The Death Toll of Stannis (Serious Discussion)

[Craving Peaches]

Just how many has Stannis killed, directly or indirectly?

First of all, he prolongs the War of the Five Kings by killing Renly. So at least a couple of hundred thousand dead there in terms of civilians, not to forget the ~twenty thousand he got roasted at the Blackwater. Secondly, he endorses religious zealots that have a habit of burning down places of worship and burning people alive. Confirmed kills include Ser Rambton and his three sons, and Lord Sunglass. Given they were willing to kill nobles, they probably killed any smallfolk that resisted as well (and some will have resisted, people don't like their religion being treated this way), and I doubt they treated the Septons kindly, so that's at least another couple of dozen deaths. Stannis also let Salladhor Saan have free reign in the narrow sea, so I suspect at least a few hundred died due to piracy-related skirmishes. The attack on the Wildlings probably killed at least a couple hundred more. In total, I think at least a few hundred thousand deaths can be attributed to Stannis. This puts him at the higher end of the Death Toll Rankings, above Daenerys and Robb (whom I estimate to have caused a few tens of thousands of deaths) but below those responsible for starting the whole war (Cersei, Jaime, Tywin, Petyr Baelish and Lysa).To a lesser extent, Ned has some responsibility for not limiting the scale of the war when he could have (if he'd taken Renly's offer or not stubbornly insisted on backing Stannis, war could have been averted, and Ned did know his actions would lead to war, I like Ned but I can't overlook the fact he was willing to sacrifice innocent lives for the sake of his honour).

Edited September 6, 2023 by Craving Peaches

[csuszka1948]

It really depends on how we apply the death counts.

If we apply the indirect consequences of his actions - that by killing Renly he probably prolonged the war - then he would have quite a huge death count. However, by the same standard we should hold Dany responsible for all the deaths in Astapor ( many readers and Dany herself do this) and Ned Stark for most of the deaths in the War of the 5 Kings.

[Craving Peaches]

@csuszka1948, why are you laughing? Title says SERIOUS DISCUSSION 

[Craving Peaches]

33 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

However, by the same standard we should hold Dany responsible for all the deaths in Astapor

I estimate ~10,000 were killed in the 'purge', with tens of thousands more from starvation and death during the sack due to her failure to leave the city with adequate protection. But I don't think that lets her reach the higher levels because the WotFK was definitely more destructive, even if you include the dysentery casualties I don't think she matches Stannis.

33 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

Ned Stark for most of the deaths in the War of the 5 Kings.

That's true. I will put him in the rankings.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Craving Peaches

[LongRider]

13 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

Ned Stark for most of the deaths in the War of the 5 Kings.

I would assign Ceresi to be responsible for those deaths, as she;

• birthed bastards with her twin brother and passed them off as Roberts' heirs
• murdered Robert which was the match that really started the Wot5K
• did all she could to keep Joff on the throne

I'd say her kill count is pretty darn high

 

 

 

[csuszka1948]

Just now, LongRider said:

I would assign Ceresi to be responsible for those deaths, as she;

• birthed bastards with her twin brother and passed them off as Roberts' heirs
• murdered Robert which was the match that really started the Wot5K
• did all she could to keep Joff on the throne

I'd say her kill count is pretty darn high

 

 

 

I don't disagree (although I feel Jaime's role shouldn't be forgotten), but by the logic of blaming Stannis for the extension of the war we could also blame Ned Stark for running to Cersei&refusing Renly's offer&going to LF - without those, most of the deaths would have been avoided.

[csuszka1948]

I also think that the meeting of Stannis and Renly is (in many ways) the defining moment of the "first act" of the story similarly to how the Kingsmoot is the central moment of the "second act" of the series.

 

Stannis and Renly had a reasonable opportunity to come to an agreement, but they have chosen war.

Similarly, the Ironborn had a reasonable opportunity to choose a path of peace and diplomacy, but they have chosen war and madness.

I also feel that the election of King Bran will be a similarly defining moment of the "third act". It would be the opposite of the first 2 decisions: this time when nobles have a reasonable opportunity to end war, they do, choosing the path of peace and consensus.

Edited September 6, 2023 by csuszka1948

[LongRider]

I don't blame Ned as he did not murder Robert and cause Joff to be elevated, Cersei did.  Robert's murder caused consequences that she did not consider, and it cost many people, including Ned, their lives. He would not have gone to Cersei with what he knew if Robert has not been murdered by her.  Therefore, Cersei is responsible, not Ned.

[csuszka1948]

Yes, but similarly, can you blame Stannis for "prolonging" the war when the Lannisters, Freys and Boltons are truly responsible for the additional deaths? I am just applying CravingPeaches' logic to Ned's actions.

[Craving Peaches]

Just now, LongRider said:

I don't blame Ned as he did not murder Robert and cause Joff to be elevated, Cersei did.  Robert's murder caused consequences that she did not consider, and it cost many people, including Ned, their lives. He would not have gone to Cersei with what he knew if Robert has not been murdered by her.  Therefore, Cersei is responsible, not Ned.

I don't blame Ned for causing the war, I think he had a chance to prevent it though or reduce the scale but he refused because of honour. So I have to rank him. Sorry. I do really like Ned. But he was willing to put many lives at risk for honour. If Ned had taken Renly's offer or followed Littlefingers advice, the war probably would not have broken out, or casualties would have been lower. Ned was warned that what he was doing would lead to war.

It doesn't make him as culpable as Cersei or anyone but since the ranking includes indirect deaths unfortunately I must include him.

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

First of all, he prolongs the War of the Five Kings by killing Renly.

Definitely. If he was going to screw Renly over, he should at least have done it after they beat all other enemies.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Takiedevushkikakzvezdy

[Craving Peaches]

6 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

Definitely. If he was going to screw Renly over, he should at least have done it after they beat all other enemies.

Yes. That would have been the smarter move.

[sweetsunray]

I don't agree with this type of reasoning. Each person is responsible for their own choices. Renly is as much responsible for insulting his brother, whom he knows to be a man of the law. Mel is also responsible for her manipulations, that imo begin the moment Stannis carries that glamored sword with a ruby in it.

There's a great parallel with two short stories here when it comes to Stannis, Mace Tyrell and Storm's End: the Fortress and Under Siege.

George wrote the Fortress in college for his minor in history. He was meant to present a historical paper, but asked his professor if he was ok with it if George wrote a fictionalized story on a historical event: the inexplicable surrender in 1808 of a fortress of Sveaborg by the Swedes to the general Jan Pieter van Suchtelen (a Dutchman) who was the strategic mind during the Russian-Finnish war. They were but few weeks away of being reinforced and the thaw, and yet the Swedes surrendered this fortress which was too hard to take by force. The surrender of this fortress eventually led to the Russians being able to annex Finland from Sweden. Finland didn't acquire their independence until 1917, when Lenin started a revolution against the Romanovs (same family ruled Russia back in 1808). In his story, George has a fictional historical colonel disagree with the planned surrender and he attempts a mutiny, but is caught and executed, and the surrender went through.

George got an A for it and his professor tried to send it in to be published, which got George his first rejection letter. So he shelved The Fortress (I think 1967 or 1968).

But in 1984 he took it out of the drawer again (never throw anything away, is his motto), and he added a cynical hedonistic dwarf and time travel to it. This story became Under Siege. In a nutshell, proto-Tyrion is a mutant in a post-apocalyptic world (the world went BANG), but scientists managed to make time-travel-machines that can send a mutant's mind to a host-mind in the past. They hope to mentally influence certain historical characters (like a whispering voice of emotion or conscous), in the hope that they these historical characters will do certain stuff differently and therefore the apocalypse doesn't happen. Proto-Tyrion's host in the past is the same fictional colonel at Sveaborg in 1808. And proto-Tyrion is their last chance and hope. All the other mutants have not returned or woken up from their mental time travel, failing in their mission somehow. Proto-Tyrion seems to be having some influential success with the fictional colonel Antonnen (same guy of the Fortress). And proto-Tyrion's bosses order him to influence Antonnen in such a way that he will be present at a meeting with the Russians, under flag of truce, and then assassinates Jan Pieter van Suchtelen. This of course is a suicide mission. Not only would Antonnen end up dead, but he would be reviled for his dishonor of the flag of truce. Of course if you read The Fortress, Antonnen dying won't change much of his fate, but it could possibly change the fate of the planet. You're starting to recognize the moral conundrum, right? I hope? Proto-Tyrion doesn't like it, for he considers Antonnen a good honorable man. Anyway, they're all sure it's going to work out, have a hedonistic feast to basically celebrate all of their non-existence. Because if the apocalypse doesn't happen, their present ceases to exist, no mutants, but they would just be someone else and wouldn't know it. So, after the celebration, proto Tyrion is sent to the past, to his host, but he pushes Antonnen to make a completely different choice. Yes, the parlay happens, but proto-Tyrion convinces Antonnen to flee Sweden, sail for the US, get rich and fat and have "fun" there. So, in a way proto-Tyrion corrupted this good man, but also saved his life, and reasons nobody could have been sure that the assassination of Jan Pieter van Suchtelen and the non-surrender of Sveaborg would prevent the apocalypse almost 2 centuries later.

The whole Fortress and Under Siege concept is picked up again by George with Stannis and Storm's End. But this time he puts a man at Storm's End while under siege during Robert's Rebellion who "just does his darn duty". He's not like the Swedish commander who gives up so close to being relieved and reinforced in the first story. And he's not one for "fun" so he can't be manipulated to sail off for Essos and eat "peaches". Renly and his peach therefore represent proto-Tyrion's temptation of Antonnen to just live his life in the US than bother with Sveaborg. But he does have a similar mental influencer in Mel, later in life, in that she can see glimpses of the future and believes in a disaster and that Stannis is the man, the sole man, who must and can prevent "the apocalypse". Unlike proto-Tyrion she is convinced that the future she sees can be twarthed, and she has no qualms in sacrificing anyone for this end. She refers to Stannis as being a righteous man (and George does too after he decided to sail for the Wall and to come to the Wall's aid). But imo he is most of all a man who does his duty. Even though he believes in law and strict application of it, he is most of all governed by what he believes his duty to be. And therein lies the danger:  the most terrifying creature is not a true just man, but a dutiful man, because what he will do depends on what he believes his duty to be. Albeit, Davos figures this out and uses it to convince Stannis to sail for the Wall.

Inherently though it's implied that the capture or surrender of SE so it falls in a Targ's hands spells doom coming to Westeros, with the Fortress and Under Siege in mind. I would suggest "keep reading": though no doubt Stannis will come to a dishonorable end, a black page in Westeros history, capturing SE will not. It will prove to be far more important than we believe it to be now.

My point here is that when it comes to a besieged castle that heralds the beginning of the end, George will let it fall in the wrong hands eventually, and that no matter what the character most associated to this, he will make you mad think of either road taken as a waste, leaving you with a very bitter taste: Antonnen's death after mutiny to try and stop a surrender, Antonnen fleeing for the US to have his peach, Stannis for doing the assassination that could save the world.

Edited September 7, 2023 by sweetsunray

[SeanF]

One could just as easily say that if Renly had supported his brother, the war would have been won, and the death toll lessened.  

At some level, every main protagonist (other than Dany) could be said to be responsible for the deaths because they all took decisions, or failed to take decisions, that led to, or prolonged the war.

But, no legal or ethical system really apportions guilt on that basis.  And, such systems distinguish between deaths caused deliberately, recklessly, negligently, and accidentally.

One needs to distinguish between deaths of combatants and deaths of civilians, too.  Finally, what was the justification for killing, in each case?

Deliberate deaths are those carried out by the soldiers under orders.  Here, the Lannisters take the lead, followed by the Ironborn.  Both factions chose war, without cause, and chose to kill civilians, without cause.  Next comes Robb, who initially waged war in self-defence, but then extended it to a revenge campaign in the West.  Stannis, so far as I can tell, never deliberately targeted civilians to be killed, which gives him the cleanest hands of the four.

Reckless deaths are deaths caused through hunger, disease, and exposure, as a result of pillage, arson, and destruction of property. The commanders order such things, knowing what the consequences will be, for civilians. All four are guilty in this case, but again, in the same order, and with similar justification.  Realistically, Renly’s army must also have pillaged, to avoid starving, but we are never told this.

Turning to Dany, her deliberate killings are those at Astapor, some Yunkish soldiers, and those who perished when she stormed Meereen.  She can be accused of deaths by negligence, when Astapor went to hell.  But, the greater liability rests with Cleon, and the Slavers.  These deaths must then be weighed against lives saved, through the freeing of slaves.  Fieldhands, labourers, bedslaves, mine and quarry slaves, would simply be worked to death, rapidly.  Likewise, two thirds of the uncut boys would have died, and a bunch of babies would have been murdered.

 

Edited September 7, 2023 by SeanF

[Craving Peaches]

33 minutes ago, SeanF said:

One could just as easily say that if Renly had supported his brother, the war would have been won, and the death toll lessened.  

Not really because Renly had no opportunity to join Stannis at first. If he joins Stannis when Stannis demands the war becomes Stanns vs Robb vs Tywin three way because the Tyrells are not going to back Stannis and Stannis is not going to ally with Robb. In this scenario each party has a roughly equal number of troops so the war probably drags on longer. Littlefinger might even get Lysa to side with the Lannisters since he has a vested interest in not having Stannis on the Throne.

33 minutes ago, SeanF said:

But, no legal or ethical system really apportions guilt on that basis.

Spoiler

Sean, you are right, I really just want to make a quick, non-biased death ranking including all possible deaths caused, so we have a definitive list, because I am hoping it will stop the 'Who is more evil: X murderer or Y murderer' threads.

Edited September 7, 2023 by Craving Peaches

[csuszka1948]

12 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Not really because Renly had no opportunity to join Stannis at first. If he joins Stannis when Stannis demands the war becomes Stanns vs Robb vs Tywin three way because the Tyrells are not going to back Stannis and Stannis is not going to ally with Robb. In this scenario each party has a roughly equal number of troops so the war probably drags on longer. Littlefinger might even get Lysa to side with the Lannisters since he has a vested interest in not having Stannis on the Throne.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To be fair, Renly had an opportunity to join Stannis during the parlay or at least try to reach some compromise (making Renly permanent heir, Mace Tyrell Hand, Paxter MoS). Their combined armies and fleet would have taken King's Landing quickly and I don't think the Tyrells would have changed sides after it, especially because Loras was supportive of Renly and Margaery was married to him (the heir of Stannis) and it's difficult to annul a marriage.

LF couldn't get Lysa to join the Lannisters after she has declared Tyrion responsible for the murder of Jon Arryn.

This would have made Renly's relationsip with the rest of the Tyrells (especially Mace) horrible though and he would have become the laughingstock of the realm.

Edited September 7, 2023 by csuszka1948

[Craving Peaches]

1 minute ago, csuszka1948 said:

To be fair, Renly had an opportunity to join Stannis during the parlay. Their combined armies and fleet would have taken King's Landing quickly and I don't think the Tyrells would have changed sides after it, especially because Loras was supportive of Renly and Margaery was married to him (the heir of Stannis) and it's difficult to annul a marriage.

This would have made his relationsip with the Tyrells horrible though and Renly would have become the laughingstock of the realm.

I really doubt the Tyrells would join Stannis. Regardless, Stannis is not going to let Robb go (especially since this is Stannis pre-character development). And I strongly suspect Littlefinger would have dragged the Vale in on the Lannister's side because he is very keen on Stannis not being King. 

You end up with Stannis' ~30,000 vs Robb's ~25,000 vs Tywin's ~25,000-~70,000 if the Vale joins, which to me results in a much longer and more gruelling war than Renly's 100,000 vs Lannisters ~25,000 (I suspect Robb and Renly could come to an accord). If the Vale joins, it also impacts their food supply, which means even less food come winter as no region will be staying out of the war aside from Dorne (who might also chose to attack someone in this scenario). And of course, with the Realm in a more fractured state than it was otherwise (Tyrell-Lannister alliance was stabilising thinks before Cersei took power and Kevan was killed) Euron and Varys might be able to take advantage even more.

[SeanF]

4 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I really doubt the Tyrells would join Stannis. Regardless, Stannis is not going to let Robb go (especially since this is Stannis pre-character development). And I strongly suspect Littlefinger would have dragged the Vale in on the Lannister's side because he is very keen on Stannis not being King. 

You end up with Stannis' ~30,000 vs Robb's ~25,000 vs Tywin's ~25,000-~70,000 if the Vale joins, which to me results in a much longer and more gruelling war than Renly's 100,000 vs Lannisters ~25,000 (I suspect Robb and Renly could come to an accord). If the Vale joins, it also impacts their food supply, which means even less food come winter as no region will be staying out of the war aside from Dorne (who might also chose to attack someone in this scenario). And of course, with the Realm in a more fractured state than it was otherwise (Tyrell-Lannister alliance was stabilising thinks before Cersei took power and Kevan was killed) Euron and Varys might be able to take advantage even more.

The best course of action for Renly and Stannis would simply be to say, we have common enemies in the Lannisters.  Destroy them, then we can have this argument.

[Craving Peaches]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

The best course of action for Renly and Stannis would simply be to say, we have common enemies in the Lannisters.  Destroy them, then we can have this argument.

Yes, but I think such a thing is only really possible if Stannis has a personality change and Renly finds out what Stannis suspects earlier. By the time Catelyn suggested something similar, it was far too late as everyone had armies in the field and Stannis has irritated Renly by attacking his home. Stannis is also stuck in a 'I will not compromise with anyone' mindset at that point.

[kissdbyfire]

51 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Yes, but I think such a thing is only really possible if Stannis has a personality change and Renly finds out what Stannis suspects earlier. By the time Catelyn suggested something similar, it was far too late as everyone had armies in the field and Stannis has irritated Renly by attacking his home. Stannis is also stuck in a 'I will not compromise with anyone' mindset at that point.

One can argue that Renly having a personality change would work the same way. Mind you, I’m not arguing the merits or lack thereof in either Stannis’s or Renly’s personalities. I’m just stating the fact that this type of argument works both ways. If character A had a different personality things could have gone differently.