Jump to content
Alyn Oakenfist

Robert giving Renly Storm's End was stupid

Recommended Posts

But this is the problem with Feudalism. There's no certainty that any plan will work. And I think that this thread has already thought about the succession more than Robert would of. 

I think Robert tried to do the right thing. But doing the right thing requires a lot of work and Robert didn't take any joy from it. You just have to consider Dany's inner monologue to see how much a ruler needs to consider, and ruminate on things. Robert thought he could sort both of his brothers out with castles and titles of their own. No doubt expecting them to be pleased. And when he discovered that Stannis was dissatisfied, he would of shrugged and switched his attention elsewhere. We see early on in aGoT, when there's an incident with the direwolves, that Robert is a pretty terrible adjudicator. His son was hurt, his wife was wroth and his best friend was beside himself. But Robert just wanted to slink off. It's not the type of fighting that he's good at.

I would of given Stannis S.E. He held it against the Reach and displayed some god-tier stalwartness. And I'd have him hold D.S in Joff's name, until the boy became a man in his own right or until a new Lord of the Trident could be found. Stannis won a key victory against the I.B in their own waters. You don't have to like Stannis to see that his brother relied on him in both campaigns. So I'd give Stannis S.E and have him hold DS for a time. 
But I suspect that this is already too complicated for Robert. He'd have the matter settled in a few minutes. He wasn't one for contemplation. He was generous.... And that's not a good mix. You have to know who to be open-handed with and when, otherwise it's just a waste. 

I don't think Robert was stupid. But ruling clearly wasn't for him. He almost says as much to Ned.
Giving DS to Stannis was actually generous it's just tragic that Stannis was too eager to see the slight and not the huge honour. As for Renly, he needed to make something of himself. I think Robert inadvertently spoiled him. 

But I am a Mannis man. So I'd give him the whole frickin 7k. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That's how one would likely explain it away, but such unreliability about basic facts introducing characters isn't the way George usually uses this kind of thing. Also considering Ned's close friendship with Robert I'd find it odd that he doesn't know how old one of his brothers is. I mean, don't you know how old the siblings of your best friend are?

There's no reason for Ned to know the age of someone he met once or twice.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That is possible but pretty much unlikely. Not being a squire is basically the same as a bought or battlefield knighthood - and Jorah Mormont most likely served as a squire, too, like any Northman of high birth would. They don't have knights, but they do have mounted warriors of noble birth, and those men would have squires serving them. Robb isn't a knight either, yet he takes on Elmar Frey as a squire.

I'd say it's likely, and follows the trend of Renly freely being awarded things.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Was it? We don't hear anything about Cersei being 'an evil queen' throughout Robert's reign. Proud and arrogant, yes, but not evil or cruel.

The Mycah incident was pretty cruel. Her father is also hated for the Sack of King's Landing, and her brother for betraying his king, and in ASOIAF, blood is important.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I just would like why people can't stand each other.

I don't think it's ever said that they couldn't stand each other.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

What Lannister is ambitious? Jaime is a lazy ass, Tyrion an obscure dwarf, Tywin an old man at the Rock. Only Cersei likes power and she is a woman with no office.

She's the queen and the #1 influence on Robert. And to say Tywin is not ambitious is just wrong, and since no one knows of the wildfire, I'm pretty sure it would be widely accepted that Jaime killed Aerys to help his family in the sack.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Renly clearly did not expect his brother to die an early death. Else he would have never planned to give him a new queen in Margaery.

Or he recognized Robert's drunkenness as stemming from depression, and thought getting him a nice new wife would steer him on the right path.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Joffrey was betrothed to Sansa Stark.

Betrothals are easily broken.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And Renly would have called his banners to defend himself against a minor king whose government was dominated by 'evil advisers', i.e. the woman unsuited to rule as regent. He could have stormed the city and made himself the new regent of King Joffrey.

Make himself the new Regent of a king who would clearly hate him for what he did to his mother and pray that Joffrey doesn't take revenge when he reaches the age of majority ....Great idea!!!

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

By what army? The City Watch in KL? Cersei had no army.

Armies can be raised. And Cersei wanted Tywin at KL ASAP to fight Renly, she could call upon her father.

Btw, Joffrey told Sansa he would have Renly's head even before he crowned himself. And Stannis was written off as a traitor before he crowned himself as well.... meaning the Lannisters didn't want alliances with the Baratheons.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

To oust the Lannisters from power and install Renly's people in Joffrey's government. The boy was his nephew and a Baratheon himself, after all.

See above.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd like to read such things in the book.

To add to that, Renly informing Stannis could have kickstarted Stannis' rebellion in favour of Joffrey, and he and Stannis clearly don't like each other, starting from Stannis' resentment at Storm's End being given to Renly.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Who in the Reach and the Stormlands hates 'the Lannisters' for what reason?

Well, and Walder Frey didn't follow his liege lord, Hoster Tully, until Catelyn Stark made a deal with him. Why are the Reach lords and Stormlords just mindless drones following a man who was a traitor thrice over - ignoring the claims of Joffrey, Tommen, and Stannis?

It's said in ACOK that the people in KL still whisper about the sack of King's Landing and the butchery of Rhaegar's children. It's not a stretch to think the rest of the kingdoms remember too and don't think fondly of the Lannisters.

Stannis can answer that:

Quote

But those lords who flocked to my brother's banner knew him for a usurper. They turned their backs on their rightful king for no better reason than dreams of power and glory.

A Clash of Kings, Davos II

Men followed Daemon Blackfyre pretty easily. Renly looks like a Baratheon more than Joffrey ever did and he embodies their society's chivalric ideal - even though he wasn't a warrior.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

There are explanations for stuff like that. One doesn't even know whether Brienne and Tarly and the others blister as quickly as they do when Renly is called 'Lord Renly' because they know they are all traitors or whether that's why they love Renly so much.

It's pretty obvious that for Brienne it was out of her love for her lord, as for Tarly, he was said to also love Renly by Penrose, but who knows.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Last time I looked Joff did all that only after Renly had crowned himself. Popular opinion doesn't know how bad an apple Joff is. Even Olenna and Margaery want to talk to Sansa to confirm the rumors before they decide to murder him. Nobody in the Reach or the Stormlands crowned Renly because they thought Joffrey was a bad king.

You're right about Joffrey, but maybe they thought the Lannisters would be bad councilors to an easily controllable boy king?

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no way of knowing that, is there? What I think we can expect, though, is that Ned wouldn't have agreed to crown Robert if Robert hadn't had the better claim - which is the reason Ned himself gives.

No, I'm pretty positive they would not have crowned Viserys.

Edited by Peach King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lannisters are not fondly viewed in the Reach.

 

Quote

“So long as he leaves a few Lannisters for me, I’ll not complain. What has he done with the Kingslayer?” “Jaime Lannister is held prisoner at Riverrun.” “Still alive?” Lord Mathis Rowan seemed dismayed. Bemused, Renly said, “It would seem the direwolf is gentler than the lion.” “Gentler than the Lannisters,” murmured Lady Oakheart, with a bitter smile, “is drier than the sea.” “I call it weak.” Lord Randyll Tarly had a short, bristly grey beard and a reputation for blunt speech. “No disrespect to you, Lady Stark, but it would have been more seemly had Lord Robb come to pay homage to the king himself, rather

the Reach Lords were loyalist back in the day so we can infer that the Lannisters actions are loathed in the Reach, it's a safe bet since the Lannisters are loathed everywhere.

 

23 minutes ago, Peach King said:

Btw, Joffrey told Sansa he would have Renly's head even before he crowned himself. And Stannis was written off as a traitor before he crowned himself as well.... meaning the Lannisters didn't want alliances with the Baratheons.

Wasn't that a show thing??

 

25 minutes ago, Peach King said:

No, I'm pretty positive they would not have crowned Viserys.

Martin says that Aerys actions radicalized Ned, Robert was a no no. No, the Targs were always a goner in any situation the rebels came out on top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, frenin said:

Wasn't that a show thing??

No, it's in an AGOT chapter:

Quote

Joffrey marched her down the wallwalk, past a dozen more heads and two empty spikes. "I'm saving those for my uncle Stannis and my uncle Renly," he explained.

- A Game of Thrones, Sansa VI

Joffrey didn't know Renly was crowned even later:

Quote

 

"My daughter commands us to ride for King's Landing at once, to defend the Red Keep against King Renly and the Knight of Flowers." His mouth tightened. "Commands us, mind you. In the name of the king and council."

"How is King Joffrey taking the news?" Tyrion asked with a certain black amusement.

"Cersei has not seen fit to tell him yet," Lord Tywin said. "She fears he might insist on marching against Renly himself."

- A Game of Thrones, Tyrion IX

Stannis being adjudged a traitor and stripped of his position in the Small Council from the very first court session:

Quote

In the place of the traitor Stannis Baratheon, it is the wish of His Grace that his lady mother, the Queen Regent Cersei Lannister, who has ever been his staunchest support, be seated upon his small council, that she may help him rule wisely and with justice. So the king has decreed. The small council consents."

-A Game of Thrones, Sansa V

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, frenin said:

Martin says that Aerys actions radicalized Ned, Robert was a no no. No, the Targs were always a goner in any situation the rebels came out on top.

I don't really get what you're saying, are you agreeing with me?? And can you link the SSM? If you have it...

Share this post


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

No, it's in an AGOT chapter:

Joffrey didn't know Renly was crowned even later:

Stannis being adjudged a traitor and stripped of his position in the Small Council from the very first court session:

 

So the Lannisters were already pushing the Baratheons Bros to rebellion lmao, Cersei is awesome. How can people still wondering why Renly rebelled.

 

1 minute ago, Peach King said:

I don't really get what you're saying, are you agreeing with me?? And can you link the SSM? If you have it...

 

3:30

Yes, I'm agreeing with you, an scenario where the rebels crowned a Targ seems wishful thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Peach King said:

There's no reason for Ned to know the age of someone he met once or twice.

The point is that this is a mistake, either one Ned makes or one the author makes. I say it is a mistake the author made. You can believe it is intentional, I most definitely don't.

3 hours ago, Peach King said:

I'd say it's likely, and follows the trend of Renly freely being awarded things.

Renly is a decent enough tourney knight. He wouldn't be that great if he hadn't trained at arms from childhood onwards. He is still very young. If he had been the kind of knight Laenor Velaryon was he wouldn't have ridden in tourneys.

3 hours ago, Peach King said:

The Mycah incident was pretty cruel. Her father is also hated for the Sack of King's Landing, and her brother for betraying his king, and in ASOIAF, blood is important.

The Mycah incident is something that happens at the endpoint of the Renly-Cersei relationship. It is not something that shaped that relationship. Not that Renly gave a damn about either Mycah nor the Stark girl or Joffrey.

3 hours ago, Peach King said:

She's the queen and the #1 influence on Robert. And to say Tywin is not ambitious is just wrong, and since no one knows of the wildfire, I'm pretty sure it would be widely accepted that Jaime killed Aerys to help his family in the sack.

But King Robert Baratheon honored the Lannisters by making Tywin's daughter his queen. Why shouldn't his brothers like their new and beautiful sister-in-law? Tywin and Jaime helped to make Robert king - which is the reason why his ungrateful scheming brothers could become great lords in the first place. Neither of them is better or less ambitious than Tywin or Cersei.

3 hours ago, Peach King said:

Or he recognized Robert's drunkenness as stemming from depression, and thought getting him a nice new wife would steer him on the right path.

That's something you pull out of your ass. Destroying Cersei wasn't in Robert's interest at all. It would have caused all kinds of problems with Tywin, Jaime, obviously Cersei, and the children, too.

3 hours ago, Peach King said:

Betrothals are easily broken.

Not easily.

3 hours ago, Peach King said:

Make himself the new Regent of a king who would clearly hate him for what he did to his mother and pray that Joffrey doesn't take revenge when he reaches the age of majority ....Great idea!!!

Pretty good idea if the minor king is at your mercy. Unwin Peake knew how to deal with royals who stood in his way. Renly could have dealt with Joffrey and Tommen the same way Richard III did with his nephews ... if the need ever arose. It isn't really treason if people don't know you murdered the king and all the other people between you and the throne...

3 hours ago, Peach King said:

Armies can be raised. And Cersei wanted Tywin at KL ASAP to fight Renly, she could call upon her father.

With the Reach at his side Renly would have crushed them.

3 hours ago, Peach King said:

Btw, Joffrey told Sansa he would have Renly's head even before he crowned himself. And Stannis was written off as a traitor before he crowned himself as well.... meaning the Lannisters didn't want alliances with the Baratheons.

Of course they don't want them. I know that. But we don't know why. For instance, does Cersei condemn Renly because she wanted to do that the entire time or because he ran away when Robert died and she concluded he is going to come back with an army? We don't know, but I expect that this played a role there. If Renly had delivered Cersei Ned's head instead she wouldn't have seen him as a traitor.

3 hours ago, Peach King said:

To add to that, Renly informing Stannis could have kickstarted Stannis' rebellion in favour of Joffrey, and he and Stannis clearly don't like each other, starting from Stannis' resentment at Storm's End being given to Renly.

Well, if they had exchanged letters Stannis should have quickly told Renly why he wouldn't do that. Not to mention that a rebellion by Stannis would be a joke anyway. Nobody liked him and he sat on his island with a couple of sworn swords. Big deal.

3 hours ago, Peach King said:

It's said in ACOK that the people in KL still whisper about the sack of King's Landing and the butchery of Rhaegar's children. It's not a stretch to think the rest of the kingdoms remember too and don't think fondly of the Lannisters.

The Reach is supposed to be full of Targaryen loyalists, so those people wouldn't like the Baratheons all that much better than the Lannisters. And Cersei Lannister had nothing to do with that Sack, did she?

3 hours ago, Peach King said:

Stannis can answer that:

Stannis makes a guess there. I don't think he asked any of those men why they did what they did.

3 hours ago, Peach King said:

Men followed Daemon Blackfyre pretty easily. Renly looks like a Baratheon more than Joffrey ever did and he embodies their society's chivalric ideal - even though he wasn't a warrior.

Renly was a pretty confident knight, not as great a tourney knight as Loras, but if Loras counts as a warrior so would Renly and Brienne and all the others who never fought in a battle or killed a man before.

But Daemon Blackfyre is a completely different case than Renly. He was the Warrior Incarnate, the greatest knight of his age, son of a king and a woman who was queen. Renly is more like the second Daemon Blackfyre.

3 hours ago, Peach King said:

You're right about Joffrey, but maybe they thought the Lannisters would be bad councilors to an easily controllable boy king?

Which is why it would make sense to oust them. Joffrey is not going to kill anyone if his court is dominated by his uncle. And that might very well continue throughout the king's majority. If you have your men around the king and physically control his person and access to his court you don't have to kill him to run the show. Westeros is no magical place where people have to suddenly be loyal to a king just because he comes of age - they can continue to view the man who is actually in charge as the man in charge.

3 hours ago, Peach King said:

No, I'm pretty positive they would not have crowned Viserys.

That we cannot know. Aenys Blackfyre also thought he had a chance at a Great Council. And he was just the son of a rebel and a traitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The point is that this is a mistake, either one Ned makes or one the author makes. I say it is a mistake the author made. You can believe it is intentional, I most definitely don't.

GRRM also wrote Jaime using his "hands" after he already had one chopped off, Bran's horse changing genders, Jeyne Westerling's hips changing size so it is possible. 

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Renly is a decent enough tourney knight. He wouldn't be that great if he hadn't trained at arms from childhood onwards. He is still very young. If he had been the kind of knight Laenor Velaryon was he wouldn't have ridden in tourneys.

Not really - Stannis says all Renly did was get knocked off his horse by a better man, and that's actually what we see the first time time Renly jousts.

11 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Mycah incident is something that happens at the endpoint of the Renly-Cersei relationship. It is not something that shaped that relationship. Not that Renly gave a damn about either Mycah nor the Stark girl or Joffrey.

It's something that happens before Renly wanted to replace Cersei with Margaery. You have a mistaken assumption that I'm arguing Renly wanted to remove Cersei out of some moral reason....I'm not. I'm saying if that if Cersei is shown to be 1) cruel 2) overprotective of her children, then Renly has good reason to want to remove her.

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But King Robert Baratheon honored the Lannisters by making Tywin's daughter his queen. Why shouldn't his brothers like their new and beautiful sister-in-law? Tywin and Jaime helped to make Robert king - which is the reason why his ungrateful scheming brothers could become great lords in the first place. Neither of them is better or less ambitious than Tywin or Cersei.

Lol.

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That's something you pull out of your ass. Destroying Cersei wasn't in Robert's interest at all. It would have caused all kinds of problems with Tywin, Jaime, obviously Cersei, and the children, too.

When did I say that?

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Not easily.

But it can be done.

Quote

"Joffrey is betrothed to Sansa Stark," Cersei objected.

"Marriage contracts can be broken. What advantage is there in wedding the king to the daughter of a dead traitor?"

 

Quote

Tion had been betrothed to a daughter of Lord Rowan. However, after his twin brother Tywald died, Tywald's betrothed, Ellyn Reyne, convinced him to espouse her instead. While Lord Gerold opposed the match, in the end, he gave way, and Tion and Ellyn became betrothed.

17 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Pretty good idea if the minor king is at your mercy. Unwin Peake knew how to deal with royals who stood in his way. Renly could have dealt with Joffrey and Tommen the same way Richard III did with his nephews ... if the need ever arose. It isn't really treason if people don't know you murdered the king and all the other people between you and the throne...

But I thought this was about morality? How is Renly being a secret traitor worse than being a traitor out in the open?

Not to mention this plan hinges on a lot of variables. What if Joffrey died in the fighting. What if Cersei stole him away. What if Renly's regency got challenged by other people. What if the Tyrells wanted to just marry Joffrey to Margaery instead (I could see Olenna wanting this).

And Unwin Peake failed miserably, what are you talking about.

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

With the Reach at his side Renly would have crushed them.

No guarantee the Reach would be on his side.

20 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Of course they don't want them. I know that. But we don't know why. For instance, does Cersei condemn Renly because she wanted to do that the entire time or because he ran away when Robert died and she concluded he is going to come back with an army? We don't know, but I expect that this played a role there. If Renly had delivered Cersei Ned's head instead she wouldn't have seen him as a traitor.

Hah. Cersei would have gotten rid of Renly at the slightest opportunity, I mean look what she did to her loyal friend Falyse Stokeworth. 

Cersei said she wanted to deal with the Baratheon brothers before getting rid of Robert - so it wasn't because he ran away.

22 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, if they had exchanged letters Stannis should have quickly told Renly why he wouldn't do that. Not to mention that a rebellion by Stannis would be a joke anyway. Nobody liked him and he sat on his island with a couple of sworn swords. Big deal.

Everybody fears him and respects him, even when Renly had a huge army Tywin and Tyrion thought Stannis was the greater threat.

23 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Reach is supposed to be full of Targaryen loyalists, so those people wouldn't like the Baratheons all that much better than the Lannisters. And Cersei Lannister had nothing to do with that Sack, did she?

We're told they like Renly, we're told they don't like the Lannisters, so I guess they have no problem with him being a Baratheon.

Merrett Frey had nothing to do with the Red Wedding, but the BWB hanged him anyway.

30 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Stannis makes a guess there. I don't think he asked any of those men why they did what they did.

Well, it's the closest thing we get for a reason, along with other comments which talk about Renly's popularity.

33 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Renly was a pretty confident knight, not as great a tourney knight as Loras, but if Loras counts as a warrior so would Renly and Brienne and all the others who never fought in a battle or killed a man before.

But Daemon Blackfyre is a completely different case than Renly. He was the Warrior Incarnate, the greatest knight of his age, son of a king and a woman who was queen. Renly is more like the second Daemon Blackfyre.

But we're told he wasn't a good tourney knight.

He looked the part, which is enough.

34 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Which is why it would make sense to oust them. Joffrey is not going to kill anyone if his court is dominated by his uncle. And that might very well continue throughout the king's majority. If you have your men around the king and physically control his person and access to his court you don't have to kill him to run the show. Westeros is no magical place where people have to suddenly be loyal to a king just because he comes of age - they can continue to view the man who is actually in charge as the man in charge.

Not really, considering Ser Marston listened to Aegon III's orders because he was the king even when he hadn't come of age and the court was under the control of Unwin Peake.

Why should Renly go for a messier, more complicated plan when he gets the same results by crowning himself king??

59 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That we cannot know. Aenys Blackfyre also thought he had a chance at a Great Council. And he was just the son of a rebel and a traitor.

As frenin said above it would be wishful thinking to think the rebels would crown Viserys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Peach King said:

 

Not really - Stannis says all Renly did was get knocked off his horse by a better man, and that's actually what we see the first time time Renly jousts.

 

Renly's defeat in the jousts comes quite late.

Ser Balon Swann also fell to Gregor, and Lord Renly to the Hound. Renly was unhorsed so violently that he seemed to fly backward off his charger, legs in the air. His head hit the ground with an audible crack that made the crowd gasp, but it was just the golden antler on his helm. One of the tines had snapped off beneath him.

We know that Gregor had at least two rounds before this and Balon had beaten Alyn. This is the last round we hear about before the semi-finals, so Renly made the quarter-finals of the Hand's Tourney, going out in the same round as Barristan, Robar Royce and Balon Swann.

Him being poor at jousting would not make much sense given his popularity with the commons, who treated jousters as superstars. It would be idiotic for him to compete if he was no good.  He also seems respected by the chivalry of the Stormlands and Reach, this suggests that they think he is more than a capable knight

Given his physique, his likely great training, the fact that his squire is incredibly well-trained and his access to the best equipment, it stands to reason that he was a capable warrior in tourneys. On the other hand he is gay/bisexual and some can't get their heads around the idea that gay/bisexual men can be good warriors.

 

Obviously he would not be in Jaime or the other tier 1 level, but he's be regarded as better than average.

 

Edited by Bernie Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Peach King said:

Not really - Stannis says all Renly did was get knocked off his horse by a better man, and that's actually what we see the first time time Renly jousts.

See @Bernie Mac for that. This idea that Renly isn't a good knight is show nonsense. Renly Baratheon may not have been as great a warrior as Robert, but he was good enough.

34 minutes ago, Peach King said:

It's something that happens before Renly wanted to replace Cersei with Margaery. You have a mistaken assumption that I'm arguing Renly wanted to remove Cersei out of some moral reason....I'm not. I'm saying if that if Cersei is shown to be 1) cruel 2) overprotective of her children, then Renly has good reason to want to remove her.

Not necessarily. We don't know how long Renly is planning to replace Cersei. Cersei herself fears Robert might replace her with another Lyanna back at Winterfell.

What you failed to do because there is no textual basis is to establish that Renly had issues with Cersei because of her general personality ... or what you think is that personality. You cannot do that because Renly's issues with Cersei are never addressed by the author.

34 minutes ago, Peach King said:

Lol.

When did I say that?

But it can be done.

Of course it can be done, but there is no reason to believe Cersei would even consider something like that. Especially not with those scheming Tyrells. She never liked the idea of Margaery marrying Joffrey, not even after the deal was brokered.

34 minutes ago, Peach King said:

But I thought this was about morality? How is Renly being a secret traitor worse than being a traitor out in the open?

The point is that you try to sell us the idea that Renly had to crown himself king to stage a successful rebellion against King Joffrey's regency government, i.e. the Lannisters. And that's just wrong. He didn't have to do that, and he didn't have to be of this opinion you think he must have had. He tries to sell the idea that he had to be king to Cat to defend himself but that's just nonsense.

I mean, look at Robb. Robb had the decency to admit he had only a quarrel with Joffrey. Before he was proclaimed king by his stupid lords and accepted that he wanted to topple Joffrey but had no intention to harm Tommen who should succeed him then. There are people in this world who know that people are different and you don't kill entire families just because you feel like it.

34 minutes ago, Peach King said:

Not to mention this plan hinges on a lot of variables. What if Joffrey died in the fighting. What if Cersei stole him away. What if Renly's regency got challenged by other people. What if the Tyrells wanted to just marry Joffrey to Margaery instead (I could see Olenna wanting this).

What if Renly was killed by a shadow assassin? There is no guarantee that any plan is going to work, the point simply is that the road Renly took wasn't his only choice.

He could also have stayed neutral, could have tried to offer his help to Tywin - who is more rational than his twins - he could have urged Stannis to rebel and offer him his help, he could have offered his help to Robb (while he hadn't crowned himself), he could even have written to Cersei to offer his help to her.

34 minutes ago, Peach King said:

And Unwin Peake failed miserably, what are you talking about.

He was stupid enough to resign, he did not fail. And he killed Queen Jaehaera and nearly killed Aegon III and his second queen. That's a pretty good track record all things considered. Not to mention that he survived all that, too.

34 minutes ago, Peach King said:

No guarantee the Reach would be on his side.

What? Do you think they are only on his side because he wants to be king?

34 minutes ago, Peach King said:

Hah. Cersei would have gotten rid of Renly at the slightest opportunity, I mean look what she did to her loyal friend Falyse Stokeworth. 

LOL, right. The post-Joff-Tywin Cersei isn't the same woman we meet in AGoT, nor is Cersei the important Lannister while Tywin yet lives (who offered Stannis a deal to keep his life and seat after the Blackwater!), nor is Renly the same kind of irrelevant person you can just disappear.

34 minutes ago, Peach King said:

Cersei said she wanted to deal with the Baratheon brothers before getting rid of Robert - so it wasn't because he ran away.

But we don't know what 'deal' means in that context exactly. Could mean murder, of course. But perhaps only disgrace and exile? Perhaps it would have been enough if they had lost their lordships. I mean, poisoning or otherwise murdering both of Robert's brothers would have been a problematic thing even if it worked - people would have grown suspicious. I honestly think she was thinking more of staging a scandal or goad them into starting a quarrel with Robert that would cause him to punish them, banish them from court, take their lordships away or force them into exile.

34 minutes ago, Peach King said:

Everybody fears him and respects him, even when Renly had a huge army Tywin and Tyrion thought Stannis was the greater threat.

Tywin respects/fears Stannis, but he is the only one.

34 minutes ago, Peach King said:

We're told they like Renly, we're told they don't like the Lannisters, so I guess they have no problem with him being a Baratheon.

Again, I'd like to know what they thought of him being king and why they supported him. That's not that difficult to understand, is it?

34 minutes ago, Peach King said:

Merrett Frey had nothing to do with the Red Wedding, but the BWB hanged him anyway.

He did. He was supposed to get the Greatjon drunk and failed at that task.

34 minutes ago, Peach King said:

Well, it's the closest thing we get for a reason, along with other comments which talk about Renly's popularity.

I'd also like to know why Renly was popular. Did he do a lot of charity stuff? Many travels? We don't know.

34 minutes ago, Peach King said:

Not really, considering Ser Marston listened to Aegon III's orders because he was the king even when he hadn't come of age and the court was under the control of Unwin Peake.

Peake was gone at the time, and the conspirators stupidly put Marston Waters legally in charge of everything, making him their official figurehead.

I'm talking about an Unwin Peake or Renly Baratheon who completely controls court, puts his men in every important position, dominates the Kingsguard, the council, the City Watch, everybody. The king would then be literally a prisoner of that man, and he would be treated as such. Such things do happen at royal courts. And it is all the more easier if the king you train to live in such an environment from childhood onwards.

Joff would quickly learn how to behave if Renly would beat him bloody whenever he misbehaved or showed a sign of disobedience.

34 minutes ago, Peach King said:

As frenin said above it would be wishful thinking to think the rebels would crown Viserys.

If Robert doesn't qualify as a pretender because he has no royal blood they would have to come up with an alternative. If Robb can honestly think Tommen can succeed Joffrey after he kills/deposes him, the rebels could just as well think a Targaryen child king could succeed the Mad King and Rhaegar. That's not that difficult to grasp. Even more so if Robert, lacking the gravitas and authority that came with his royal blood, would be just one among many rebel leaders. Only Robert truly hated the Targaryens. There is no indication that Ned, Jon, and Hoster bore the Targaryen children any ill will or thought they could not possibly succeed Aerys II.

Nor is there any reason to imagine lords always fear being crushed by new kings if they toppled an old one and then put a son or grandson of that guy on the throne. Nobody seems to have feared Aegon III would destroy all the houses who fought for his usurping uncle, not all Blackfyre loyalists were exiled or destroyed, etc. Thus there is no reason to assume anyone would have feared that Viserys III or an Aegon VI would avenge his mad father ... especially not if the regents of such a king made it clear to him why they did what they did, honored Rhaegar who had bravely fallen in battle, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

He was stupid enough to resign, he did not fail. And he killed Queen Jaehaera and nearly killed Aegon III and his second queen. That's a pretty good track record all things considered. Not to mention that he survived all that, too.

He did fail, he didn't control the show anymore and that's why he resigned, the regents did and they were done with him, Unwin's edicts were overriden by the regents when he was "running the show" and it took the aquiescence of another refente, Munkun, to make his second plan work, Kings are the power and are reckon as such.

 

 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm talking about an Unwin Peake or Renly Baratheon who completely controls court, puts his men in every important position, dominates the Kingsguard, the council, the City Watch, everybody. The king would then be literally a prisoner of that man, and he would be treated as such. Such things do happen at royal courts. And it is all the more easier if the king you train to live in such an environment from childhood onwards.

Unwin Peake did, and his power only lasted while the other regents were playing ball. After he pissed them off he was neutralized fairly quickly.

 

Quote

Only Robert truly hated the Targaryens. There is no indication that Ned, Jon, and Hoster bore the Targaryen children any ill will or thought they could not possibly succeed Aerys II.

Only Robert truly hated the Targs in AGOT, it's impossible to believe Ned was so chill with them 15 years ago. And wanting childrens dead=/wanting your enemies offspring asyour liege.

 

Quote

Nor is there any reason to imagine lords always fear being crushed by new kings if they toppled an old one and then put a son or grandson of that guy on the throne. Nobody seems to have feared Aegon III would destroy all the houses who fought for his usurping uncle, not all Blackfyre loyalists were exiled or destroyed, etc. Thus there is no reason to assume anyone would have feared that Viserys III or an Aegon VI would avenge his mad father ... especially not if the regents of such a king made it clear to him why they did what they did, honored Rhaegar who had bravely fallen in battle, etc.

Except there is every reason to believe that, Aegon himself was pretty resentful. The Blackfyre loyalists did not even expect a punishment, it's said that his light punishment took them by surprise.

Edited by frenin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2020 at 2:10 PM, CassDarry said:

I don’t see the problem with giving Renly Storm’s End, The ancestral seat of House Baratheon.

Yeah it turned out to be a dumb move but the princes had the whole realm to inherit, the brother should take on The StormLands.

If I had multiple seats to award I would look to my family believing them to be more loyal but then again Tywin never granted Kevan or Genna lands it seems so maybe I’m wrong

Tywin was more able than Robert to command loyalty because he set an example of a capable ruler and actively interested in governing. When you rule, people are more willing to share responsibilities without many questions asked if the leader makes an example.

Robert pissed people off with his debauchery and unwillingness to participate in matters of state, so everyone around him had to do his work but also had more space for scheming and making factions. That's a bigger invitation to a civil war than giving this or that seat to Stannis and Renly. Literally everyone around him got more power than they could ever dream of if he didn't win his rebellion. 

And also Robert had more lands to give because he was a new king from a new dynasty. There was a vacuum that needed to be filled. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

See @Bernie Mac for that. This idea that Renly isn't a good knight is show nonsense. Renly Baratheon may not have been as great a warrior as Robert, but he was good enough.

I concede this.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not necessarily. We don't know how long Renly is planning to replace Cersei. Cersei herself fears Robert might replace her with another Lyanna back at Winterfell.

That's a random thought of Cersei's, not related to the plot.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

What you failed to do because there is no textual basis is to establish that Renly had issues with Cersei because of her general personality ... or what you think is that personality. You cannot do that because Renly's issues with Cersei are never addressed by the author.

Just my opinion, but - the issue is politics, plain and simple. The issue is her being the highest influence in court, and him being lower in the rung. The issue is his being a threat to the succession, and Cersei being shown as a woman who dealt decisively with her enemies and who's overprotective of her children's rights.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Of course it can be done, but there is no reason to believe Cersei would even consider something like that. Especially not with those scheming Tyrells. She never liked the idea of Margaery marrying Joffrey, not even after the deal was brokered.

Cersei can be overridden, just like she was in canon. Tywin would certainly think of sending an envoy.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The point is that you try to sell us the idea that Renly had to crown himself king to stage a successful rebellion against King Joffrey's regency government, i.e. the Lannisters. And that's just wrong. He didn't have to do that, and he didn't have to be of this opinion you think he must have had. He tries to sell the idea that he had to be king to Cat to defend himself but that's just nonsense.

Alright - Renly declaring himself king was the smartest, surest way of making himself safe, instead of all these other alternatives.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I mean, look at Robb. Robb had the decency to admit he had only a quarrel with Joffrey. Before he was proclaimed king by his stupid lords and accepted that he wanted to topple Joffrey but had no intention to harm Tommen who should succeed him then. There are people in this world who know that people are different and you don't kill entire families just because you feel like it.

As far as I remember he only talked specifically about executing Cersei, which makes sense considering she was the one out for him.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

What if Renly was killed by a shadow assassin? There is no guarantee that any plan is going to work, the point simply is that the road Renly took wasn't his only choice.

He could also have stayed neutral, could have tried to offer his help to Tywin - who is more rational than his twins - he could have urged Stannis to rebel and offer him his help, he could have offered his help to Robb (while he hadn't crowned himself), he could even have written to Cersei to offer his help to her.

And he could have packed off to the Free Cities and started anew. The point is all these alternatives either 1) had a limited chance of succeeding 2) achieved the same outcome, except the process is more convoluted and troublesome.

Already underlined the problems with the neutrality plan - The Lannisters were already planning to put his head on a spike before he did anything. My memory isn't up to par but in FAB I recall a king who wanted to exterminate a house because they stayed neutral and didn't aid the war on any side.

He could have tried to reach an accord with Tywin, true, but it was still a Cersei-run government and she's his main enemy. Cersei is incapable of sharing power with others. Especially since her son is a minor, we can see this outcome: Renly is popular and is Joffrey's uncle. He has shown himself loyal to the Lannister regime. Others begin to whisper that Renly should be regent instead. Cersei accurately perceives the threat. Goodbye, Renly.

Urged Stannis, he could have certainly tried to, but he is known for his sense of duty and asking him to rebel against his rightful king doesn't seem smart.

Already stated the problems with just plain rebellion.

Trying to ally with Cersei is just suicide. 

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

He was stupid enough to resign, he did not fail. And he killed Queen Jaehaera and nearly killed Aegon III and his second queen. That's a pretty good track record all things considered. Not to mention that he survived all that, too.

He didn't resign because he was stupid - he resigned because the other regents made him.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

What? Do you think they are only on his side because he wants to be king?

Yes, I'd say that was the major reason they followed him.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, right. The post-Joff-Tywin Cersei isn't the same woman we meet in AGoT, nor is Cersei the important Lannister while Tywin yet lives (who offered Stannis a deal to keep his life and seat after the Blackwater!), nor is Renly the same kind of irrelevant person you can just disappear.

Cersei killed her childhood friend by chucking her into a well. It's emphasized over and over that  Cersei is paranoid, goes overboard in protecting her rights and takes any infringement of what's "her's" very seriously....

Tywin is smart enough to not make needless enemies out of people, but Cersei would still be Cersei.

Robert was plenty relevant, and Cersei made him disappear.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But we don't know what 'deal' means in that context exactly. Could mean murder, of course. But perhaps only disgrace and exile? Perhaps it would have been enough if they had lost their lordships. I mean, poisoning or otherwise murdering both of Robert's brothers would have been a problematic thing even if it worked - people would have grown suspicious. I honestly think she was thinking more of staging a scandal or goad them into starting a quarrel with Robert that would cause him to punish them, banish them from court, take their lordships away or force them into exile.

Irrelevant what her wanting to "deal" with them means, Cersei wanted to strip them of their power or she wanted to kill them, both of which are very good reasons for the Baratheon bros to rebel.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Tywin respects/fears Stannis, but he is the only one.

Tyrion does too.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Again, I'd like to know what they thought of him being king and why they supported him. That's not that difficult to understand, is it?

Which is in the text.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

He did. He was supposed to get the Greatjon drunk and failed at that task.

Petyr Frey too, who was just an innocent boy.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd also like to know why Renly was popular. Did he do a lot of charity stuff? Many travels? We don't know.

We do know, he was handsome, he was charismatic, he was Robert come again, Stannis and the Lannisters were disliked, he was good at image politics (such as his trying to court the Faith with the Rainbow Guard.)

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Peake was gone at the time, and the conspirators stupidly put Marston Waters legally in charge of everything, making him their official figurehead.

His people were still in the government, and that shows that one honorable man was enough to topple Unwin Peake's schemes.

18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm talking about an Unwin Peake or Renly Baratheon who completely controls court, puts his men in every important position, dominates the Kingsguard, the council, the City Watch, everybody. The king would then be literally a prisoner of that man, and he would be treated as such. Such things do happen at royal courts. And it is all the more easier if the king you train to live in such an environment from childhood onwards.

Joff would quickly learn how to behave if Renly would beat him bloody whenever he misbehaved or showed a sign of disobedience.

And everyone would just be OK with that, because all of Renly's supporters would be a single homogeneous blob incapable of independent thought..Stannis would have no problems with this, nor would others try to wrest the regency position from Renly after Renly has made himself unpopular with his cruelty and clear power grabbing.

This is just a worse, more sadistic plan which would yield a less favourable outcome.

Edited by Peach King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the tutelage and with the urging of the prudent Jon Arryn, Robert did a fairly good job leveraging his charisma to hold the realm together, appease most of the powerful lords, and honor those who served him loyally. Supernatural elements overwhelming political pettiness and masters of the game of thrones making their moves notwithstanding, his only real mistake when it came to his brothers' castles was in the sense that he did not account for dying before Joffrey even came of age, and consequently did not make any final decision on who would inherit which castle and how the Baratheon dynasty would recognize crown princes.

Renly just so happened to be a selfish, arrogant, vain, superficial, and power-hungry child playing at war and willing to completely disregard societal norms interwoven with the fabric of the feudal society to the extent that every single future succession would have resulted in bloody war had he won, merely for the sake of a crown to which he had no claim of any sort: not by blood, nor by a sense of duty, nor by his claim of merit, nor even by martial might (for his military understanding was extremely lacking, and his proposed strategy to battle Stannis fundamentally terrible). Robert could not have known he would grow into such a man; or that the realm would erupt into a historic civil war over the succession after his demise, which was untimely, in the first place.

Stannis was too quick to see the slight in not receiving Storm's End, either not perceiving or not appreciating that Dragonstone was historically granted to the heir apparent (or heir presumptive, in some cases), and that "Prince of Dragonstone" was almost always synonymous with "Heir to the Iron Throne." He had much to learn, especially in A Clash of Kings; fortunately for him and for the readers following his arc, he received that opportunity, and his defeat at Blackwater and the good offices of Davos have resulted in him reconsidering his approach and behavior, thereby making his actions increasingly heroic. However, Renly was never able to develop or or outgrow his initial personality in any way, so he died as he lived: all image and no substance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2020 at 4:20 PM, Lord Varys said:

That is Stannis' self-importance talking - he was just a landless knight when Robert rebelled. He had no special relationship with his king. If Stannis had been one of Aerys II's or Rhaegar's household knights, sworn swords, etc. or if the king had made him a lord or a landed knight there would have been a clear conflict of interest there. But unless we are missing something Stannis Baratheon never swore a single vow of fealty or obedience or anything to King Aerys II while he would have acknowledged his brother Robert as his new liege lord the very night the Baratheon watched their parents drowning.

Everybody was the subject of Aerys and owed him fealty.  On the issue of what if any was owed to Stannis.  Lords reward those who fought for them.  Stannis really was more entitled to Storm's End.  Renly was not exactly useful during the rebellion.  Little guy was still wetting his bed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The reason Renly sits on Storm's End, and not Stannis, may be looked up in Martin's old inspiration that influenced him on how to depict Stannis as a character.

I think that, given the fact Stannis was partially based on Tiberius as depicted in I, Claudius, George Martin wanted to put Stannis living on Dragonstone, an isolated place without much resources, like Tiberius was sitting "on a rock" mostly on Rhodes, set aside from state affairs by Augustus, and later on Capri, as an uninterested in governing, emperor himself.

Like Tiberius, Stannis chooses an unhappy but dutiful life instead of a happy one, which can be said about most Westerosi nobility, but it is much emphasized with Stannis. He complains about Robert's ungratefulness for the said duties, like Tiberius complains of Augustus. 

Like Tiberius, Stannis constantly complains he isn't loved.

Like Tiberius fought the Germanic tribes and secured the northern borders, Stannis fought the Wildlings and secured the northern borders of Westeros too.

But what comes next is most interesting; Stannis has a powerful ally that is Melisandre, like Tiberius had in his mother Livia, and Thrasyllus, the astrologer, whom he so much trusted that he consulted even about smallest affairs. With these two, he won the imperial seat.

Edited by The Sunland Lord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

The reason Renly sits on Storm's End, and not Stannis, may be looked up in Martin's old inspiration that influenced him on how to depict Stannis as a character.

I think that, given the fact Stannis was partially based on Tiberius as depicted in I, Claudius, George Martin wanted to put Stannis living on Dragonstone, an isolated place without much resources, like Tiberius was sitting "on a rock" mostly on Rhodes, set aside from state affairs by Augustus, and later on Capri, as an uninterested in governing, emperor himself.

Like Tiberius, Stannis chooses an unhappy but dutiful life instead of a happy one, which can be said about most Westerosi nobility, but it is much emphasized with Stannis. He complains about Robert's ungratefulness for the said duties, like Tiberius complains of Augustus. 

Like Tiberius, Stannis constantly complains he isn't loved.

Like Tiberius fought the Germanic tribes and secured the northern borders, Stannis fought the Wildlings and secured the northern borders of Westeros too.

But what comes next is most interesting; Stannis has a powerful ally that is Melisandre, like Tiberius had in his mother Livia, and Drusillus, the astrologer, whom he so much trusted that he consulted even about smallest affairs. With these two, he won the imperial seat.

I haven't seen "I, Claudius" but I know about Tiberius and its an interesting comparison even if I'm not entirely bought on the similarites between Stannis and Tiberius on the basis of I can't see Stannis doing the misdeeds in the later parts of a disappointing stay at the top that Tiberius did, or is claimed to have done.

Edited by Lion of the West

Share this post


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

Everybody was the subject of Aerys and owed him fealty.  On the issue of what if any was owed to Stannis.  Lords reward those who fought for them.  Stannis really was more entitled to Storm's End.  Renly was not exactly useful during the rebellion.  Little guy was still wetting his bed.

Everybody is the king's subject, yes, but Stannis did never enter the personal service of the king as a household knight or sworn sword nor did he ever receive land or a lordship from the king himself - which would have involved a vow of fealty.

Fealty is something you swear directly to your liege. Even Robert would only be Stannis' liege is Stannis held land in his name which he, as far as we know, didn't. If Stannis entered Robert's service in a permanent capacity - as a household knight or sworn sword - he would have done so by swearing some vows to him, but it wouldn't have been an oath of fealty.

In that sense, Stannis' vows and duties would have tied him much closer to Robert - who was both his brother and the lord whom he served in some capacity (eventually as castellan) - than his king.

Walder Frey can rightfully say he stands between his liege Lord Hoster and his king, Joffrey Baratheon, when the Starks approach him. But Stannis wasn't a lord. He was Robert's man or nothing. Meaning he didn't have that much of a choice and shouldn't have been in a moral predicament - if he was, it sort of reflects badly on Stannis since it means the emotional bonds of family and kinship to his beset brother Lord Robert weren't as strong as they should have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lion of the West said:

I haven't seen "I, Claudius" but I know about Tiberius and its an interesting comparison even if I'm not entirely bought on the similarites between Stannis and Tiberius on the basis of I can't see Stannis doing the misdeeds in the later parts of a disappointing stay at the top that Tiberius did, or is claimed to have done.

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes 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).

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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...