Could Renly have stayed neutral?

[frenin]

13 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

Really could have stayed neutral personally, but the Tyrells wanted a Queen.

Nah he couldn't the Tyrells going to whomever offered them a crown only made his neutrality more impossible.

[DominusNovus]

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

Nah he couldn't the Tyrells going to whomever offered them a crown only made his neutrality more impossible.

Why does it make his neutrality more impossible? It does present an opportunity for someone to split the Renly/Tyrell bloc, but it doesn't make it impossible. For example, Renly could be inclined to side with Stannis (perhaps Stannis grudgingly offers him a better deal than in canon) and Lannister agents offer Joffrey/Margaery to the Tyrells. However, in this case, I'd imagine that Renly just sticks with the Tyrells and supports the Lannisters, with whatever they can add to sweeten the pot for Renly.

In the long term, neutrality is impossible, yes. But neutrality while you hold out for the best deal, thats certainly an option.

[Lord Varys]

40 minutes ago, DominusNovus said:

Why does it make his neutrality more impossible? It does present an opportunity for someone to split the Renly/Tyrell bloc, but it doesn't make it impossible. For example, Renly could be inclined to side with Stannis (perhaps Stannis grudgingly offers him a better deal than in canon) and Lannister agents offer Joffrey/Margaery to the Tyrells. However, in this case, I'd imagine that Renly just sticks with the Tyrells and supports the Lannisters, with whatever they can add to sweeten the pot for Renly.

In the long term, neutrality is impossible, yes. But neutrality while you hold out for the best deal, thats certainly an option.

Here you have to keep in mind that Renly is leading the Tyrells and the Reach around by the nose, not vice versa. Loras loves and worships Renly ... not necessarily the other way around (I think Renly loved Loras, too, but we don't know to what degree nor whether Renly was a faithful lover). And via Loras Renly has the ear of Mace Tyrell. That's what makes the original Robert-Margaery plot possible ... and it is also what led to Renly's attempt to seize the throne.

Renly used the Tyrells and their bannermen for his plans, not the other way around. It was certainly part of the deal that Margaery wed Renly, but we don't know who suggested or insisted on that. I expect that Renly suggested it to ensure the world knew the houses were now united since he couldn't possible marry Loras ... and even if he could have, as king he needed heirs, so he needed a wife.

The idea that in context and after the Mountain's behavior at the Tourney of the Hand the Lannisters would have had success in winning the Tyrells to their side is very low. Not while Renly was still out there, regardless whether he wanted to wear a crown or not.

We also don't know why Renly ended up being so popular with so many Reach lords and knights ... but part of the reason might have been the Lannister hatred in the Reach going back to the Sack. Renly was still a child at that time, not involved in the war, so he certainly is better pretender material than Robert's Lannister children or Stannis.

Renly himself seems to think along those lines, expecting Dorne to side with him.

In that sense, the idea that a Lannister overture trying to drive a wedge between Renly and the Tyrells would have been very difficult, if not impossible.

Even more so if Renly had married Margaery himself ... without crowning himself at the same time.

Mace's ambition to make Margaery queen seems to be a notion he developed only after the Renly plan failed. He thought his daughter was the queen ... and then she wasn't and he wanted to correct that. Before Renly's kingship Mace is not directly involved in an attempt to make Margaery queen since it actually are Renly and Loras who push Mace to send Margaery to court so she can seduce Robert. This isn't a plan Mace Tyrell came up with.

And, of course, we also do know that Olenna never supported the Renly plan, nor was she keen about the Lannister alliance. If the Lannisters showed up trying to convince the Tyrells to side with them against Stannis or the Stark/Tullys she and others at Highgarden wouldn't have been keen to do this.

In our scenario, though, we would talk about a setting where Renly and Loras are at Highgarden after the flight from the capital. They just don't crown Renly there (or at all). So Renly and Loras would be right there when a Lannister envoy showed up, meaning Renly would have to be included in all the negotiations, anyway.

[frenin]

1 hour ago, DominusNovus said:

Why does it make his neutrality more impossible? It does present an opportunity for someone to split the Renly/Tyrell bloc, but it doesn't make it impossible.

Because it means that whomever gets the Tyells gain a massive advantage over the rest of the pretenders... and Reny isn't on either side good graces.

 

1 hour ago, DominusNovus said:

For example, Renly could be inclined to side with Stannis (perhaps Stannis grudgingly offers him a better deal than in canon)

Putting aside the fact that Renly  does not view Stannis as a viable candidate... Renly siding with Stannis means that he's abandoning neutrality.

 

 

1 hour ago, DominusNovus said:

in this case, I'd imagine that Renly just sticks with the Tyrells and supports the Lannisters, with whatever they can add to sweeten the pot for Renly

The reason why Renly doesn't stick with the Lannisters is because he doesn't trust them in power and he correctly guess that they want him dead. Siding with them isn't an option.

 

 

1 hour ago, DominusNovus said:

In the long term, neutrality is impossible, yes. But neutrality while you hold out for the best deal, thats certainly an option.

Which he did... The best deal for him was marrying Margaery and seizing the deal for himself.

But you yourself understand that neutrality was never an option so...

 

 

 

[DominusNovus]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Here you have to keep in mind that Renly is leading the Tyrells and the Reach around by the nose, not vice versa. Loras loves and worships Renly ... not necessarily the other way around (I think Renly loved Loras, too, but we don't know to what degree nor whether Renly was a faithful lover). And via Loras Renly has the ear of Mace Tyrell. That's what makes the original Robert-Margaery plot possible ... and it is also what led to Renly's attempt to seize the throne.

Renly used the Tyrells and their bannermen for his plans, not the other way around. It was certainly part of the deal that Margaery wed Renly, but we don't know who suggested or insisted on that. I expect that Renly suggested it to ensure the world knew the houses were now united since he couldn't possible marry Loras ... and even if he could have, as king he needed heirs, so he needed a wife.

The idea that in context and after the Mountain's behavior at the Tourney of the Hand the Lannisters would have had success in winning the Tyrells to their side is very low. Not while Renly was still out there, regardless whether he wanted to wear a crown or not.

We also don't know why Renly ended up being so popular with so many Reach lords and knights ... but part of the reason might have been the Lannister hatred in the Reach going back to the Sack. Renly was still a child at that time, not involved in the war, so he certainly is better pretender material than Robert's Lannister children or Stannis.

Renly himself seems to think along those lines, expecting Dorne to side with him.

In that sense, the idea that a Lannister overture trying to drive a wedge between Renly and the Tyrells would have been very difficult, if not impossible.

Even more so if Renly had married Margaery himself ... without crowning himself at the same time.

Mace's ambition to make Margaery queen seems to be a notion he developed only after the Renly plan failed. He thought his daughter was the queen ... and then she wasn't and he wanted to correct that. Before Renly's kingship Mace is not directly involved in an attempt to make Margaery queen since it actually are Renly and Loras who push Mace to send Margaery to court so she can seduce Robert. This isn't a plan Mace Tyrell came up with.

And, of course, we also do know that Olenna never supported the Renly plan, nor was she keen about the Lannister alliance. If the Lannisters showed up trying to convince the Tyrells to side with them against Stannis or the Stark/Tullys she and others at Highgarden wouldn't have been keen to do this.

In our scenario, though, we would talk about a setting where Renly and Loras are at Highgarden after the flight from the capital. They just don't crown Renly there (or at all). So Renly and Loras would be right there when a Lannister envoy showed up, meaning Renly would have to be included in all the negotiations, anyway.

I'm not sure about that analysis. I think it deprives the Tyrells of agency, apart from Olenna.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

But you yourself understand that neutrality was never an option so...

Thats not what I said. I said it doesn't work in the long term. Staying neutral long enough to extra concessions from two warring sides - which is what I said from the very beginning - is an option. I used the example of Renly favoring Stannis over Joffrey just to illustrate a potential rift between him and the Tyrells, and to show that, even in that case, he'd likely stick with the Tyrell choice of Joffrey.

[mormont]

8 minutes ago, DominusNovus said:

Staying neutral long enough to extra concessions from two warring sides - which is what I said from the very beginning - is an option.

Only if those sides regard neutrality as one of your options. In this case, both sides (Stannis and the Lannisters) were noted for adopting a 'if you're not for us, you're against us' approach: Stannis explicitly says this more than once.

[frenin]

17 minutes ago, DominusNovus said:

Thats not what I said. I said it doesn't work in the long term. Staying neutral long enough to extra concessions from two warring sides - which is what I said from the very beginning - is an option. I used the example of Renly favoring Stannis over Joffrey just to illustrate a potential rift between him and the Tyrells, and to show that, even in that case, he'd likely stick with the Tyrell choice of Joffrey.

It's not an option, both sides wanted Renly involved. 

Stannis wanted Renly's army and he would get that army with either his support or his death, the Lannisters outright wanted Renly dead and the whole reason  why Renly suggests to Ned to coup their way to power, first, and then outright crowns himseld, second, is because he doesn't trust thm with power . Neutrality was thus not an option for Renly.

 

 

13 minutes ago, mormont said:

Only if those sides regard neutrality as one of your options. In this case, both sides (Stannis and the Lannisters) were noted for adopting a 'if you're not for us, you're against us' approach: Stannis explicitly says this more than once.

Indeed, even Tywin made it clear that he was going to "deal with Robert's brothers", granted Renly had already rebelled by then but Stannis hadn't and he was already included in the chopping block and whereas Tywin regrets the idiocy of killing Ned, which ended any chance of getting a peace deal with the North, he never entertains such thing with the Baratheons.

Seems to me that both the Baratheon brothers and the Lannisters were waiting for Robert to die to eliminate the other faction, luckily for the Lannisters, the Baratheon aren't team players.

[Lord Varys]

2 minutes ago, DominusNovus said:

I'm not sure about that analysis. I think it deprives the Tyrells of agency, apart from Olenna.

Well, it is what the text of AGoT implies. Renly and Loras push the Margaery plan - Mace and the other Tyrells care so less about things that neither they nor Margaery even attend the Tourney of the Hand.

That's not a sign that they are deeply involved or have a strong agenda at that point. And even with Renly's campaign - only Loras and Margaery are with Renly. Garlan and Willas and Mace stayed behind, along with most or all of the uncles/cousins.

To me, that's sufficient evidence that the anti-Renly faction at Highgarden represented by Olenna wasn't *that* weak. Mace was convinced or pushed to keep his family in a position where they could make a separate peace with the Iron Throne if Renly were to fail. I imagine that Willas Tyrell was also no supporter of the Renly adventure.

Perhaps Margaery and Loras might have to be sacrificed or tarnished ... but not the house itself. Which could have been the case if they had gone all in by having most of their people with Renly's army.

I mean, part of the reason why the Tyrells can make their peace with the Lannisters is because Mace isn't with the army and Loras takes Margaery back to Highgarden.

10 minutes ago, mormont said:

Only if those sides regard neutrality as one of your options. In this case, both sides (Stannis and the Lannisters) were noted for adopting a 'if you're not for us, you're against us' approach: Stannis explicitly says this more than once.

Stannis takes such an approach to Renly 'as long as he calls himself king'. Not in general.

And Tywin just expects that he will have to deal with Robert's brothers. If Renly had instead behaved more or less like Lysa Arryn or Doran Martell Tywin wouldn't have attacked him. Even Cersei wouldn't have insisted on his destruction. The woman is hot-headed and vengeful but she can see reason. She also made peace with the Tyrells after Renly's death, so if Renly never actually opposed Joff and/or ended up helping them against Stannis and the Starks/Tullys she wouldn't have attacked him openly.

She might have still dreamed about getting him out of the way, with schemes and the like, like she wants to push the Tyrells out in AFfC. But not by declaring open war on him.

[Trigger Warning]

6 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 

Stannis takes such an approach to Renly 'as long as he calls himself king'. Not in general.

This is absolutely not true he considers anyone that doesn't acknowledge him as king an enemy. 

“The Iron Throne is mine by rights. All those who deny that are my foes.”

Where is the possibility of neutrality in that. 

[DominusNovus]

44 minutes ago, mormont said:

Only if those sides regard neutrality as one of your options. In this case, both sides (Stannis and the Lannisters) were noted for adopting a 'if you're not for us, you're against us' approach: Stannis explicitly says this more than once.

You say its not an option, but both accepted the support of plenty of nobles who not only weren't neutral, but were explicitly aligned with the other side. Stannis accepted many of Renly's previous supporters, as well as various Northern lords who not only backed the wrong king, but a secessionist one, at that! Meanwhile, the Lannisters accepted the entire Reach contingent after they tried to put Renly on the throne.

9 minutes ago, Trigger Warning said:

This is absolutely not true he considers anyone that doesn't acknowledge him as king an enemy. 

“The Iron Throne is mine by rights. All those who deny that are my foes.”

Where is the possibility of neutrality in that. 

The possibility in the "I'm not sure who is king, you both make compelling arguments. Make a compelling argument to me, and I'll support you." Lets not forget that Stannis also said:
 

Quote

"It was justice," Stannis said. "A good act does not wash out the bad, nor a bad act the good. Each should have its own reward. You were a hero and a smuggler." He glanced behind at Lord Florent and the others, rainbow knights and turncloaks, who were following at a distance. "These pardoned lords would do well to reflect on that. Good men and true will fight for Joffrey, wrongly believing him the true king. A northman might even say the same of Robb Stark. But these lords who flocked to my brother's banners knew him for a usurper. They turned their backs on their rightful king for no better reason than dreams of power and glory, and I have marked them for what they are. Pardoned them, yes. Forgiven. But not forgotten."

He explicitly says he'll pardon those that come over to his side and forgive them. He just won't trust any that supported Renly because it was obvious that Renly was a usurper no matter whose claim they thought was best. I don't recall him explicitly heaping scorn on anyone who is not sure who they're supposed to fight for. There is a world of difference between denying Stannis' right to rule and not being sure if Stannis or Joffrey is the true claimant. One is saying "I know you are not the king" and the other is saying "I do not know who is the king."

[Lord Varys]

28 minutes ago, Trigger Warning said:

This is absolutely not true he considers anyone that doesn't acknowledge him as king an enemy. 

“The Iron Throne is mine by rights. All those who deny that are my foes.”

Where is the possibility of neutrality in that. 

Yes, and that's why he killed all the folks who followed Renly.

I mean, yes, Stannis does not like it that folks don't suck up to him and his pretensions of kingship. But if Renly had not declared himself king Stannis would have sent him one of his letters and then Renly could or would have either joined Stannis or he would have stayed neutral. Eventually Stannis would have demanded submission and a recognition of his kingship - but that wouldn't have been his top priority while there were other real enemies in the field.

Our scenario is Renly staying neutral when the war began and then considering his options and siding with whatever side were willing to give him the best terms.

Again - Joffrey, Stannis, and the Starks/Tullys would have all been in need of Renly's support. Robb sends Cat to 'King Renly' in the books ... they would have also sent someone to Lord Renly at Highgarden if he hadn't crowned himself there.

One look in the histories also confirms that it is quite unusual in Westeros to punish or attack (high) lords who stayed neutral in a conflict. That actually happens never. And most of the time people who declared for the losing side are also welcomed back into the King's Peace if they do submit.

Say, Renly ends up in camp Lannister or camp Stannis ... nobody would kill him if his side lost and he bend the knee to the victor. He would be one of many decent people who thought they were supporting the rightful king and eventually recognized their error.

The only folks who can expect executions and attainders are the leaders of such rebellions - and Renly simply wouldn't be such a guy in this scenario.

[DominusNovus]

Another angle we keep on ignoring is how the actual canonically neutral lords are treated - what do Stannis and the Lannisters do to Lysa Arryn and Doran Martell? Try to win over their support, diplomatically.

The only difference here is that Renly is brother to one claimant and (seen as) uncle to another. That is a complication, certainly, but it cuts both ways: each side is asking Renly to side against close kin, in the eyes of Westeros at large.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, DominusNovus said:

You say its not an option, but both accepted the support of plenty of nobles who not only weren't neutral, but were explicitly aligned with the other side.

... after they had been defeated. And how is this inconsistent with the position being 'if you're not for us, you're against us'?

Those lords were against Stannis, then they were for him. At no point did he consider them, or anyone else, neutral. He, and the Lannisters, are happy to accept fealty from defeated foes. But that is a long, long way from being an argument for them accepting the possibility of Renly being neutral.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, DominusNovus said:

Another angle we keep on ignoring is how the actual canonically neutral lords are treated - what do Stannis and the Lannisters do to Lysa Arryn and Doran Martell? Try to win over their support, diplomatically.

The only difference here is that Renly is brother to one claimant and (seen as) uncle to another. That is a complication, certainly, but it cuts both ways: each side is asking Renly to side against close kin, in the eyes of Westeros at large.

In context, unrelated folks like Lysa and Doran should be in a worse position than a member of the royal family.

True enough, with the twincest and all Renly would be a potential rival to Cersei's children - but in our scenario Stannis sends his letters and then the truth is out. Renly either believes the story and joins Stannis or he does not believe it (or pretends he doesn't believe it) and eventually joins the Lannisters.

If he joined Stannis he could be expected to be Stannis presumptive heir until the man produced a son (which is not likely to happen), if he joins the Lannisters he could, perhaps, even expect Myrcella's hand.

But we can also look at the downside:

In what kind of scenario is it imaginable that anyone would actually command the execution of one of King Robert's brothers for the crime of being confused as to who was the rightful king. That makes no sense at all. Even if Renly was guilty of treason he could expect - demand, even - to be pardoned for his crime due to his high birth and the bad precedent something like that would set. There is no indication that a king ever executed or even accused and tried a brother or uncle with royal blood.

I mean, even Stannis was willing to forgive Renly his coronation and usurpation. He certainly would forgive him for falling in with the wrong people or making a wrong call if he didn't commit the ultimate sin (usurpation) himself.

55 minutes ago, mormont said:

... after they had been defeated. And how is this inconsistent with the position being 'if you're not for us, you're against us'?

Those lords were against Stannis, then they were for him. At no point did he consider them, or anyone else, neutral. He, and the Lannisters, are happy to accept fealty from defeated foes. But that is a long, long way from being an argument for them accepting the possibility of Renly being neutral.

That's just too broad a view. Yes, Stannis doesn't view the people who didn't declare for him as his friends. They are his enemies. But there are enemies and enemies. There are irrelevant enemies like the Lords of the Vale or the Dornishmen who just didn't do anything ... and then there are relevant and dangerous enemies who actually took up arms against Stannis.

There is also a difference in degree - crowning yourself and becoming a pretender for the throne is worse treason than merely fighting for a pretender. The former is harder to forgive than the latter.

Basically ... Dorne and Lysa weren't Stannis' enemies at all. If they had agreed to swear fealty to a victorious Stannis nothing would have changed. It would have been more or less as if they had been with him from the start.

After all, the man could only punish them if he insisted on continuing the war - or rather: start a new one.

Not to mention that this doesn't fit with a succession war setting. The price is the throne and the crown - the recognition of the people that you are the rightful king. Not the eradication of certain members of the nobility. No king could rule in this world if he were to ignore basic traits of how the feudal system worked.

That doesn't mean that Stannis wouldn't have been capable to sideline and harass and humiliate craven lords who stayed neutral (too long). He might go further than, say, Hoster Tully went in relation to Walder Frey. But he could not risk starting actual wars over relatively trivial issues. Stannis would already have his hands full destroying his actual enemies - namely such men and women who actually took up arms against him. They - or some of them at least - might not be welcomed back into the King's Peace.

I mean, I certainly could see Stannis actually decreeing the destruction of Casterly Rock, commanding that thousands and thousands of men work decades griding the Rock down to rabble ... after Stannis has killed and attainted most, if not all, Lannisters of Casterly Rock and Lannisport.

[DominusNovus]

47 minutes ago, mormont said:

... after they had been defeated. And how is this inconsistent with the position being 'if you're not for us, you're against us'?

Those lords were against Stannis, then they were for him. At no point did he consider them, or anyone else, neutral. He, and the Lannisters, are happy to accept fealty from defeated foes. But that is a long, long way from being an argument for them accepting the possibility of Renly being neutral.

I really don't see how any of this follows. Your argument requires Stannis and/or Tywin to be more accepting of those that fought him before joining him, rather than those that didn't fight him before joining him. I suppose you can say that, at least those that fought were willing to take a chance and earn some grudging respect for being willing to fight for what they were after.

 

35 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

In context, unrelated folks like Lysa and Doran should be in a worse position than a member of the royal family.

True enough, with the twincest and all Renly would be a potential rival to Cersei's children - but in our scenario Stannis sends his letters and then the truth is out. Renly either believes the story and joins Stannis or he does not believe them (or pretends he doesn't believe them) and eventually joins the Lannisters.

If he joined Stannis he could be expected to be Stannis presumptive heir until the man produced a son (which is not likely to happen), if he joins the Lannisters he could, perhaps, even expect Myrcella's hand.

But we can also look at the downside:

In what kind of scenario is it imaginable that anyone would actually command the execution of one of King Robert's brother for the crime of being confused as to who was the rightful king. That makes no sense at all. Even if Renly was guilty of treason he could expect - demand, even - to be pardoned for his crime due to his high birth and the bad precedent something like that would set. There is no indication that a king ever executed or even accused and tried a brother or uncle with royal blood.

I mean, even Stannis was willing to forgive Renly his coronation and usurpation. He certainly would forgive him falling in with the wrong people or making a wrong call if didn't commit the ultimate sin (usurpation) himself.

That's just too broad a view. Yes, Stannis doesn't view the people who didn't declare for him as his friends. They are his enemies. But they are enemies and enemies. There are irrelevant enemies like the Lords of the Vale or the Dornishmen who just didn't do anything ... and then there are relevant and dangerous enemies who actually took up arms against Stannis.

There is also a difference in degree - crowning yourself and becoming a pretender for the throne is worse treason than merely fighting for a pretender. The former is harder to forgive than the latter.

Basically ... Dorne and Lysa weren't Stannis' enemies at all. If they had agreed to swear fealty to a victorious Stannis nothing would have changed. It would have been more or less as if they had been with him from the start.

After all, the man could only punish them if he insisted on continuing the war - or rather: start a new one.

Not to mention that this doesn't fit with a succession war setting. The price is the throne and the crown - the recognition of the people that you are the rightful king. Not the eradication of certain members of the nobility. No king could rule in this world if he were to ignore basic traits of how the feudal system worked.

That doesn't mean that Stannis wouldn't have been capable to sideline and harass and humiliate craven lords who stayed neutral (too long). He might go further than, say, Hoster Tully went in relation to Walder Frey. But he could not risk starting actual wars over relatively trivial issues. Stannis would already have his hands full destroying his actual enemies - namely such men and women who actually took arms against him. They - or some of them at least - might not be welcomed back into the King's Peace.

I mean, I certainly could see Stannis actually decreeing the destruction of Casterly Rock, commanding that thousands and thousands of men work decades griding the Rock down to rabble ... after Stannis has killed and attainted most, if not all, Lannisters of Casterly Rock and Lannisport.

I don't even know why I bother!

...

You make my argument better than I do!

[mormont]

1 hour ago, DominusNovus said:

I really don't see how any of this follows. Your argument requires Stannis and/or Tywin to be more accepting of those that fought him before joining him, rather than those that didn't fight him before joining him.

No. My argument isn't even an argument, it's simply stating what the books actually say.

Both Stannis and Tywin are clear that they do not see any difference between Renly fighting against them and Renly being 'neutral'. You can't be 'neutral' and negotiate a deal if your opponents regard you as a traitor and an enemy.

Saying that the combatants were willing to accept defeated enemies as allies is a complete non sequitur in this discussion. It has nothing to do with the suggestion that Renly could have adopted a position of neutrality. We are told that Stannis and the Lannisters demand his fealty and would regard anything less as treason. Neutrality was not on the table.

ETA - what this 'neutrality' idea appears to be, is yet another attempt to invent a justification for why Renly is Bad and Wrong for declaring for the crown. In order for that to be true, he has to have had other viable options. So people spend time trying to think of one. But this one just doesn't work at all, I'm afraid.

[DominusNovus]

3 hours ago, mormont said:

No. My argument isn't even an argument, it's simply stating what the books actually say.

Both Stannis and Tywin are clear that they do not see any difference between Renly fighting against them and Renly being 'neutral'. You can't be 'neutral' and negotiate a deal if your opponents regard you as a traitor and an enemy.

 

When are they clear? Show me explicit text.

[Lord Varys]

27 minutes ago, DominusNovus said:

When are they clear? Show me explicit text.

I don't recall any such passages. What is there is Tywin declaring that he expect(ed) to deal with Robert's brothers - and we have textual evidence that Cersei wished she had dealt with Renly and Stannis before removing Robert. But that is both vague (I for one think Cersei intended to ruin or disgrace Stannis and Renly, not murder them - that would have been far too suspicious) and irrelevant in the context of our discussion here.

We think about scenario where Renly Baratheon flees court as he does ... but simply doesn't crown himself king. Instead he calls his banners, spends time with his buddies at Highgarden ... and marches nowhere.

In no realistic scenario in the world is this going to cause both Stannis and the Lannisters to antagonize or try to destroy Renly and his (apparent) allies.

If you go with such ridiculous scenario you could just as well insist that Tywin and Stannis intended to drown Dorne and the Vale in blood for their 'treason'. Because they would have done exactly what Renly does in our hypothetical scenario. Instead, Lysa and Doran were actually rewarded for their inaction and cowardice.

I do recall lots of passages were Stannis and others declared folks their enemies and then they worked with them.

It is ridiculous to assume Renly of all people was the one guy Stannis and the Lannisters could not compromise with. Stannis compromised with the Stormlords, the bloody Florents, the treasonous Northmen who did homage to a boy king Stannis wanted to see dead (and who Stannis hypocritically no longer denounces as a foul traitor after he arrived in the North).

And Tywin (tries to) placate(s) Lysa Arryn, Doran Martell, even Wyman Manderly. He names Roose Bolton Warden of the North and has his monstrous bastard legitimized and marries him to 'Arya Stark' - Roose Bolton, a man who took up arms against Tywin and his army at the Green Fork.

The idea that Tywin would actually try to destroy a duplicitous or cowardly Renly in light of what Renly is - a great lord and member of the extended royal family - when he treated Roose and Walder and many other scum the way he did really makes no sense at all.

Sure, neither Tywin nor Stannis might make Renly their new best friend in that scenario. But they wouldn't want to kill him. And they might even reward more than anybody else if Renly had played a crucial role in helping their side to win.

We know what rewards the Tyrells reaped in the wake of the Blackwater. What do you think would have happened if 'Renly's ghost' had actually been Renly in the flesh, butchering Stannis' men in the name of King Joffrey? He would have been the savior of the city, not bloody Tywin.

[Hugorfonics]

29 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is ridiculous to assume Renly of all people was the one guy Stannis and the Lannisters could not compromise with

With Lannister, specifically Tywin, definitely. It's ludicrous to think Tywin will look for enemies while he's knee deep in the Riverlands and Robbs at his home butchering his brother. 

In fact we see Tywin respond to the real threat of Mance and the compromise with Balon, by doing nothing. This seems to be his strategy with Renly as well, crowned or neutral.

 

Stannis is a different ballgame. (I don't see what more he could have compromised with Renly about, he reaffirmed Renly as lord of Stormsend and heir. Did he want to be hand or something?) Renly must submit or be destroyed, and the only option of not being destroyed (without giving in to Stannis) is to give his men something to fight about.

Dragonstone is not enough to conquer seven kingdoms, he needs one of the og kingdoms for that. His natural destination must be the Stormlands, to fight with his ancestors subjects like a proper Baratheon. Plus it's close.

I really just find it impossible for Stannis to assault Kingslanding while the storm knights simply pass around the popcorn

[frenin]

8 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

With Lannister, specifically Tywin, definitely. It's ludicrous to think Tywin will look for enemies while he's knee deep in the Riverlands and Robbs at his home butchering his brother. 

And yet Tywin was talking about destroying the Baratheons anyway and so were his daughter and grandkid. Tywin laments not getting his peace deal with the Starks but such offer is never even discussed with the Baratheons.

At any point of the story do either the Baratheon brothers or the Lannisters want to negotiate.

 

8 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

(I don't see what more he could have compromised with Renly about, he reaffirmed Renly as lord of Stormsend and heir. Did he want to be hand or something?

That's not a compromise tho, he gave Renly things he already had or was, he made Renly heir presumptive anyway.

But I do agree with you that with Stannis neutrality was never really an option since he was after Renly's men anyway.

 

@DominusNovus

 

Quote

Lord Tywin seated himself. "You have the right of it about Stark. Alive, we might have used Lord Eddard to forge a peace with Winterfell and Riverrun, a peace that would have given us the time we need to deal with Robert's brothers. Dead …" His hand curled into a fist. "Madness. Rank madness."

 

Quote

It came to her suddenly that she had stood in this very spot before, on the day Lord Eddard Stark had lost his head. That was not supposed to happen. Joff was supposed to spare his life and send him to the Wall. Stark's eldest son would have followed him as Lord of Winterfell, but Sansa would have stayed at court, a hostage. Varys and Littlefinger had worked out the terms, and Ned Stark had swallowed his precious honor and confessed his treason to save his daughter's empty little head. I would have made Sansa a good marriage. A Lannister marriage. Not Joff, of course, but Lancel might have suited, or one of his younger brothers. Petyr Baelish had offered to wed the girl himself, she recalled, but of course that was impossible; he was much too lowborn. If Joff had only done as he was told, Winterfell would never have gone to war, and Father would have dealt with Robert's brothers.
Instead Joff had commanded that Stark's head be struck off, and Lord Slynt and Ser Ilyn Payne had hastened to obey. It was just there, the queen recalled, gazing at the spot. Janos Slynt had lifted Ned Stark's head by the hair as his life's blood flowed down the steps, and after that there was no turning back.

 

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. The other heads had been dead and mounted much longer than her father. Despite the tar, most were long past being recognizable. The king pointed to one and said, "That's your septa there," but Sansa could not even have told that it was a woman. The jaw had rotted off her face, and birds had eaten one ear and most of a cheek.

 

The Lannisters are making their statement perfectly clear, they were willing to negotiate with anyone but Robert's brothers, this is not debatable, they are making their intentions clear. People can debate and speculate about what drove the brothers and the Lannisters to such point but it's not debatable that the Lannisters would have never accepted either brother alive. That's the whole reason why Renly first urges Ned a coup to drive the Lannisters away of the throne and then goes for taking the throne for himself and eliminating the Lannisters right away.

 

 

For Stannis, his own bid to the throne hinged on his brother's allegiance or demise. Stannis coulld never accept that Renly kept the Stormlands out of the war and Renly's good grances with the Reach lords was the only realistic shot he had of getting them.

 

Quote

“Her flames do not lie. She saw Renly’s doom as well. On Dragonstone she saw it, and told Selyse. Lord Velaryon and your friend Salladhor Saan would have had me sail against Joffrey, but Melisandre told me that if I went to Storm’s End, I would win the best part of my brother’s power, and she was right.” “B-but,” Davos stammered, “Lord Renly only came here because you had laid siege to the castle. He was marching toward King’s Landing before, against the Lannisters, he would have—” Stannis shifted in his seat, frowning. “Was, would have, what is that? He did what he did. He came here with his banners and his peaches, to his doom … and it was well for me he did. Melisandre saw another day in her flames as well. A morrow where Renly rode out of the south in his green armor to smash my host beneath the walls of King’s Landing. Had I met my brother there, it might have been me who died in place of him.”

 

No, neutrality was not an option at the time for Renly, perhaps if Stannis had crowned himself inmediately and Robb had forced the Northmen and Rivermen to bend the knee to him, perhaps Renly could have gotten a good deal had he come to Stannis with the Stormlords and several Reach highlords, Stannis would feel far less urgency to kill hi to get his army as he would have a solid base to defy the Lannisters anyway... That's  not what happened tho.