Jump to content

Is Stannis underestimating Ramsay


Mad King Bolton
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 10/20/2021 at 8:18 AM, WhatAnArtist! said:

I understand that all of my reasoning is purely meta, so take it with a grain of salt if you want. But Martin has said repeatedly that he's going to start culling superfluous characters and storylines as soon as Winds starts, and I think the Boltons will be high on that list.

So is Stannis.

I too think that his bragging is going to bite him in the ass.

It reminds me of Tywin underestimating Robb due his age. 

Edited by frenin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, rotting sea cow said:

maybe?

but this depends of what is happening within the Wall of Winterfell.

He's certainly a wild card as well as Bran & Bloodraven are, who plainly intend to intervene in some way in the battle. 

There are other elements as well. The ironborn at Torrhen's Square and some suggestions that there might be another army in the snow, led by Robett Glover. I personally believe these suggestions are overblown, but they aren't crazy either.

Hmmm I always love information I didn’t notice or hear much comment on before, could you find anything on the bran/blood raven intervention possibility and/or Robett Glover in the field? Interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mad King Bolton said:

Hmmm I always love information I didn’t notice or hear much comment on before, could you find anything on the bran/blood raven intervention possibility and/or Robett Glover in the field? Interesting.

The theory is that Bran and Bloodraven are the ravens that Maester Tybald has when he greets Stannis in the camp outside Winterfell. 

https://thehawke.github.io/twow-excerpts/

Also, Robett Glover was known to be raising men near White Harbor to try and take back Winterfell. Here is the precise quote.

Quote

Davos Seaworth, an envoy of Stannis Baratheon, learns that Robett arrived in White Harbor after the prisoner exchange and tried to raise men. However, he had little success as Lord Wyman Manderly and White Harbor are reportedly weary of war.

From the wiki. Does anyone how I can accurately quote passages in the actual series?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mad King Bolton said:

Hmmm I always love information I didn’t notice or hear much comment on before, could you find anything on the bran/blood raven intervention possibility and/or Robett Glover in the field? Interesting.

As pointed out above, yes the ravens screaming "Theon, Theon!" and "Tree, tree!" are actually Bran and Bloodraven respectively and they want to do some magic at the weirdwood located in one of islands in those frozen lakes. Exactly what it can be is of course hard to guess.

Regarding the army, there is far less textual evidence other than Manderly was raising men for an army, Robett Glover was attempting to do the same with reportedly little success, that there is enough time to pull something of that sort and that the Bolton's scouts were disappearing. I mean, it is a stretch but materially possible.

It is the same with Rickon. From the timeline perspective it is possible that he's back in the North (thanks to Davos) and with an army of Skagosi mounted on unicorns and White Harbor's knights. Not very likely but still possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

Stannis will become some sort of Night King and ally himself with the Others when everything falls apart

Why would he do this? Because he's upset that he lost? Even if that was the case, I'd imagine he'd sooner kill himself than join the Others. Stannis is one of the very few characters that fully realises the threat that the Others pose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WhatAnArtist! said:

Why would he do this? Because he's upset that he lost? Even if that was the case, I'd imagine he'd sooner kill himself than join the Others. Stannis is one of the very few characters that fully realises the threat that the Others pose.

Yeah...being upset that he lost and was betrayed is one reason. After all he does entertain the magic and religion of R'hllor not because he believes in it or he thinks that it is what needs to be done but because he assumes that it will get him what he wants. Pure self-interest and exploitative ambition. 

Maybe it's because he is among the first to realize that the Others aren't really all that bad and that they have similar objectives and common threats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

Pure self-interest and exploitative ambition

It's not self-interest, though. He's said countless times that he doesn't want the throne just for its own sake, or to satisfy his ego or ambition. He wants it solely because he thinks it's his duty to take it, as Robert's true heir. Everyone in the series, practically without exception, describes Stannis as a man who puts duty above all else; his closest allies and fiercest enemies all say the same. This is not a man that does things because he personally wants them. And anyway, Stannis would be a better ruler of the Seven Kingdoms than any other claimant. He is far more just than all the other. But that's beside the point.

19 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

Maybe it's because he is among the first to realize that the Others aren't really all that bad and that they have similar objectives and common threats.

Not a shred of evidence hints towards this. Leave this nonsense to bad fanfiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WhatAnArtist! said:

It's not self-interest, though. He's said countless times that he doesn't want the throne just for its own sake, or to satisfy his ego or ambition. He wants it solely because he thinks it's his duty to take it, as Robert's true heir. Everyone in the series, practically without exception, describes Stannis as a man who puts duty above all else; his closest allies and fiercest enemies all say the same. This is not a man that does things because he personally wants them. And anyway, Stannis would be a better ruler of the Seven Kingdoms than any other claimant. He is far more just than all the other. But that's beside the point.

I don't believe this at all.

Stannis sat on his ass in Dragonstone while Ned Stark repeatedly tried to reach out to him for either help or to return to the Small Council.

The fact that Stannis does not have the Iron Throne right now is because Stannis wanted to throw a temper tantrum and sulk on Dragonstone. He refused to help Ned: 1) learn the truth of what happened to Jon Arryn and 2) help his brother rule the realm....both of which were his duties both as a brother, as the Lord of Dragonstone (and aspiring Warden of the East) and as a member of the Small Council.

Stannis refused to reach out to and attempt to work something out with Robb Stark (a natural ally of his if he would allow it) and he wasted his time with Renly when he just could've swiftly taken King's Landing and ruled justly and politicked from there. But he didn't.

He let Cressen die when he could've prevented it with a mere conversation? That man raised him as if he was his own blood when no one was there to care for Stannis. Was that just?

Stannis is dutiful but justice without mercy and measuring/balancing is a form of cruelty (if not simply vengeance). He would be a hard and terrible king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

Stannis refused to reach out to and attempt to work something out with Robb Stark

Because he (correctly) viewed Robb Stark as a traitor. Robb had no intention of putting aside his crown, even after the Lannisters were beaten. Stannis said that he would have allied with Robb if the latter resumed his role as the Lord of Winterfell rather than stayed the King in the North. Stannis wasn't going to help a man that was determined on stealing half of his kingdom. Just because we as the reader were led to believe that the Starks were the good guys of the story doesn't mean that Stannis has to see things that way. 

 

52 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

and he wasted his time with Renly when he just could've swiftly taken King's Landing

He needed the strength of the stormlands behind him to mount a serious attack on King's Landing and be able to hold it from Tywin's counter-attack. Without the lords he got after removing Renly, he had only a couple of thousand soldiers, not enough to mount a serious offensive in the crownlands.

55 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

He let Cressen die when he could've prevented it with a mere conversation?

He had no idea Cressen was going to poison Melisandre.

 

55 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

but justice without mercy and measuring/balancing is a form of cruelty

No. Justice is justice, period. It does not require "mercy" to be just. If something is cruel, it is by definition not just. And Stannis does show "balance" - the Davos example is the obvious one, but there are others too - he says he will execute the lord of Claw Isle for betraying him, but he refuses to punish his subjects. He executes "Mance Rayder" but spares all other wildlings that were captued. These are just two examples.

 

59 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

He would be a hard and terrible king.

Hard, yes, but not terrible. Your own personal dislike of him as a character doesn't mean that he would be a "terrible king". There is far too much evidence that shows otherwise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

I doubt that GRRM is making the Others out to be mindless Orcs with magical ice powers

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I just said. You said Stannis would ally with the Others, but there's not a single shred of evidence that even suggests something like that might happen. Except the "evidence" of your own personal bias against the character. It's not enough for him to just be a harsh king, now he must also join the ranks of the evil ice monsters and fight humanity? Really? Come on....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, WhatAnArtist! said:

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I just said. You said Stannis would ally with the Others, but there's not a single shred of evidence that even suggests something like that might happen. Except the "evidence" of your own personal bias against the character. It's not enough for him to just be a harsh king, now he must also join the ranks of the evil ice monsters and fight humanity? Really? Come on....

I don't like Stannis it's true but I'm not a hater and I also see, understand and respect his value to the story.

But I'm not sure that this battle between the Others and humanity is going to be a simple case of good (95% humans) vs. evil (the Others and their evil human allies/enablers). I'm suspecting that the Others are being very intentional and purposeful and that Bran's ascension to the status of being King of all Westeros is related with the Others' true intentions. The Others may be amoral (by human standards at least) but they are not without logic. hence the Night King story with the fact that he married and copulated with a female Other.

For that reason, I don't see a reason why a man can't join forces with the Others if their interests align. I, for one, don't think that the Others are pure evil because....if they are, why is this all this mystery revolving around them. They don't appear to be particularly active beyond the Wall.

With Aegon slated to take Storm's End and the Tyrells in possession of Dragonstone, it's either Winterfell or bust. And bust means going back to the Nightfort, his last remaining seat, because I suspect that the Watch is not going to be in the position to host him for a second time.

Nightfort being Stannis' last holding is not an accident. Neither is the fact that Nightfort is a mysterious, magical place with an established history with the Others. Things tend to repeat or reoccur in this series for a reason. Why not with Stannis.

21 minutes ago, WhatAnArtist! said:

He had no idea Cressen was going to poison Melisandre.

He allowed it to happen by allowing Cressen to feel caged and cornered. We know Cressen had felt compelled to do so by the way Stannis was acting and refusing to listen to reason. Humiliating and allowing his court to humiliate Cressen was a gross injustice.

23 minutes ago, WhatAnArtist! said:

Because he (correctly) viewed Robb Stark as a traitor. Robb had no intention of putting aside his crown, even after the Lannisters were beaten. Stannis said that he would have allied with Robb if the latter resumed his role as the Lord of Winterfell rather than stayed the King in the North. Stannis wasn't going to help a man that was determined on stealing half of his kingdom. Just because we as the reader were led to believe that the Starks were the good guys of the story doesn't mean that Stannis has to see things that way. 

I like how you completely didn't bother responding to Stannis' actions (or lack thereof) in A Game of Thrones

Robb could've been treated with and given generous terms. Stannis never tried reaching out to Robb Stark. Stannis is not good with people so he lacks the diplomatic skills to be a good long-term peacetime ruler.

And Stannis is unreliable when it comes to the term traitor. He thinks the Lord of Claw Isle betrayed him when that's not at all the case. He calls Rhaenyra a traitor when her birthright to the Iron Throne was stolen (widely acknowledged by the realm) and she resolved to fight for it just like him. Which is hilarious when you consider that Rhaenyra had three times more legitimacy than Stannis ever had.

So, pardon me when I say that Stannis was wrong to view Robb Stark as a traitor. Robb Stark never betrayed him nor did he betray the Lannisters. The Lannisters betrayed Robb and the Lannisters betrayed Stannis. This betrayal broke the social contract between kings and their subjects: so Robb Stark is not wrong for seceding from the Seven Kingdoms and warring against the Lannisters. Was it the wisest course of action? No but he can't be blamed for that.

How do you think Catelyn and Eddard and Jon and Sansa and Arya and Bran would feel knowing that Stannis had used bloodmagic to curse Robb Stark? How do you think they would feel about Stannis' decision to use bloodmagic to indulge in kinslaying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

don't like Stannis it's true but I'm not a hater

So you say...

 

10 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

But I'm not sure that this battle between the Others and humanity is going to be a simple case of good (95% humans) vs. evil (the Others and their evil human allies/enablers). I'm suspecting that the Others are being very intentional and purposeful and that Bran's ascension to the status of being King of all Westeros is related with the Others' true intentions. The Others may be amoral (by human standards at least) but they are not without logic. hence the Night King story with the fact that he married and copulated with a female Other.

For that reason, I don't see a reason why a man can't join forces with the Others if their interests align. I, for one, don't think that the Others are pure evil because....if they are, why is this all this mystery revolving around them. They don't appear to be particularly active beyond the Wall.

Until Martin actually provides some sliver of depth and complexity for the Others, they have to be viewed in the way that the series has portrayed them thus far, not by whatever assumptions or theories readers have about what they might actually be like.

 

13 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

Nightfort being Stannis' last holding is not an accident. Neither is the fact that Nightfort is a mysterious, magical place with an established history with the Others. Things tend to repeat or reoccur in this series for a reason. Why not with Stannis.

Things sometimes repeat, but not always. And at the moment the Nightfort is the only actual connection between Stannis and the Others, but even then it's a fairly vague one that hasn't been developed at all. Certainly not to the point where one can definitively claim that it means Stannis will become the new Night's King and side with the Others. There's less actual evidence for that theory than almost any other theory in the fandom. 

 

19 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

He allowed it to happen by allowing Cressen to feel caged and cornered

Ignoring someone and dimissing their advice does not mean you're responsible for that person then trying to murder someone else. That's just ridiculous. You can criticise Stannis for his treatment of Cressen (as I do) without saying he's actually at fault for Cressen's death. Nobody forced Cressen to try to murder Melisandre.

 

21 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

Humiliating and allowing his court to humiliate Cressen was a gross injustice.

Yes, this is the one thing I agree with you on. It's one of the very rare cases of Stannis behaving unjustly.

 

22 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

I like how you completely didn't bother responding to Stannis' actions (or lack thereof) in A Game of Thrones

I don't give two damns what you like or don't like.

Stannis fled King's Landing because he believed that he could be killed any day now, and that if he died, the truth would die with him. It was too great a risk to remain in the city, especially since Robert ignored/dismissed everything he said. By being assassinated by the Lannisters, he'd have failed in his duty to take action against the Baratheons' enemies. He was biding his time until he could strike against them. And Stannis did not know whether he could trust Ned or not. He considered him an honourable man, but there was the risk that that same sense of honour would compell him to immediately blurt out to Robert (and others) the truth, which would have had disastrous consequences (as was later proved by Ned). Ned was not cunning enough to rely on, and Stannis couldn't take the risk. Nobody suspected that Robert would soon be dead - even Cersei didn't plan on it.

30 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

Robb could've been treated with and given generous terms. Stannis never tried reaching out to Robb Stark

What terms? Robb categorically stated that he would not give up his status as King in the North. That was the only sticking point between Robb and Stannis. Also, at Storm's End, Stannis met with Catelyn, who was Robb's official envoy. Catelyn spoke for Robb, and she told Stannis that Robb would not consent to giving up his crown. Pretty clear-cut. Robb should have been willing to compromise and give up the title as a sign of good will; Stannis would have supported him as Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North if that was the case. Stannis was the rightful king of the Seven Kingdoms; it's not for him to make the first concessions to a mere lord.

 

35 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

Stannis is not good with people so he lacks the diplomatic skills to be a good long-term peacetime ruler.

One doesn't need to be super friendly and charismatic to be a good ruler. History is filled with examples of cold and detached rulers that maintained peace and stability.

 

37 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

Robb Stark never betrayed him

Technically he did. Upon Robert's death, Stannis immediately became the rightful king by law, and Robb was declared King in the North after this happened. Even after Stannis proclaimed himself king to the rest of the kingdom, Robb still continued to style himself as king. That's by definition treason, regardless of whether you think Robb had good reason to do it.

 

39 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

This betrayal broke the social contract between kings and their subjects: so Robb Stark is not wrong for seceding from the Seven Kingdoms and warring against the Lannisters

He was certainly justified in fighting against the Lannisters, yes. Stannis acknowledges this. But where he erred - according to Stannis - was in refusing to then recogonise Stannis as the rightful king of the Seven Kingdoms. Stannis did not consider Robb a traitor for fighting the Lannisters, but merely for not also recognising Stannis as the rightful king. Different issues.

 

41 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

How do you think Catelyn and Eddard and Jon and Sansa and Arya and Bran would feel knowing that Stannis had used bloodmagic to curse Robb Stark?

Eddard would have urged Robb to recognise Stannis as the rightful king, as Eddard himself did before being captured. As for what the others thought, that's irrelevant. We're not talking about the personal feelings of the Stark family, but about the legitimacy of Robb and Stannis's crowns, and their dispute.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but the disregard works in both directions. Ramsay thinks a southern man is ineffective in the snows. The match is even. Both sides will be depleted and the white walkers will meet little resistance.  The north will be a battle ground. The Crows against the wildlings at the wall. Bolton fighting Stannis in Winterfell. Jon Snow and his fellow wights will control the north. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, WhatAnArtist! said:

Why would he do this? Because he's upset that he lost? Even if that was the case, I'd imagine he'd sooner kill himself than join the Others. Stannis is one of the very few characters that fully realises the threat that the Others pose.

Totally. Stannis as a 'reincarnated Night King' is metaphoric. Same as Jon, same as anyone who appears to temporarily wear the mantle. I believe that people suggesting that Jon or Stannis or Beric or whoever will fully become some new night king are 1) too influenced by the Tv show and it's need to have a character in that role and 2) taking the metaphors too far.

Now maybe a character in the story will see the parallels as well and make the accusation that a specific character has become a new night king, but that won't necessarily make it so. I suspect that in that scenario the 'Evil-meter TMwill rank the accuser higher than the accused

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as a fan of the Mannis I really really hope Stannis wins the upcoming battle of ice(night lamp theory).... but it would be hilarious if he gets BTFO'd by the likes of Ramsay. The look on Stannis's fans faces would be epic!

Edited by Falcon2909
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/21/2021 at 12:14 PM, WhatAnArtist! said:

Until Martin actually provides some sliver of depth and complexity for the Others, they have to be viewed in the way that the series has portrayed them thus far, not by whatever assumptions or theories readers have about what they might actually be like.

 

Martin has provided a sliver of depth and complexity for the Others.

There's how they acted in the Prologue, how the Others had an arrangement with Craster and how one of the Others reacted to Samwell Tarly. There's also the fact that they haven't attacked the Wall yet (when it's within their ability to do so) and the whole story of the Night King who had married an Other.

On 10/21/2021 at 12:14 PM, WhatAnArtist! said:

I don't give two damns what you like or don't like.

 

Okay?

Edited by BlackLightning
Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...