Renly's worth and use?

[LuisDantas]

I was indeed focusing on the practical choice that the situation presented. But if cynicism is the matter, I fail to see how you can expect any throne claimant not to be cynical by that definition that you are using.

I do however take issue with your statement that cynicism is involved with the decisions about how to use the law. That could only make sense if the law were an agent of justice or of virtue, which it is not.

[danm_999]

I was indeed focusing on the practical choice that the situation presented. But if cynicism is the matter, I fail to see how you can expect any throne claimant not to be cynical by that definition that you are using.

Which was never my point.

I was raising the point Renly used the law cynically. That he could not be a good Master of Laws if he disregarded the law when it suited him.

To be totally honest, this isn't even in his purview. A Master of Laws is concerned with the enforcement side of law; administrating the Red Keep's dungeons and gaolers and the King's Justice (Payne).

I do however take issue with your statement that cynicism is involved with the decisions about how to use the law. That could only make sense if the law were an agent of justice or of virtue, which it is not.

The law are the rules the kingdom comes up with to try and best dispense justice and virtue. In this case, the throne passes from father to son, from eldest to youngest. They don't do it purely, but that's what their intent is.

The cynicism I think Renly shows is that he decides that these laws simply aren't good enough when it comes to his claim skipping Stannis and Joffrey, but that they are good enough when it comes to Robb submitting to him. If you begin to work outside the law, you can't invoke it again later without looking hypocritical.

[Talleyrand]

People keep saying that people flocked to his cause because he was so charismatic. Is this true? The Stormlords were his lordly subjects, and they always seem to go to their liege lord before the king, so you can't pin his charm on that, and the Reach only joined Renly because he was going to marry Mace's daughter. Dorne didn't go running to him, nor the Vale, nor anywhere that didn't have an interest in serving him.

When Jon Arryn rebelled Gulltown remained loyalist. With Hoster I think 3 of his major bannermen stayed loyalist and one was neutral for the vast majority. With Robert several of his bannerman stayed with the crown forcing him to battle them.

When Renly rebelled all of his bannermen followed. In the Reach the only house that didn't go with Renly was one that was married into the enemy.

[Winter's Knight]

When Jon Arryn rebelled Gulltown remained loyalist. With Hoster I think 3 of his major bannermen stayed loyalist and one was neutral for the vast majority. With Robert several of his bannerman stayed with the crown forcing him to battle them.

When Renly rebelled all of his bannermen followed. In the Reach the only house that didn't go with Renly was one that was married into the enemy.

Quite a few Florents followed Renly as well-I vaguely recall Stannis questioning some of his own about it.

[danm_999]

When Renly rebelled all of his bannermen followed.

The exception being House Seaworth :P

[Talleyrand]

The exception being House Seaworth :P

Seaworth is bannerman of Dragonstone, not Storm's End.

[Winter's Knight]

The exception being House Seaworth :P

Seaworth wasn't sworn to Renly.

[danm_999]

Seaworth is bannerman of Dragonstone, not Storm's End.

Seaworth wasn't sworn to Renly.

Seaworth's lands are in the Stormlands (Cape Wrath) and their overlord is House Baratheon, which is the same as Estermont, Carron, Tarth, etc

Technically, none of the lords of the Stormlands are sworn to Renly, they're sworn to House Baratheon, of which Stannis is head after Renly dies. They simply chose Renly once he declares. Except House Seaworth.

[LuisDantas]

Which was never my point.

I was raising the point Renly used the law cynically. That he could not be a good Master of Laws if he disregarded the law when it suited him.

I beg to differ. Either defying or following the law without considering the consequences is very naive, and all th more so for a Master of Laws.

To be totally honest, this isn't even in his purview. A Master of Laws is concerned with the enforcement side of law; administrating the Red Keep's dungeons and gaolers and the King's Justice (Payne).

If you say so.

The law are the rules the kingdom comes up with to try and best dispense justice and virtue. In this case, the throne passes from father to son, from eldest to youngest. They don't do it purely, but that's what their intent is.

That is one line of thought, I suppose.

Not a particularly succesfull one IMO, either in the Real World or in Westeros - or anywhere else. Laws are political tools and it is harmful to forget that and expect them to actually be wise or virtuous.

For one thing, laws are by necessity either rigid, complex or useless, while real situations are complex and demand careful consideration of the specific circunstances.

The cynicism I think Renly shows is that he decides that these laws simply aren't good enough when it comes to his claim skipping Stannis and Joffrey, but that they are good enough when it comes to Robb submitting to him. If you begin to work outside the law, you can't invoke it again later without looking hypocritical.

I really don't see the issue. The power of the law comes from his military might, not the other way around. He is stating outright that he rejects Stannis and Joffrey and that he is open to negotiations with Robb as long as he is ultimately King of Westeros as a whole. Why would that be cynicism?

[LuisDantas]

Seaworth's lands are in the Stormlands (Cape Wrath) and their overlord is House Baratheon, which is the same as Estermont, Carron, Tarth, etc

Technically, none of the lords of the Stormlands are sworn to Renly, they're sworn to House Baratheon, of which Stannis is head after Renly dies. They simply chose Renly once he declares. Except House Seaworth.

It seems that House Baratheon had briefly split into three cadet branches immediately after Robert's death. One led by Renly, another by Stannis, and the technically main branch were Cersei's sons, for all practical purposes a branch of House Lannister in all but name. Said split wasn't very formal, but it certainly happened.

It is not like people had a lot of doubts about who Davos would follow, anyway.

[danm_999]

I beg to differ. Either defying or following the law without considering the consequences is very naive, and all th more so for a Master of Laws.

We're not talking about naivety, we're talking about cynicism.

That is one line of thought, I suppose.

Not a particularly succesfull one IMO, either in the Real World ™ or in Westeros - or anywhere else. Laws are political tools and it is harmful to forget that and expect them to actually be wise or virtuous.

For one thing, laws are by necessity either rigid, complex or useless, while real situations are complex and demand careful consideration of the specific circunstances.

Which is why I said that's what they intend, not what they actually do.

I really don't see the issue.

The issue is, you're saying Renly is ever so clever because he's transcending the law, but he's not. He's simply ignoring the law's application to himself, and expecting others to be subject to it.

That's not visionary, it's hypocrisy.

The power of the law comes from his military might, not the other way around. He is stating outright that he rejects Stannis and Joffrey and that he is open to negotiations with Robb as long as he is ultimately King of Westeros as a whole. Why would that be cynicism?

He's not open to negotiations, since he demands fealty, service and loyalty.

He says that he must have Robb's fealty in the North. But if the law comes from military might, Renly has no claim there.

Anyway, I've said my piece on this, we'll likely be going round in circles if we go any further.

[danm_999]

It seems that House Baratheon had briefly split into three cadet branches immediately after Robert's death. One led by Renly, another by Stannis, and the technically main branch were Cersei's sons, for all practical purposes a branch of House Lannister in all but name. Said split wasn't very formal, but it certainly happened.

It is not like people had a lot of doubts about who Davos would follow, anyway.

That's right. All Houses in the Stormlands were sworn to House Baratheon. All but House Seaworth swore allegiance to Renly, rather than Stannis, though Seaworth isn't that shocking, since Davos was Stannis man through and through, and Davos IS basically the entire House.

[TheCube]

Seaworth's lands are in the Stormlands (Cape Wrath) and their overlord is House Baratheon, which is the same as Estermont, Carron, Tarth, etc

I was just going to say the same thing, I just went off to find a map first.

Dragonstone has very few bannermen. The Masseys and the Velaryons are the only ones that spring to mind.

Also, didn't the Estermonts declare for Stannis too, or was that only after Renly was killed?

[Torben]

Choose to believe so? The political theatre of the game of thrones is the entree, not the main course. That's not my opinion; the series is called A Song of Ice and Fire. Heavy foreshadowing prophecises an apocolytpic event threatening the world. Almost half of the POVs are centred on the battles of ice and fire. Even the Southerners are not spared; Winter has come. What makes you think all of that is just going to go away?

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and we have already exchanged ours; I have made my point with my arguments, so there is little to be gained from continuing to exchange the same arguments. Just one final comment: In my view, it does not "all have to go away" because it has not even arrived yet. If we divide the POVs into Essos, Westeros, and the Wall, then the Westeros POVs are almost completely oblivious of a threat from the north, as are the Essos ones. Even the Wall POVs deal mostly with reactions of humans to a perceived threat, not with the threat itself. I would not be surprised if the threat from the Others proves to be a red herring in the end. The quote from GRRM does not discount that, he just says there is something in the north, not that a threat from the north will become the center of the story.

I mean by any military doctrine you want to go by; Sun Tzu, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Blitzkrieg; sitting around having parties is not effective strategy. All the greatest military commanders in our history and Westeros' were people who knew how to move their forces quickly and effectively.

...when they have to. Renly didn't.

They're wrong. He gains the Iron Throne, and the legitimacy that comes with that.

As he would have. Note that the force he was leading eventually conquered the Iron Throne,even after further delay of its arrival caused by Renly's demise. So evidently time was not the issue.

It's not beneficial. Victory is the best thing for morale. Renly can win the war, and have his men celebrate and drink and whore all they like once they've actually won. If Renly wants to party, he can do it in King's Landing. His troops are supplied by the Tyrells, so they're going to be well fed wherever they are, since their supply lines are secure and if you need to slow down your march because your units aren't trained, you're a shitty commander for bringing untrained units to the field.

That doesn't even make sense: If Renly takes his time to train his troops so they won't be green when they arrive in the field, he is a shitty commander because he brings green troops to the field? Huh?

When the US fights wars, they speed to their objectives. Witness Macarthur's island hopping in the Pacific theatre, Operation Overlord's speed in sweeping Germany from Western Europe after Normandy had been breached, the First Gulf War's alacrity, the Iraqi invasion which took all of three weeks it took to remove Saddam's forces in Iraq, etc.

I won't go into detail of US war strategy because it is far off topic, just a few comments:

The conventional land war that was WW2 was won in the East by the Red Army. The US arrived late in Europe after taking the time to build up their army and fighting on secondary arenas of war for two and a half years. I don't criticize that strategy, there was little else they could do since the US did not have an adequate land army to engage in the European theater in 1941. They could have used untrained conscripts with one rifle for two men as the Red Army did, but they did not have to, since they were not fighting for survival as the Red Army was, and it is debatable whether the American public would have stomached the huge casualties that would have resulted.

In both wars against Iraq the actual campaign was very short, but that was because in both cases the US took their time to build up their forces and alliances until they were able to crush their enemy in one swift blow.

In all examples you have given the US approach was to build up their forces and alliances methodologically until you can crush the enemy swiftly with overwhelming force and minimal loss of life for your own side. And, given the fact that the US remains the single most powerful nation in the world for some time to come, taking your time and winning wars methodologically appears to be an approach soundly validated by history.

[Night Gathers]

Power resides where men believe it resides. :)

[Castel]

That's not visionary, it's hypocrisy.

Yup. But being a hypocrite is only a bad thing if you lose.

It's not beneficial. Victory is the best thing for morale. Renly can win the war, and have his men celebrate and drink and whore all they like once they've actually won. If Renly wants to party, he can do it in King's Landing. His troops are supplied by the Tyrells, so they're going to be well fed wherever they are, since their supply lines are secure and if you need to slow down your march because your units aren't trained, you're a shitty commander for bringing untrained units to the field.

Renly was making a point. He was simultaneously choking King's Landing, which is more effective the longer it goes on, and painting himself as the lavish king, so that when he takes the city people would forget the starvation and love him for bringing food. And judging by what happened with the Tyrells this actually worked. He also kept up his own men's moral.

I guess he just hoped that Robb Stark would keep Tywin Lannister busy and away from reinforcements while he killed his daughter and grandchildren. Otherwise, knowing Renly, he was perfectly fine with meeting him in battle.

[Jaehaerys Sand]

People can argue that Renly would be a good king if he got good advisers (though Mace would probably be his hand if he got the throne), but I look for more in a good king than picking good advisers. That was pretty much Robert's sole skill, and it didn't get him very far.

The main problem with Renly is there is simply nothing to suggest that he has any skills for ruling. Both Stannis and Renly got their small council positions because they were Robert's brothers. Stannis we know helped Jon Arryn govern the realm and as Master of Ships captured Dragonstone and smashed the Iron Fleet. We never hear about Renly doing anything as Master of Laws. Heck, the only time I remember any MoL doing anything was in the DWD epilogue when Tarly has the Mountains men gelded.

As a military commander, he wasn't any better. Starving out King's Landing was OK, but not exactly creative or impressive. But once Stannis attacks Storm's End, he races days ahead of his supply train, doesn't bring his full strenghth, and gives Stannis every possible advantage ahead of battle. I'm not saying Stannis would win, but Renly would have lost many more men than he needed.

Donal Noye descibed Renly as shiny but mostly useless. He got Robert and Stannis right, so I'm willing to believe him about Renly.

[Kittyhat]

Choose to believe so? The political theatre of the game of thrones is the entree, not the main course. That's not my opinion; the series is called A Song of Ice and Fire. Heavy foreshadowing prophecises an apocolytpic event threatening the world. Almost half of the POVs are centred on the battles of ice and fire. Even the Southerners are not spared; Winter has come. What makes you think all of that is just going to go away?

It's surprising how many think this. Just because Martin's included a measure of realism and political complexity, they suddenly expect that (ironically, quite unrealistically) ancient and deadly threats will simply cease to matter. As if somehow, the whole thing with the Others and dragons and magic returning to the world is all ... what? Martin just trolling?

That would be right up there with the worst fanfiction ever.

Yet they want their bad fanfiction to be the reality, for whatever reason, and somehow I think these forums may erupt with rage when the Others finally step to center stage and when, of course, dragons also become increasingly more important.

That said, just for the record, I'm not sold on the idea that Renly would have been any less well-equipped to deal with the Others than Stannis. If anything, for all Stannis's alleged strategic skill, Renly is the one who's done more to demonstrate actual strategic thinking (as noted elsewhere in this thread). Couple that with his ability to inspire people to follow him, and I can't think of any claimant aside from Daenerys better suited to face the Others.

[Torben]

It's surprising how many think this. Just because Martin's included a measure of realism and political complexity, they suddenly expect that (ironically, quite unrealistically) ancient and deadly threats will simply cease to matter. As if somehow, the whole thing with the Others and dragons and magic returning to the world is all ... what? Martin just trolling?

I would call it playing with our expectations. I remember that I bought AGoT upon a friend's recommendation, and was willing to throw it into the bin after the first chapter because it reeked so much of "derivative fantasy pulp sold in staples in airport bookshops". I kept on because I was on a long train ride yet was again willing to throw it into the bin again when the chapter of Bran climbing the castle reeked of characterization of "innocent adventurous young boy who will become hero like in a gazillion other derivative fantasy stories". I was totally enthralled with ASOIAF (and have been ever since) when Jaime threw him out of the window. So my first vivid memory of ASOIAF is that GRRM was toying with my expectations. Hence I don't believe he will return to "derivative fantasy story of different characters putting aside their differences to battle the evil overlord".

[danm_999]

I would call it playing with our expectations. I remember that I bought AGoT upon a friend's recommendation, and was willing to throw it into the bin after the first chapter because it reeked so much of "derivative fantasy pulp sold in staples in airport bookshops". I kept on because I was on a long train ride yet was again willing to throw it into the bin again when the chapter of Bran climbing the castle reeked of characterization of "innocent adventurous young boy who will become hero like in a gazillion other derivative fantasy stories". I was totally enthralled with ASOIAF (and have been ever since) when Jaime threw him out of the window. So my first vivid memory of ASOIAF is that GRRM was toying with my expectations. Hence I don't believe he will return to "derivative fantasy story of different characters putting aside their differences to battle the evil overlord".

Nobody's saying everybody will put aside their differences to battle the great evil or, we're saying the great evil is coming, the Others are coming, and Winter is coming, whether Westeros is ready or not.

A lot of people have speculated that the series will end with a second Long Night descending over the world, and humanity doomed, sort of a "Sauron winning" scenario, because the people couldn't get their shit together and what was left to fight them was inadequate.

But magic will continue to play a strong role in the series, and will shape the outcome.