Biggest sore loser in the saga ?

[Many-Faced Votary]

3 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Expecting any parent to 'let the matter pass' after their child is killed so despicably is ignorant at best and insulting at worst.

I don't think most people would be able to let something like that go if it were a sibling or a parent, but a child?

I'm not saying that we should excuse vile actions such as baking people into pies, but we can fully understand the need for revenge in such a charged situation, even if we abstractly understand that vengeance is a poison that ruins everything. And, of course, they would be fully entitled to justice regardless.

Edited February 19, 2023 by Many-Faced Votary

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, Many-Faced Votary said:

I'm not saying that we should excuse vile actions such as baking people into pies

The main issue I have with this, among other things, is that Wyman is knowing allowing other people to unwittingly consume human flesh (unless everyone is in on it). People should have the choice whether they want to be involved in the revenge scheme or not.

In all of these situations I believe them to be 'entitled' to see the murderer(s) executed, as that is how murderers are punished in Westeros (unless they choose to go to the Watch). Going beyond that by killing innocent people, or torturing, is, I believe, taking it too far (even if I can understand why they did it) and will probably invite karmic retribution.

[Many-Faced Votary]

2 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

The main issue I have with this, among other things, is that Wyman is knowing allowing other people to unwittingly consume human flesh (unless everyone is in on it). People should have the choice whether they want to be involved in the revenge scheme or not.

In all of these situations I believe them to be 'entitled' to see the murderer(s) executed, as that is how murderers are punished in Westeros (unless they choose to go to the Watch). Going beyond that by killing innocent people, or torturing, is, I believe, taking it too far (even if I can understand why they did it) and will probably invite karmic retribution.

Fully agreed with everything you said! I could only have put it worse.

I also don't intend to detract from your prior point about loyalty to one's king, either. It isn't nearly as compelling an argument for us, but we're considering characters as part of their society. The more "honorable" by the measure of Westerosi society a person is, the more that sort of thing means to them.

(Of course, these people won't recognize that Joffrey was a cruel and petty tyrant, or that Aerys II was so tyrannical that he needed to be deposed, and will pretend that they should have had that loyalty. But not the lords paramount they're also sworn to, I suppose.)

[Craving Peaches]

7 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

I also don't intend to detract from your prior point about loyalty to one's king, either. It isn't nearly as compelling an argument for us, but we're considering characters as part of their society. The more "honorable" by the measure of Westerosi society a person is, the more that sort of thing means to them.

Fully agree. And of course, the Freys killed all these people in the most dishonourable manner possible - giving them bread and salt to establish guest right, feasting with them as friends, and then slaughtering them while their guard was down and stabbing them in the back both literally and metaphorically. I made a post on the laws of Westeros and the 'sacred laws of hospitality' which the Freys broke are mentioned most frequently. Guest Right (along with Kinslaying) are one of the few rules everybody including the Wildlings agrees on. It is one of the fundamental pillars that keeps their society stable. And Walder broke it. So we have Walder violating sacred basic customary law, to kill Wyman's king and his son in a massive stab in the back. And then to add even more insult to injury those Freys make up ridiculous and derogatory stories to try and justify their despicable deed. Put it that way it's no wonder Wyman baked them into pies.

[Corvo the Crow]

Daenerys.

 

Quote evidence 

Quote

 

"Ah, there is the thorn in the bower, my queen," said Hizdahr zo Loraq. "Sad to say, Yunkai has no faith in your promises. They keep plucking the same string on the harp, about some envoy that your dragons set on fire."

"Only his tokar was burned," said Dany scornfully.

 

This is just a snippet, the entire dialogue with Hizdahr is a good representative of what Daenerys actually is.

Edited February 19, 2023 by Corvo the Crow

[Craving Peaches]

King Aerys. Planning to kill half a million innocents out of spite.

[kissdbyfire]

17 hours ago, Kierria said:

I don't like Wayman Manderly.  He sent his son to war and supported a rebellion.  His pretender king botched the war and got his followers killed.  Wayman refuses to let the matter pass and murders the Freys.  He feasted on their flesh.  Sickening. 

How interesting, another of your fellow TARGAs talks about this same character.  I’ll ask you the same question I asked him… is this the love child of Waymar Royce and Wyman Manderly? 

[Many-Faced Votary]

42 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Quote evidence 

I'm not really sure what you think this demonstrates. How dare Dany demonstrate scorn for slavers lying about her harming envoys?

 

Let's see what happened:

“I say, you are mad.”

“Am I?” Dany shrugged, and said, “Dracarys.”

The dragons answered. Rhaegal hissed and smoked, Viserion snapped, and Drogon spat swirling red-black flame. It touched the drape of Grazdan’s tokar, and the silk caught in half a heartbeat. Golden marks spilled across the carpets as the envoy stumbled over the chest, shouting curses and beating at his arm until Whitebeard flung a flagon of water over him to douse the flames. “You swore I should have safe conduct! “ the Yunkish envoy wailed.

“Do all the Yunkai’i whine so over a singed tokar? I shall buy you a new one … if you deliver up your slaves within three days. Elsewise, Drogon shall give you a warmer kiss.”

Daenerys IV, A Storm of Swords

Strong Belwas drew his arakh. “Strong Belwas will give his ugly tongue to the little queen, if she likes.”

“No, Belwas. I have given these men my safe conduct.”

Daenerys IV, A Storm of Swords

Sounds a lot like she upholds deals and guarantees safe conduct when promised! Looks a lot like she engaged in intimidation, a very common tactic that everyone with power, including Jon and Ned, use -- or I guess they're also "sore losers" who show what they "actually are" by using tools at their disposal.

 

Meanwhile, this is how Dany treats someone who spat in her face in court, an offense that most rulers would execute people for in this world:

“We are all dead, then. You gave us death, not freedom.” Ghael leapt to his feet and spat into her face.

Strong Belwas seized him by the shoulder and slammed him down onto the marble so hard that Dany heard Ghael’s teeth crack.

The Shavepate would have done worse, but she stopped him. “Enough,” she said, dabbing at her cheek with the end of her tokar. “No one has ever died from spittle. Take him away."

Daenerys III, A Dance with Dragons

This is how Dany responds to someone who tried to kill her:

I am queen over a city built on dust and death. Dany had no choice but to deny him. She had declared a blanket pardon for all crimes committed during the sack. Nor would she punish slaves for rising up against their masters.

When she told him, the boy rushed at her, but his feet tangled in his tokar and he went sprawling headlong on the purple marble. Strong Belwas was on him at once. The huge brown eunuch yanked him up one-handed and shook him like a mastiff with a rat. “Enough, Belwas,” Dany called. “Release him.” To the boy she said, “Treasure that tokar, for it saved your life. You are only a boy, so we will forget what happened here. You should do the same.” But as he left the boy looked back over his shoulder, and when she saw his eyes Dany thought, The Harpy has another Son.

Daenerys I, A Dance with Dragons

But I suppose these don't show what Dany "actually is" because they don't fit your narrative.

 

[Craving Peaches]

14 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Meanwhile, this is how Dany treats someone who spat in her face in court, an offense that most rulers would execute people for in this world:

Even IRL now spitting at someone counts as an assault so he could expect a fine or time in prison. Daenerys lets him go scott-free.

Edited February 19, 2023 by Craving Peaches

[Alester Florent]

On 2/17/2023 at 12:17 AM, Many-Faced Votary said:

 

I'm including this entire quote without because it is the best possible summary of Renly's character.  I won't bother with further quotes here or for your other points aside from the spoilers below, because it gets too lengthy and less about the actual analysis. But this chapter encapsulates what Renly is perfectly: truly vile, all style and no substance, but even with the style, unable to act nice for long.

He offers a fair critique of the principle of primogeniture, lists what he believes to be his qualifications for the job, and when Cat calls him out on a legitimate personality flaw, he laughs and accepts it.

I'm not seeing what you're seeing, especially on the "unable to act nice" front.

On 2/17/2023 at 12:17 AM, Many-Faced Votary said:

Mark the two clear indications in boldface that Renly fully expects Stannis, specifically, to die; there is no other way to take those words. 

There absolutely is, at least on the first one. When you surrender, you give up your sword. So if he wins, Renly can expect to get Stannis's sword whether Stannis lives or dies.

Now, Renly surely does expect Stannis to die, because he knows Stannis won't surrender and it's a battle where people die unless they flee or surrender. But while he doesn't seem that broken up about it, he doesn't seem thrilled either. He'd obviously rather sort all this without having to kill Stannis, which had been his original intention, but since Stannis has made it impossible for him to continue without killing him, he's prepared to do so.

On 2/17/2023 at 12:17 AM, Many-Faced Votary said:

His intention was to kill Stannis from the start, and he also is using this as a warning to the Starks by mistreating an envoy. 

His intention was to break the siege of Storm's End. He knows Stannis well enough to be all but certain, before he gives the order to move on Storm's End, that he'll have to kill Stannis to do so. But he doesn't go to Storm's End to kill Stannis. He accepts that he will probably have to kill Stannis in order to relieve Storm's End. There's a difference.

Moreover, every criticism you can level against Renly can be laid doubly at the feet of Stannis. Stannis instigated the conflict, attacking Storm's End specifically to bait Renly into coming after him so he could kill him. Renly intended to leave Stannis's fate to the vagaries of battle; Stannis used magic to be certain of killing him.

Perhaps neither brother comes away smelling of roses (figuratively; Renly may literally smell of roses one way or another) but any way you look at it in the fratricide stakes, Stannis comes off worse.

Temporarily refusing permission to leave (especially on the eve of battle when Cat is capable of going over to Stannis and disclosing sensitive information) is not mistreating an envoy. And he's made it clear that he's prepared to deal with Robb, but won't tolerate rebels and intends to demonstrate that. That's a reasonable position.

On 2/17/2023 at 12:17 AM, Many-Faced Votary said:

Stannis only responded in kind after Renly provoked him. And, no, there is no sane way to read Renly and Stannis as equivalent in the parley. Renly went into it with no intention to take it seriously and fully intending to kill Stannis. He was being flippant specifically to bait Stannis's temper and end any possibility of a truce, and the things of import he did say (e.g., offer of Storm's End) were purposely as insulting as possible.

Renly's first comment when he arrived about it was a facetious remark about how confusing it would be for both armies to have the same banner: he very obviously desired this battle, no ifs or buts about it.

All Renly offered Stannis was Storm's End in an extremely insulting manner, accompanied by a nasty rumor of Patchface being Shireen's father. He was blatantly not taking the parley seriously -- because his intention was for war, and to kill Stannis.

Shireen was Stannis's recognized heir at that point because Renly forfeited it as a traitor. Stannis offered him a blanket pardon, Storm's End and his old seat on the small council, and heirship until/unless he has a son  -- disinheriting his own daughter for his brother's sake.

It seems pretty settled law in Westeros that brothers take precedence over daughters when it comes to the Iron Throne (see: Aerea/Jaehaerys I; Rhaenys/Baelon; Daena/Viserys II; Daenora/Maekar). While there is always some room for argument, both sides know that if ever put to the test (with Stannis dead) Renly would become king in preference to Stannis's single, reclusive, heavily-scarred, weird-religion-following daughter. Stannis may have convinced himself he's being generous, but he is in practice conceding nothing but a return to the status quo ante bellum.

Again, we're talking about truce negotiations to end a war which Stannis started. Stannis is the one driving this conflict. Renly's entitled to tell him to do one in the peace negotiations. Instead he offers Stannis what he ostensibly wants: Storm's End, the castle he's always coveted and is currently besieging. But Stannis's war is ideologically driven and so he won't accept a practical solution.

I doubt it would have made a difference, but if Stannis were truly being upfront about this, he could have said "look, I've got this magician on my side and if we don't do a deal here she's going to kill you without the need for a battle." Renly probably wouldn't have taken him seriously, but at least Stannis would have given him a reason to. Instead Stannis makes it look like he's being suicidally stubborn, giving Renly no reason to take him seriously or make any concessions at all.

Could Renly have approached it more seriously? Maybe. But he knows it's probably a formality, and would being a bit more earnest about it have actually changed Stannis's mind? No.

On 2/17/2023 at 12:17 AM, Many-Faced Votary said:

There have been strong analyses on how Stannis could have won the battle outright. I won't bother to link them here, because it honestly doesn't even matter; Renly was a completely incompetent military commander. Catelyn IV in A Clash of Kings explores this in great detail.

Cat notes how Renly utterly failed strategy (no encircling movements) and logistics (outdistanced his supply lines -- note particularly, this was in his eagerness to come to battle with his brother, to kill him). Rely gave the van's command to his unqualified boyfriend instead of an experienced military commander. Stannis cleverly positioned his troops so that Renly would have to attack with the sun in his own troop's eyes if he charged after the sun rose, and he ignored his commanders informing him of this fact, intending to strike at daybreak.

I take all Cat's pronouncements on strategy and tactics with a very generous helping of salt, because she has no military training and experience herself. And how often does she actually get it right? She effectively starts the war by imprisoning Tyrion. Her two missions as envoy, to the Vale and Renly, end in dismal failure. She was the one who pushed Robb into assigning the eastern division to Roose Bolton, opening the door for Robb's most unreliable (Northern) vassal to betray him, where Robb had intended to give it to a devout loyalist. She released Jaime from prison, wrecking Robb's negotiating position with Tywin. She criticised Edmure for humane decisions which turned out to be perfectly valid.

I remember the Cat-hate threads that used to do the rounds, and didn't agree with them. But I think her apparently confident POV causes us to overestimate her competence and judgement. If we had someone like the Blackfish making these observations about Renly's army, I would take them more seriously, but all we really have is Cat.

Loras is one of the greatest knights in Westeros. Even Jaime Lannister has some respect for him. I wouldn't call him unqualified. He's not as experienced as Randyll Tarly, perhaps, but since this is expected to be an easy battle, why not give the vanguard command to your charismatic champion and son of your most important ally? Tarly is still available to command the rest of the army if the vanguard attack fails.

Edited February 20, 2023 by Adelstein

[Many-Faced Votary]

@Adelstein

That discussion was over as of this post. I would be willing have a conversation about Stannis and Renly in a vacuum, but [1] this thread is not about that subject; [2] I'd rather abide by the suggestion of the person I was originally debating with, as I promised; and [3] admittedly, it's not something I want to do at this very moment. If it's alright with you, can we agree to disagree for now?

[Aldarion]

On 2/16/2023 at 5:47 PM, Craving Peaches said:

• It's okay for him to betray his rightful king but it's not okay for anyone else to betray the rightful king when it's him, even if they have valid reasons. Stannis isn't right on Aerys' level but...
•  

To be fair, it was a choice between his king and his brother. And in feudal society especially, family will typically (always) take precedence over the government.

[Darth Sidious]

Jon is a sore loser. He could not leave the Starks behind and carried their war on his shoulders. 

[Many-Faced Votary]

Just now, Darth Sidious said:

Jon is a sore loser. He could not leave the Starks behind and carried their war on his shoulders. 

Then why didn't he abandon the Night's Watch after being brought back the first time, and why didn't he ride south until after receiving the Pink Letter, well after the Red Wedding?

[Minsc]

On 2/16/2023 at 6:17 PM, Many-Faced Votary said:

There have been strong analyses on how Stannis could have won the battle outright. I won't bother to link them here, because it honestly doesn't even matter; Renly was a completely incompetent military commander. Catelyn IV in A Clash of Kings explores this in great detail.

Cat notes how Renly utterly failed strategy (no encircling movements) and logistics (outdistanced his supply lines -- note particularly, this was in his eagerness to come to battle with his brother, to kill him). Rely gave the van's command to his unqualified boyfriend instead of an experienced military commander. Stannis cleverly positioned his troops so that Renly would have to attack with the sun in his own troop's eyes if he charged after the sun rose, and he ignored his commanders informing him of this fact, intending to strike at daybreak.

Stannis was in a very strong position because of Renly's incompetence.

Most of that analyses is garbage.  We have no idea if Renly's plans had any encircling movements as we don't actually see his strategy that he discussed with Tarly and Rowan.  The whole of the Stormlands are a supply line for Renly.  He literally only needs to send a messenger to a neighboring castle and he would be provided supplies.  Seriously, neither Robb or Tywin had supply-lines while in enemy territory and had no problem with their armies going hungery.  Loras being gay doesn't mean he can't fight or command men.  If you are complaining about Loras being unqualified I will point out how Stannis appointed the equally inexperienced Morrigen to lead his vanguard at Blackwater.  Don't forget Stannis's wonderful pick to lead his navy, so if anything Stannis has a worse reputation for picking his commanders.   The sun being in one's eyes doesn't negate the disadvantage of being outnumbered 4 to 1.

 

Stannis's incompetence was much more on display.

[Many-Faced Votary]

2 minutes ago, Minsc said:

Loras being gay doesn't mean he can't fight or command men. 

You can take your insinuation of homophobia on my part, as well as your implicit attempt to link criticism of Renly to homophobia, elsewhere, because I am not having this conversation.

[Minsc]

20 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

You can take your insinuation of homophobia on my part, as well as your implicit attempt to link criticism of Renly to homophobia, elsewhere, because I am not having this conversation.

My issue is the only difference between Loras and every other pick to command a vanguard is Loras's sexuality.  Stannis pick for his vanguard was just as green and inexperienced as Loras.  Tywin's pick, Garlan, for his vanguard at Blackwater was just as green and inexperienced as Loras.  Robert and Robb when first leading their vanguard were was just as green and inexperienced as Loras.  Seeing as Randyll Tarly is likely closer to Robert's and Ned's age than Tywin and Blackfish that he was likely just as green and inexperienced as Loras when he faced off against Robert.

Gregor is the only vanguard commander that might have had any experience before taking his command of his vanguard and he isn't one known for brains.  Not to mention, it isn't even known if he had fought in any major battles before the Green Fork.

Simply, there is no logic for people to make a big deal about Loras getting the command of the vanguard and I have it especially interesting how people try to emphasis that Loras was Renly's boyfriend when making that criticism.

 

Edit: However, I will apologize if it came off as I was intending to insult you personally rather my disagreement is with that whole criticism.

Edited February 21, 2023 by Minsc

[Many-Faced Votary]

9 minutes ago, Minsc said:

Simply, there is no logic for people to make a big deal about Loras getting the command of the vanguard and I have it especially interesting how people try to emphasis that Loras was Renly's boyfriend when making that criticism.

"There is no logic" is your opinion, but as I explained above, this is not the thread for this conversation, nor do I wish to have it here. (Discussing vanguard strategy is as much part of the Stannis-Renly discussion as anything else.)

However, I will address this second attempt to portray me as homophobic. I can't speak for anyone else, but I brought up their personal relationship because this is known as "nepotism," which is both ethically concerning (though that is irrelevant in feudalism and I don't argue that point) and fundamentally unsound for military strategy (which is relevant here).

ETA:

9 minutes ago, Minsc said:

Edit: However, I will apologize if it came off as I was intending to insult you personally rather my disagreement is with that whole criticism.

Apology accepted! My apologies also if my tone was unnecessarily harsh; I do take offense to being considered homophobic because I revile homophobia, as I think any decent person should, and I sincerely apologize if I phrased my point unclearly and gave that impression. 

Edited February 21, 2023 by Many-Faced Votary

[Craving Peaches]

Not to restart any debate but I don't think having no prior military experience should automatically count against anyone. Everyone below a certain age has had no military experience because they were too young/weren't born so couldn't participate in Robert's Rebellion or the Greyjoy rebellion. But they still train for war all the time as part of the noble education. Robb had no prior experience and he was a great leader. Daenerys had no prior military experience but she pulled of some good moves. Jon had no prior military experience but defended the Wall well enough. I mean Satin, who's not even a noble, had no prior military experience but he was still causing damage with his crossbow.

[Craving Peaches]

3 hours ago, Darth Sidious said:

Jon is a sore loser. He could not leave the Starks behind and carried their war on his shoulders. 

Daenerys is a sore loser. She cannot accept that no one wants her or her family in Westeros anymore. Daenerys should just let it go and focus on Slaver's Bay instead. But she won't and will just end up bringing more war to the starving war-torn continent.