of the three things Davos thinks worth mentioning as reasons to support Stannis were done by Stannis, before Dragonstone was given to him. So I guess Stannis gets some credit for holding Storm's End, although it may not be enough credit against "the wealth of Casterly Rock and the power of Highgarden". 

Davos is also bragging about how Stannis successfully took an undefended castle, Dragonstone, from their absent child lords, the Targaryens.  Child lords that Dragonstone's defenders were already considering betraying before they fled.  It is seems to me that Davos is prone to exaggeration with respect to Stannis.  

[SirArthur]

On 6/10/2020 at 9:37 AM, Minsc said:

Davos is also bragging about how Stannis successfully took an undefended castle, Dragonstone, from their absent child lords, the Targaryens.  Child lords that Dragonstone's defenders were already considering betraying before they fled.  It is seems to me that Davos is prone to exaggeration with respect to Stannis.  

He clearly is. That doesn't change the answer he gets though. 

[DaceyRemembers]

You know, this would never have happened, but I wonder how Stannis would've been as Hand. Certainly would make the political world veeeeery different at the start of AGOT.