King Maekar I Targareyn and King Stannis I Baratheon

[Lord_Tywin_Lannister]

They seem to parallel each other a bit. At least on the surface level. They both are responsible for the death of their brother, and not seemingly carry the guilt over that fact for the rest of their days. Both of them are very stern and harsh. They follow rules with a military discipline, and both have a hard time connecting with people. 

[The hairy bear]

There are some parallels, but there are also significant differences. I think the main one is that Maekar is far more perceptive, and is someone willing to compromise.

A few examples of how Maekar would have acted if he had really been like Stannis:

• After the trial by battle, he would have thanked Dunk for helping him realize what kind of monster Aerion was. Then he would have insisted to have Dunk's hand cut off anyway, for having struck a royal prince.
• When the Blackfyres and the Golden Company invaded Westeros, he would have stayed a Dragonstone waiting for his brother to beg him for his help. If the Blackfyres had prevailed, he would stay silent at Dragonstone while Haegon was crowned and all the lords of the realm pledged him fealty. Some months later, he start wailing in anger at such injustice, and would call traitors to anyone who didn't follow him without reserve.
• After Aerys I's death, Maekar would have fired Bloodraven immediately.
• When the Whents put themselves on the line to help bring down Mad Danelle Lothston, Maekar wouldn't have rewarded them, because serving the crown was their duty anyway. Afterwards, he would be surprised that his subjects didn't try hard enough to serve him.
• At some point during his reign, he'll pass edicts banning prostitution and installing a foreign creed as the new official state religion. Then he'll wonder why the commoners do not love him as much as they did his brother.

[Universal Sword Donor]

5 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

There are some parallels, but there are also significant differences. I think the main one is that Maekar is far more perceptive, and is someone willing to compromise.

A few examples of how Maekar would have acted if he had really been like Stannis:

• After the trial by battle, he would have thanked Dunk for helping him realize what kind of monster Aerion was. Then he would have insisted to have Dunk's hand cut off anyway, for having struck a royal prince.
• When the Blackfyres and the Golden Company invaded Westeros, he would have stayed a Dragonstone waiting for his brother to beg him for his help. If the Blackfyres had prevailed, he would stay silent at Dragonstone while Haegon was crowned and all the lords of the realm pledged him fealty. Some months later, he start wailing in anger at such injustice, and would call traitors to anyone who didn't follow him without reserve.
• After Aerys I's death, Maekar would have fired Bloodraven immediately.
• When the Whents put themselves on the line to help bring down Mad Danelle Lothston, Maekar wouldn't have rewarded them, because serving the crown was their duty anyway. Afterwards, he would be surprised that his subjects didn't try hard enough to serve him.
• At some point during his reign, he'll pass edicts banning prostitution and installing a foreign creed as the new official state religion. Then he'll wonder why the commoners do not love him as much as they did his brother.

Stannis would never have cut off the hand of someone who just won his crown sanctioned judicial duel

[Lord_Tywin_Lannister]

16 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Stannis would never have cut off the hand of someone who just won his crown sanctioned judicial duel

I was thinking that. Like, the Trial By Seven was a sacred rite. It would clear Duncan of any wrongdoing meaning it’d be illegal for him to be punished for what the Trial sorted out.

[James Steller]

Stannis is equal mix of Maekar and Aegon III

On the one hand, yes, he's the bitter younger brother, equally adept at war but overshadowed by his older brother's accomplishments. He is also guilty of kinslaying to some degree which even he is uncertain about. He is a cold and judgmental man who doesn't make friends easily. 

But on the other hand, some of that also applies to Aegon III, especially the 'doesn't make friends easily' part. Other similarities with Aegon III is the fact that Stannis is a melancholic and cheerless man who is still traumatized from having seen his parents die in front of him while he could only helplessly watch. Like Aegon, he has no taste for material things, dressing plainly and disliking the normal hobbies of the elite. He also has contempt for the elites, wishing to enforce justice on them as much as it applies to the smallfolk. 

[GZ Bloodraven]

I don't think Maekar would be convinced by religious fanatics in the way Stannis has been, though I do think that both make some pretty shaky military moves (what with the minor Peake rebellion killing the king, and Stannis thinking his best move is to...take the North? Because Mel thinks he's Azor Ahai? Like, what is happening?) They are both definitely more "anvil" to their brother's hammers, though. 

[Craving Peaches]

20 minutes ago, GZ Bloodraven said:

Stannis thinking his best move is to...take the North? Because Mel thinks he's Azor Ahai? Like, what is happening?)

This confuses me too. At first I thought I understood what was going on, Stannis going to the Wall was him realising that the 'real battle' is with the Others, so he's sending his men to where they are needed most. But then he seems to unlearn this lesson again by going back south to fight the Boltons. Fighting the Boltons in of itself isn't a bad thing but it feels like a step back because it is becoming involved in the 'pettier' human conflicts rather than the 'real war'.

[Corvo the Crow]

7 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

There are some parallels, but there are also significant differences. I think the main one is that Maekar is far more perceptive, and is someone willing to compromise.

A few examples of how Maekar would have acted if he had really been like Stannis:

• After the trial by battle, he would have thanked Dunk for helping him realize what kind of monster Aerion was. Then he would have insisted to have Dunk's hand cut off anyway, for having struck a royal prince.
• When the Blackfyres and the Golden Company invaded Westeros, he would have stayed a Dragonstone waiting for his brother to beg him for his help. If the Blackfyres had prevailed, he would stay silent at Dragonstone while Haegon was crowned and all the lords of the realm pledged him fealty. Some months later, he start wailing in anger at such injustice, and would call traitors to anyone who didn't follow him without reserve.
• After Aerys I's death, Maekar would have fired Bloodraven immediately.
• When the Whents put themselves on the line to help bring down Mad Danelle Lothston, Maekar wouldn't have rewarded them, because serving the crown was their duty anyway. Afterwards, he would be surprised that his subjects didn't try hard enough to serve him.
• At some point during his reign, he'll pass edicts banning prostitution and installing a foreign creed as the new official state religion. Then he'll wonder why the commoners do not love him as much as they did his brother.

Donal Noye tells us Stannis will break before he bends, but so what?  Seriously, people take things written in a book filled with hidden stuff at too much face value is too interesting, especially when there are theories about almost every thing. Throughout the series, Stannis has done nothing but compromise, he's the character who's done who's done so the most, perhaps only Jon snow can exceed him, but even Jon exceeding him involves Stannis quite a lot

Edited March 10 by Corvo the Crow

[Corvo the Crow]

9 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

This confuses me too. At first I thought I understood what was going on, Stannis going to the Wall was him realising that the 'real battle' is with the Others, so he's sending his men to where they are needed most. But then he seems to unlearn this lesson again by going back south to fight the Boltons. Fighting the Boltons in of itself isn't a bad thing but it feels like a step back because it is becoming involved in the 'pettier' human conflicts rather than the 'real war'.

Stannis is clearing his rear here. 

Edit: Whoops, not in the hand-y king-y way  

Edited March 10 by Corvo the Crow

[Floki of the Ironborn]

14 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

This confuses me too. At first I thought I understood what was going on, Stannis going to the Wall was him realising that the 'real battle' is with the Others, so he's sending his men to where they are needed most. But then he seems to unlearn this lesson again by going back south to fight the Boltons. Fighting the Boltons in of itself isn't a bad thing but it feels like a step back because it is becoming involved in the 'pettier' human conflicts rather than the 'real war'.

That does make sense to me. When Stannis sets up at Castle Black, the North is a powder keg of various factions. The wildling threat has been subdued for the moment, but it isn’t gone. Then there’s House Bolton bringing Freys up north with Lannister backing. The Ironborn still occupy key locations. And then there’s also a shadow conspiracy of Stark loyalists whose identities we still don’t fully know. Of course Stannis would want to put a stop to that bs going on, especially considering that the Boltons would be incentivized to drive Stannis out of the North.

[Craving Peaches]

12 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Donal Noye tells us Stannis will break before he bends, but so what?

Well he got it wrong for Robert and Renly as well so yeah not really reliable.

[Craving Peaches]

13 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Well he got it wrong for Robert and Renly as well so yeah not really reliable.

I mean he was castle blacksmith who last saw Stannis when he was ~18 and Renly when he was ~7. So as well as the age gap between then and now how often did he really see them? That's like Mikken leaving Winterfell shortly after Robb was born and then giving a character judgment of Robb as a 14 year old. Why should we take this as gospel?

[Floki of the Ironborn]

10 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I mean he was castle blacksmith who last saw Stannis when he was ~18 and Renly when he was ~7. So as well as the age gap between then and now how often did he really see them? That's like Mikken leaving Winterfell shortly after Robb was born and then giving a character judgment of Robb as a 14 year old. Why should we take this as gospel?

You can just edit your original remark, you don’t have to reply to it.

[Moiraine Sedai]

16 hours ago, King Maekar I said:

They seem to parallel each other a bit. At least on the surface level. They both are responsible for the death of their brother, and not seemingly carry the guilt over that fact for the rest of their days. Both of them are very stern and harsh. They follow rules with a military discipline, and both have a hard time connecting with people. 

Stannis is not a king. He doesn’t have that status. 

[Craving Peaches]

17 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

You can just edit your original remark, you don’t have to reply to it.

I know.