Why Stannis wouldn't be a good king

[Tony Soprano]

What was his alternative?

I'm not talking about an alternative. When a man is surrounded by a force 100 times stronger than that of his garrison, without any food, men starving and dying on the streets, he will break.

Stannis didn't break. He held Storm's End for a whole year.

[Pyrrhus of Epirus]

What was his alternative?

Surrender and hope for mercy. That becomes easier and easier as your food supplies dwindle. I'd like to see you half starve yourself while maintaining discipline in the face of a enormous host feasting right outside your gates, in eye-sight.

[Pyrrhus of Epirus]

I'm not talking about an alternative. When a man is surrounded by a force 100 times stronger than that of his garrison, without any food, men starving and dying on the streets, he will break.

Stannis didn't break. He held Storm's End for a whole year.

I think it's fair to note Stannis was closer to starving then to breaking.

[James Arryn]

Surrender and hope for mercy. That becomes easier and easier as your food supplies dwindle. I'd like to see you half starve yourself while maintaining discipline in the face of a enormous host feasting right outside your gates, in eye-sight.

Surrender and hope for mercy...from the King you are rebelling against due to his flamish executions of people who opposed him in a lesser fashion?

Come on. Holding out offered the only means of possible survival. The only remarkable thing Stannis achieved in that...and it is to his credit...is that he managed to prevent people facing less certain death from capitulating around him, although they would likely have died, too.

But Stannis? Any argument which doesn't acknowledge that holding out was his only real avenue to self-interest is bankrupt, IMO. Somewhat like going North when all the alternatives...including remaining on Dragonstone...were no longer viable.

[Pyrrhus of Epirus]

Surrender and hope for mercy...from the King you are rebelling against due to his flamish executions of people who opposed him in a lesser fashion?

Come on. Holding out offered the only means of possible survival. The only remarkable thing Stannis achieved in that...and it is to his credit...is that he managed to prevent people facing less certain death from capitulating around him, although they would likely have died, too.

But Stannis? Any argument which doesn't acknowledge that holding out was his only real avenue to self-interest is bankrupt, IMO. Somewhat like going North when all the alternatives...including remaining on Dragonstone...we're no longer viable.

You say that as if it isn't difficult. If that was the case, no castle would EVER surrender. They would all just sit silent until every person in the castle starved to death. But that's never the case, hunger is a powerful thing, you make men hungry enough and they'll take the chances of "surrendering and hoping for mercy."

[Tony Soprano]

I think it's fair to note Stannis was closer to starving then to breaking.

Exactly. That's pretty much the point I was trying to make. He's unyielding, and so are the people under his command. The Siege of Storm's End could have played out just like The Siege of Winterfell is playing out: The castle full of enemies, ready to turn on their leader.

The men under Stannis' command didn't think of desertion, of betrayal, of surrender and hope for mercy. They stayed with the Lord. Call him cold, call him what you will, but it takes a special kind of charisma to keep men in line at times such as that.

[James Arryn]

You say that as if it isn't difficult. If that was the case, no castle would EVER surrender. They would all just sit silent until every person in the castle starved to death. But that's never the case, hunger is a powerful thing, you make men hungry enough and they'll take the chances of "surrendering and hoping for mercy."

No, other castles are presented with the option of negotiating some kind of terms. That's how it works. Ones which face sure death don't capitulate, at least not the commanders facing same.

Holding out was not easy. No one is accusing Stannis of being lazy. What people take issue with is how his actions in pursuit of self-interest are given this gloss of nobility and so forth.

Holding out meant a chance. Surrendering meant death, probably in a pretty horrible fashion.

End.

[James Arryn]

The men under Stannis' command didn't think of desertion, of betrayal, of surrender and hope for mercy. They stayed with the Lord.

Will you rethink your position if I point out that me did indeed think of desertion, etc.?

(No, I didn't think so.)

[Tony Soprano]

Will you rethink your position if I point out that me did indeed think of desertion, etc.?

(No, I didn't think so.)

Is there any evidence of that?

Granted, there isn't any evidence of my claims either, but Stannis' men are known for their undying devotion, some even going so far and becoming fanatics, believing he's a Hero who will save mankind.

In the end, Storm's End is all a guessing game, but if you can, prove me wrong.

[James Arryn]

Is there any evidence of that?

Granted, there isn't any evidence of my claims either, but Stannis' men are known for their undying devotion, some even going so far and becoming fanatics, believing he's a Hero who will save mankind.

In the end, Storm's End is all a guessing game, but if you can, prove me wrong.

Think catapults vs. cannibalism..

[Pyrrhus of Epirus]

No, other castles are presented with the option of negotiating some kind of terms. That's how it works. Ones which face sure death don't capitulate, at least not the commanders facing same.

Holding out was not easy. No one is accusing Stannis of being lazy. What people take issue within how his actions in pursuit if self-interest as given this varnish of nobility and so forth.

Holding out meant a chance. Surrendering meant death, probably in a pretty horrible fashion.

End.

There's really no indication that if Stannis had worked out terms with the Tyrell force, he wouldn't have been pardoned. Aerys hadn't called for his head, and someone needed to replace Robert once the rebellion was put down. Taking Storm's end is a huge blow to any chance the rebellion has, it's the seat of one of the would-be usurpers, and the fact that one of the usurper's own blood surrendered it would be crushing news. I'm not saying for sure if Stannis had worked out terms, the Mad King would have obliged them, however you can't say for sure he wouldn't have. It never reached that point though, because Stannis never for one minute thought about surrendering, he had chosen his brother, his duty was to hold the castle, and that's what he did.

Will you rethink your position if I point out that me did indeed think of desertion, etc.?

(No, I didn't think so.)

As to the whole charisma, I wouldn't say Stannis is so charming he was able to maintain discipline, rather almost everything about Stannis forces others to submit to his will. He's determined, hard-headed, and never relenting in his sense of duty. He's able to punish and keep his soldiers loyal without becoming tyrannical and being mutinied the first sign of low food reserves. I think these characteristics present themselves, even now almost twenty years later. He's in the North with the same host he had started the war of the five kings with pretty much, he had the lowest expectancy at the start of the war, and although he's still hanging in there, he's still one of the biggest underdogs. But still his men march through that blizzard for him, still they shout his name in battle. Yeah they thought about desertion, every bunch has a few bad apples, but the pros of surrendering weren't worth the cons of angering Stannis.

[James Arryn]

There's really no indication that if Stannis had worked out terms with the Tyrell force, he wouldn't have been pardoned. Aerys hadn't called for his head, and someone needed to replace Robert once the rebellion was put down. Taking Storm's end is a huge blow to any chance the rebellion has, it's the seat of one of the would-be usurpers, and the fact that one of the usurper's own blood surrendered it would be crushing news. I'm not saying for sure if Stannis had worked out terms, the Mad King would have obliged them, however you can't say for sure he wouldn't have. It never reached that point though, because Stannis never oteotefor one minute thought about surrendering, he had chosen his brother, his duty was to hold the castle, and that's what he did.

Working against you are some of the very facts used to prop up Stannis' defiance; the fall was inevitable. More, Mance was trying to make a name for himself. There was no real motivation to negotiate...we are shown no offers Stannis turned down, and Stannis being Stannis,he would have listed them if they existed.

But, more...he himself cites the knowledge of death as a repercussion for rebellion when talking about his choosing. More, he would know what he would do if he were Aerys. I think you need to WANT to believe in Stannis if you think relying on e Mad King's mercy was a real option he had to consider.

As to the whole charisma, I wouldn't say Stannis is so charming he was able to maintain discipline, rather almost everything about Stannis forces others to submit to his will. He's determined, hard-headed, and never relenting in his sense of duty. He's able to punish and keep his soldiers loyal without becoming tyrannical and being mutinied the first sign of low food reserves. I think these characteristics present themselves, even now almost twenty years later. He's in the North with the same host he had started the war of the five kings with pretty much, he had the lowest expectancy at the start of the war, and although he's still hanging in there, he's still one of the biggest underdogs. But still his men march through that blizzard for him, still they shout his name into battle.

I wonder sometimes if part of my issue is that I was the popular kid in HS. Some people seem to like him just because he is unliked, like that is itself a virtue.

He is tough, no question. But in pursuit of his self interest, while constantly issuing a list of wrongs done him, dues owed him, and favors given to others.

He whines a lot, for a tough guy.

As for the virtue of persevering in the face of tough odds, again, alternatives? And is Balon Greyjoy suddenly a model of kingly virtue?

[Tony Soprano]

Think catapults vs. cannibalism..

Fine, I suppose there were deserters, but, aren't there always? People get tired of fighting, they get desperate, and in this case they think their situation is hopeless.

How would anyone deal with desertion? Swipe their head off with a sword. So, what if Stannis wanted to catapult them? That would serve as a stronger message to discourage anyone who was thinking of deserting. But he didn't do it, did he?

He put them in cages, to eat them if it came to that. But, did he do it?

He didn't do either of those things, and your argument is " He was going to do something bad " . But he didn't. We can't blame someone for something they haven't done.

[Pyrrhus of Epirus]

Working against you are some of the very facts used to prop up Stannis' defiance; the fall was inevitable. More, Mance was trying to make a name for himself. There was no real motivation to negotiate...we are shown no offers Stannis turned down, and Stannis being Stannis,he would have listed them if they existed.

But, more...he himself cites the knowledge of death as a repercussion for rebellion when talking about his choosing. More, he would know what he would do if he were Aerys. I think you need to WANT to believe in Stannis if you think relying on e Mad King's mercy was a real option he had to consider.

I wonder sometimes if part of my issue is that I was the popular kid in HS. Some people seem to like him just because he is unliked, like that is itself a virtue.

He is tough, no question. But in pursuit of his self interest, while constantly issuing a list of wrongs done him, dues owed him, and favors given to others.

He whines a lot, for a tough guy.

As for the virtue of persevering in the face of tough odds, again, alternatives? And is Balon Greyjoy suddenly a model of kingly virtue?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We haven't been given any indication of Mace Tyrell meeting with Stannis, nor have we been given any indication that they hadn't. In over a year of siege, you don't think Mace once tried to get the castle to surrender? Compared to the sieges in Riverrun, where daily the sieging army mocks and threatens the soldiers holding the castle. For Stannis, surrendering isn't a option, because according to his own morals the punishment for rebelling against the king was death. But that's solely on the fact that Stannis is Stannis, that doesn't mean surrendering wasn't an option, it just means Stannis is such a relenting and duty-driven character that to him surrendering wasn't an option.

Hey man, that's cool, you were popular in HS, I didn't do half bad myself. Allow me get to back on subject, because this little sharing our histories seems completely out of place to the actual argument. I like Stannis because he is a man driven by duty, a just man who doesn't surrender. I like that determination about him, I see a lot of that same determination in myself. He's a slighted man, a middle brother who's always been overshadowed by his two brothers, which often happens to middle children. He's just a real character to me, and I enjoy reading about him. But I don't see what my reasons for liking him have to do with this argument. Stannis inspires loyalty. This really cannot be argued, Davos is a prime example of it.

[James Arryn]

Fine, I suppose there were deserters, but, aren't there always? People get tired of fighting, they get desperate, and in this case they think their situation is hopeless.

How would anyone deal with desertion? Swipe their head off with a sword. So, what if Stannis wanted to catapult them? That would serve as a stronger message to discourage anyone who was thinking of deserting. But he didn't do it, did he?

He put them in cages, to eat them if it came to that. But, did he do it?

He didn't do either of those things, and your argument is " He was going to do something bad " . But he didn't. We can't blame someone for something they haven't done.

So this is you, moving the goalposts?

You cited the fact that no one even thought bout deserting as evidence of his exceptional quality as a leader.

I pointed out that people were caught deserting, saying in advance it would have no effect. You asked for specifics. I cited them. You sidestepped what the comment was about to win an aegument with yourself about whether or not Stannis committed cannibalism.

For the record, I feel I could point out the hypocrisy of his position on cannibalism too,but then you would respond by moving the goalposts again, so why bother?

[GarthKITN]

I think of the surviving characters, Stannis is by far the best choice to sit the Iron Throne. While there are shades of grey with him and he's certainly not perfect, and has made some big decisions I REALLY don't agree with, I think Stannis is an honorable man, and would make an effective ruler. I think he'd make a far better Hand of the King, but as things stand in Westeros right now, there's no one I'd rather see as king than Stannis.

[Tony Soprano]

So this is you, moving the goalposts?

You cited the fact that no one even thought bout deserting as evidence of his exceptional quality as a leader.

I pointed out that people were caught deserting, saying in advance it would have no effect. You asked for specifics. I cited them. You sidestepped what the comment was about to win an aegument with yourself about whether or not Stannis committed cannibalism.

For the record, I feel I could point out the hypocrisy of his position on cannibalism too,but then you would respond by moving the goalposts again, so why bother?

Fine. I was wrong. Stannis is not the perfect leader. Men that served under him wanted to desert.

Is he the only man to have men desert him?

[James Arryn]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We haven't been given any indication of Mace Tyrell meeting with Stannis, nor have we been given any indication that they hadn't.

Right. And the burden of proof should be on the person presenting it an an alternative, right?

In over a year of siege, you don't think Mace once tried to get the castle to surrender? Compared to the sieges in Riverrun, where daily the sieging army mocks and threatens the soldiers holding the castle. For Stannis, surrendering isn't a option, because according to his own morals the punishment for rebelling against the king was death. But that's solely on the fact that Stannis is Stannis, that doesn't mean surrendering wasn't an option, it just means Stannis is such a relenting and duty-driven character that to him surrendering wasn't an option.

It does, though. it doesn't matter why he would not conceive of it as a possibility; merely that he could not. Hence holding out was the only option open to him at he could see.

Hey man, that's cool, you were popular in HS, I didn't do half bad myself.

Lol, obviously I as unclear. I don't think it's brag material; I was honestly trying to understand my own inability to understand the degree to which his being unlink able makes him likeable...unpopular makes him unpopular, especially when, as in here, people cite them as directly causal. I don't see it and was trying to identify what about me that make me unable to grasp something often said.

In a similar way, I don't get that sitcom about science nerds, etc. So I was sincerely trying to find my own shortcoming, if you get me.

Allow me get to back on subject, because this little sharing our histories seems completely out of place to the actual argument. I like Stannis because he is a man driven by duty, a just man who doesn't surrender. I like that determination about him, I see a lot of that same determination in myself. He's a slighted man, a middle brother who's always been overshadowed by his two brothers, which often happens to middle children. He's just a real character to me, and I enjoy reading about him. But I don't see what my reasons for liking him have to do with this argument. Stannis inspires loyalty. This really cannot be argued, Davos is a prime example of it.

See, you are doing it here. What is the virtue if being a middle brother? What is that appeal of being slighted?

Stannis inspires less loyalty than the alternatives, including both his brothers. That cannot b argued; he says it himself.

[Castel]

If not for the favour bestowed on him, he's basically MacBeth.

A proven military commander trying to seize power by consorting with sorcery and engaging in assassination, all on the basis of prophecy and a sense he is rightfully due power.

And yet, this is the good guy. Because he uses short sentences, i suppose.

Except that Macbeth had no basis for his actions beyond naked ambition. But hey, nice comparison anyway.

[James Arryn]

Fine. I was wrong. Stannis is not the perfect leader. Men that served under him wanted to desert.

Is he the only man to have men desert him?

Cool, and no. Storm's End was not remarkable in that aspect. And, for the record, I am impressed that he maintained control. But I don't ascribe a lot of deeper meaning to it. He exercised control mostly by virtue of the threat of violence to those who considered otherwise, An impressive display of commanding and control; about his personal worth it says nothing, as many varied men...from Hitler to Stalin to King Stephen and all kinds if shades in between have done similar, while having vastly different personalities.