Stannis is a Fool (At least to Start Out)

[csuszka1948]

38 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

For me, the character I relate to most is Brienne of Tarth, and the reason I am able to relate to her the most is BECAUSE I experience similar things to what she experiences. Perhaps to a Stannis-stan, her experience wouldn't make them feel familiar everyday slights...but for me it does. 

 

 

Yes, but how many of the readers are similar? Tha vast majority of readers aren't trans.

I would bet that before ASOIAF became a show, the vast majority of readers were white and among the most wealthy 5-10% of the global population, and many males - especially unsocial nerd ones, who are common among avid readers - were able to identify with the issues Stannis experiences. That's why he was such a popular character.

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

1 hour ago, SaffronLady said:

I am afraid considerable numbers of married men do worry about their children being bastards, nowadays. But like day and night, marriage and bastards are concepts that must coexist. Perhaps worries about bastardy would finally disappear one day, when marriage itself disappears, too.

Hmmm, I am not denying this is not something people care about, but my point would be more that a lot of people have children out of wedlock...which makes those children bastards. No one I know cares about that, both on the conservative and liberal side of the aisle. Honestly, I don't think I've heard anyone I know actually talk about these kind of things. The worry I could see you talking about from men would exist with or without marriage, and is more about knowing that their children are their children. 

I don't think the concept of lifetime partnership is going anywhere, perhaps traditional marriage could disappear, but...I think many humans will always desire having a lifetime partner. By the way, it's fine if you don't...but I certainly do. 

[Lord of Raventree Hall]

1 hour ago, csuszka1948 said:

Yes, but how many of the readers are similar? Tha vast majority of readers aren't trans.

I would bet that before ASOIAF became a show, the vast majority of readers were white and among the most wealthy 5-10% of the global population, and many males - especially unsocial nerd ones, who are common among avid readers - were able to identify with the issues Stannis experiences. That's why he was such a popular character.

Edit : Sorry, I deleted everything. I decided my response just had no merit. You are trying to explain to me why Stannis popular and I am trying to point out the problematic nature of some of Stannis's fans, and I think we are kind of passing each other by, imagine on opposite streets rather than the same street, lol. Anyways, you are right, this is why he was popular, lol, I do agree with you. I do however, think other fanbases exist and are perhaps just quieter. I have been happy to see upon my return to this website a bit more variety in the characters people like, but especially....less Tywin-stans (in fact, I'm not sure I've encountered one yet). 

Edited August 8, 2023 by Lord of Raventree Hall

[Frey family reunion]

2 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And that is why I mentioned usurpation. Throne can always be usurped by whoever has the most military force, but "biggest dragon" was never legitimized nor legalized as a way of determining the successor (de iure / a priori as opposed to de facto / ex post facto).

Lol.  I guess if you want to discount every instance that goes against your general premise as not counting because the throne was usurped, go ahead.  In that case, Jaehaerys was an usurper too, when he and Alysanne flew to King's Landing to get crowned after their uncle was in all probability assassinated.  Because he usurped Aegon the uncrowned line, who should have inherited under Westerosi succession law, which you have argued the Targaryens so stringently followed.

The problem is your premise is wrong.  The Targaryens weren't beholden to Westerosi inheritence laws, until Jaheaerys agreed to call a Great Council to decide.  And even that "precedent" lasted only one generation before the right to the throne went back to whoever had the biggest and most dragons.

Even Maegor was arguably not an usurper, because it was very much in dispute whether the succession laws applied to the Targaryens (it was said that thousands of 'leal' men came to his banner when raised'.  And it wasn't his crowning that caused the people to revolt, they were already in open rebellion when his brother Aenys was still king.

Edited August 8, 2023 by Frey family reunion

[SaffronLady]

1 hour ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

I don't think the concept of lifetime partnership is going anywhere, perhaps traditional marriage could disappear, but...I think many humans will always desire having a lifetime partner. By the way, it's fine if you don't...but I certainly do. 

I like the notion of life partners, despite not knowing of any arrangement that has the potential to work. TBH, I'm starting to see Brave New World more as a blueprint than a warning.

1 hour ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

Hmmm, I am not denying this is not something people care about, but my point would be more that a lot of people have children out of wedlock...which makes those children bastards. No one I know cares about that, both on the conservative and liberal side of the aisle. Honestly, I don't think I've heard anyone I know actually talk about these kind of things. The worry I could see you talking about from men would exist with or without marriage, and is more about knowing that their children are their children. 

My little rant about bastardy is well ... the concept itself is the shadow of marriage. It may be less of a deal nowadays because you can't usurp power from an elected president or prime minister by calling their parentage into question, but that IMO does not mean people don't care about bastards anymore. And since it's less about public power, it's less in public discourse as a result.

[Alester Florent]

5 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

Lol.  I guess if you want to discount every instance that goes against your general premise as not counting because the throne was usurped, go ahead.  In that case, Jaehaerys was an usurper too, when he and Alysanne flew to King's Landing to get crowned after their uncle was in all probability assassinated.  Because he usurped Aegon the uncrowned line, who should have inherited under Westerosi succession law, which you have argued the Targaryens so stringently followed.

The problem is your premise is wrong.  The Targaryens weren't beholden to Westerosi inheritence laws, until Jaheaerys agreed to call a Great Council to decide.  And even that "precedent" lasted only one generation before the right to the throne went back to whoever had the biggest and most dragons.

Even Maegor was arguably not an usurper, because it was very much in dispute whether the succession laws applied to the Targaryens (it was said that thousands of 'leal' men came to his banner when raised'.  And it wasn't his crowning that caused the people to revolt, they were already in open rebellion when his brother Aenys was still king.

I'm inclined to agree that the succession prior to Aegon III is a bit of a mess in places. After that it becomes pretty rigidly agnatic primogeniture until the succession to Maekar.

But I don't think it's as simple as "whoever has the biggest dragon wins". After all, we only have three successions to go on before the Great Council of 101, and the only one of those that happened according to plan was Aenys, who didn't ride the biggest dragon. And if we exclude Maegor's accession as a clear usurpation then succession follows the same principle right down to Rhaenyra, and that principle is agnatic primogeniture, same as is followed thereafter.

If the kingship differs from Westerosi succession laws in general, it seems to be that agnatic nature of its primogeniture. Westeros at large seems to allow for daughters to inherit where they have no brothers, and this never happens on the Iron Throne before Daenerys (despite a couple of attempts to make it so).

With Maegor, it's important to remember that he was confirmed (post facto) as the rightful king by trial by combat and will have been formally crowned: for us we might go "oh whatever" but in a society like Westeros, these are important elements of conferring and confirming legitimacy.

Before TWoIaF, I assumed that there had been two competing succession traditions: one of seniority and one of primogeniture, and/or that the succession was perhaps partially elective in nature (in both cases, similarly to England prior to the 13th century), and this was the context in which Maegor had become king. As it turns out, that isn't the case, but it also doesn't mean it's a complete free-for-all.

And if we look back at Targaryen history before the Conquest, we have, so far as we can tell, a sequence of eight (agnatic) primogeniture successions down to Aenys, then the Maegor anomaly, then two more primogeniture successions to Viserys, then a civil war, followed by eight more primogeniture successions before the Great Council on the death of Maekar (apparently only necessary because of the unusual position of Maekar's sons). It's a remarkably consistent pattern with a couple of anomalies, not a winner-takes-all free-for-all with occasional outbursts of primogeniture.

[sifth]

Here's a thought. Would Stannis have won the battle at the Black Water, if he kept Mel with him?

[Craving Peaches]

6 hours ago, sifth said:

Here's a thought. Would Stannis have won the battle at the Black Water, if he kept Mel with him?

What would Melisandre actually do though? She might be able to foresee the trap, but as I recall the issue there is that Stannis made the incompetent Imry Florent admiral. She also can't make any other shadow assassins as Stannis has no energy left.

[csuszka1948]

18 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

What would Melisandre actually do though? She might be able to foresee the trap, but as I recall the issue there is that Stannis made the incompetent Imry Florent admiral. She also can't make any other shadow assassins as Stannis has no energy left.

 

Honestly, I think Imry's incompetence is a bit overblown. Without the ability to produce massive amounts of wildfire (which Stannis couldn't have known about), they would have won the naval battle with ease.

Still, I think Mel might have foreseen it and avoided the trap, but even then the most likely scenario is that Stannis' men take and sack the city - while Cersei and Joffrey hole up in the Red Keep - and the Lannisters and the Tyrells catch them in the rear. Stannis would have probably managed to retreat with more men and his fleet intact and the Lannisters&Tyrells would have suffered more losses, but it wouldn't win the war for him.

 

However, the main issue is that Mel's actions were based on a vision where she saw 'Renly' catch Stannis' army in the rear next to King's Landing. If this is not the case, then the future Mel sees is different, and she might not advise Stannis to attack Renly.

[Frey family reunion]

19 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

After all, we only have three successions to go on before the Great Council of 101, and the only one of those that happened according to plan was Aenys, who didn't ride the biggest dragon.

I don't think we can assume that the only reason Aegon kept Aenys as his heir, was because Aenys was his first born son.  Aenys had a lot of things going for him, during Aegon's lifetime, that Maegor didn't.

Aenys had a wife and childen, Maegor did not.

Aenys was Rhaenys' son, and it seems that Aegon held Rhaenys above Visenya in his heart.

And yes, Aenys was a dragonrider and Maegor was not, at least not at the time of Aegon's death.  

So if Maegor was born first, but all of the above still applied, would Maegor have been Aegon's chosen heir at the time Aegon died?  I'm not sure he would have been.

Aenys was named Aegon's heir before Maegor's birth, and it just didn't appear that during Aegon's life, anything about Maegor would have changed Aegon's mind to cause him to change his heir to Maegor.

So using Aenys as an example that the Targaryens decided to follow Westerosi inheritence law is a bit of a presumption.  Visenya sure didn't feel that way.  And the only apparent dissenting voice was of the Grand Maester.  Now granted he probably was the only dissenting voice because of what his dissent got him,.

19 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

With Maegor, it's important to remember that he was confirmed (post facto) as the rightful king by trial by combat and will have been formally crowned: for us we might go "oh whatever" but in a society like Westeros, these are important elements of conferring and confirming legitimacy.

The only dissent that we know of to Maegor's crowning was from the Faith.  They would have certainly also dissented to the crowning of Aegon and Rhaena, since it was their marriage that first led to their widespread revolt.  I don't think the trial by combat occurred because there was an issue with Maegor usurping the crown.  The issue was that Maegor was one of the goldess Targaryens.

The Nobles themselves seemed pretty split on the matter.  The real trial that decided the succession was fought at the shore of the God's Eye.

19 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

It's a remarkably consistent pattern with a couple of anomalies, not a winner-takes-all free-for-all with occasional outbursts of primogeniture.

When they had dragons it was almost always a winner take all.   I think Viserys's crowning was the only exception.  Even though it was bloodless, don't think for an instant that Jahearys and Alysanne flying into King's Landing on their dragons was just for show.  At the time of Maegor's death, they were the most powerful duo in Westeros.  And not so surpisingly, under these circumstances no real consideration was given to Aegon's line.  

ETA: Once again I suppose you can consider Aenys crowning, but it also has to be noted that Aenys was the only dragonriding son of Aegon at the time.  And it didn't appear that either Visenya or Maegor had any real objections to Aenys crowning.  My guess was that they both respected Aegon's wishes that Aenys be crowned after his death.   Their only issue became whether the crown would go to Aenys's children.

Edited August 9, 2023 by Frey family reunion

[astarkchoice]

17 hours ago, sifth said:

Here's a thought. Would Stannis have won the battle at the Black Water, if he kept Mel with him?

Yep i think with  grmm its the old devil vs angel on the shoulder  with mel vs davos, mel would give him the power but at what price?

She sees threats comming (as we see her do before and after blackwater) and can burn shit from a distance  (the eagle) ......so tyrions wildfire would have went up  like a bomb and stannis massive army would have easily taken the burning city from its now terrified defenders!  Tyrion will die as will cersei and joffery but i suspect sansa will survive (hound , varys or dontos on instructions from LF)

He took 5k on his boats and 15k on land which were a mix of stormlanders ,the dragonstone islands, his florent relatives  and other reachmen so once word reaches the other stormlanders that hes won and theyl back him so shed have handed him his crown.....at what price whos to say

 

Edited August 9, 2023 by astarkchoice

[Craving Peaches]

7 minutes ago, astarkchoice said:

nd can burn shit from a distance

This feat was accomplished at the Wall though, where the magic is notably stronger, so it is debatable whether it would work here - also it seems to be specifically targeted towards skinchangers not just anything.

[astarkchoice]

5 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

This feat was accomplished at the Wall though, where the magic is notably stronger, so it is debatable whether it would work here - also it seems to be specifically targeted towards skinchangers not just anything.

It is but the wildfire is part magic too plus it wouldnt need to be a full  flamethrower just a spark will do. I think she can set fires its part of her 'niche' 

Dany in the essos sees another firemage doing tricks  if i recall who either xaro or pat pree says couldnt manage half of what they do now 

 

I dont think she has any greater power vs skinchangers over other men or even objects.... its just she chose to burn the eagle as she knew no one else could touch it up there and it was mances eyes and ears.

Edited August 9, 2023 by astarkchoice

[sifth]

Mel would probably have warned Stannis about the great chain as well and tell him to take both towers, before going into the city. Heck even one tower would be enough, I doubt one tower alone would have been enough to lift that heavy chain.

[astarkchoice]

11 hours ago, sifth said:

Mel would probably have warned Stannis about the great chain as well and tell him to take both towers, before going into the city. Heck even one tower would be enough, I doubt one tower alone would have been enough to lift that heavy chain.

Yeah hed have been king but who knows what mels price would have been

[Alester Florent]

2 hours ago, astarkchoice said:

Yeah hed have been king but who knows what mels price would have been

How decisive actually was the chain in the battle at Blackwater? It prevented Stannis's ships from retreating, but by the time they were aware they needed to, they were already engulfed in wildfire: likewise, it didn't prevent any useful reinforcement because Sallador et al weren't going to sail into the wildfire blaze. 

It undoubtedly maximised damage and casualties and therefore contributed to the crippling of Stannis's cause in the aftermath of the battle, but the battle itself was won by the wildfire and the arrival of Tywin (assisted by Tyrion's disruption of Stannis's scouting).

If Mel had been able to warn Stan about the wildfire or Tywin's imminent arrival that would have made a massive difference; I don't think detection of the chain would have changed the outcome.

[astarkchoice]

56 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

How decisive actually was the chain in the battle at Blackwater? It prevented Stannis's ships from retreating, but by the time they were aware they needed to, they were already engulfed in wildfire: likewise, it didn't prevent any useful reinforcement because Sallador et al weren't going to sail into the wildfire blaze. 

It undoubtedly maximised damage and casualties and therefore contributed to the crippling of Stannis's cause in the aftermath of the battle, but the battle itself was won by the wildfire and the arrival of Tywin (assisted by Tyrion's disruption of Stannis's scouting).

If Mel had been able to warn Stan about the wildfire or Tywin's imminent arrival that would have made a massive difference; I don't think detection of the chain would have changed the outcome.

I think shed have done both though. Seen the chain and rhe wildfire...esp the wildfire as it connects to her own brand of magic.

Shed have ignited the wildfire early and the defenders hit with blastwave and heat many would break.  Stannis would have his city early. 

I dont think sansa would die as shed probably be saved by the hound a dontos (acting under a plan by LF) OR varys because of how useful she is

The tyrell lannister force incomming would be too late plus minus the wildfire  stannis can send ships on up the rush to block barges.. stannis would be king and itd be hard to see the tyrell-lannister alliance survive much longer

Edited August 10, 2023 by astarkchoice

[Alester Florent]

16 minutes ago, astarkchoice said:

I think shed have done both though. Seen the chain and rhe wildfire...esp the wildfire as it connects to her own brand of magic.

Shed have ignited the wildfire early and the defenders hit with blastwave and heat many would break.  Stannis would have his city early. 

I dont think sansa would die as shed probably be saved by the hound a dontos (acting under a plan by LF) OR varys because of how useful she is

The tyrell lannister force incomming would be too late plus minus the wildfire  stannis can send ships on up the rush to block barges.. stannis would be king and itd be hard to see the tyrell-lannister alliance survive much longer

Realistically, if Stannis can storm KL with about 20,000 men, can Tywin and Mace not do the same with more men, especially if Stannis hasn't had time to repair the defences following his own attack? It's also debatable whether Stannis can storm the Red Keep in time. If Cersei, Tyrion and Joff are dead, then that definitely causes issues for Tywin and Mace, although I expect their deaths wouldn't put Tywin off pressing the attack if he thought it was winnable.

If they're captive then that does give Stannis the advantage because he has something to negotiate with. (e.g. call off the attack and I'll send Tyrion and Joff to the Wall and Cersei to the Sisters) but this is Stannis we're talking about, so he probably wouldn't be up for that.

I just don't think Stannis has enough time to finish off the royal family and mount an adequate defence of the city before he gets Tywin up his backside. If Tywin were a day or two later, maybe, but not on the timescale we're given, even if the attack goes completely to plan (no wildfire).

With Tywin so close, the only sensible thing to do is call off the attack. Being trapped between a fortress (whether KL in toto or just the Red Keep) and a sizeable relief force is always a disaster for besiegers.

Edited August 10, 2023 by Alester Florent

[astarkchoice]

1 hour ago, Alester Florent said:

Realistically, if Stannis can storm KL with about 20,000 men, can Tywin and Mace not do the same with more men, especially if Stannis hasn't had time to repair the defences following his own attack? It's also debatable whether Stannis can storm the Red Keep in time. If Cersei, Tyrion and Joff are dead, then that definitely causes issues for Tywin and Mace, although I expect their deaths wouldn't put Tywin off pressing the attack if he thought it was winnable.

If they're captive then that does give Stannis the advantage because he has something to negotiate with. (e.g. call off the attack and I'll send Tyrion and Joff to the Wall and Cersei to the Sisters) but this is Stannis we're talking about, so he probably wouldn't be up for that.

I just don't think Stannis has enough time to finish off the royal family and mount an adequate defence of the city before he gets Tywin up his backside. If Tywin were a day or two later, maybe, but not on the timescale we're given, even if the attack goes completely to plan (no wildfire).

With Tywin so close, the only sensible thing to do is call off the attack. Being trapped between a fortress (whether KL in toto or just the Red Keep) and a sizeable relief force is always a disaster for besiegers.

Dunno if that wildfire goes off early the defenders may collapse quickly esp the half assed goldcloaks hes plenty of time.

The tyrell-lannister force can only win if they have the time which they dont. The barges wont hold up in combat so they still need to disembark a distance away like they originaly do.

Without the wildfire bomb and stannis fleet trapped theres no fluke bridge made of ships tied together toget across the river!!! plus stannis can send ships down it to harass the other side with arrows and spitfires etc.

If tywin is aware kl has fallen and stannis has fleet intact they may disembark on the opposite side of the river this time and march towards the lions gate, gods gate and kings gate...... but thatl take longer plus the walls and gates themselves are far stronger. With ravens sent of stannis win the rest of the stormlords would rise meaning the tyrell-lannister force would probably back off to avoid being trapped between the northern-riverlord army thatl come east and the stormlords comming behind them 

[sifth]

I wonder if Mel would advise Stannis to defeat Tywin, before attacking Kings Landing.