When does Stannis get his just reward?

[Cinder Stark]

they were more than 20000 , stannis had 1500 . that was still impressive. they had giants too.

believe me , defeating 20000 men with 1500 men is impossible , and he didn't defeated them! all he just crushed their self confidence.

1) surprise attack

2) heavy war horse

3) capturing their leaders (mance , Rattleshirt and ....)

I'm saying they weren't just a bunch of half-starved stupid people , they were tough but Stannis defeated them.

I agree, you have a point but they were weak and scared. That's all I'm saying......

[Dragonstoned]

What? He attacked the wildlings to save the wildlings - really? Is that like burning the village to save it?

If he wanted to "save" the wildlings he would have waited to find out what their terms were and finding how fair they were he would have let them through. He didn't. His intention was to crush the wildlings and force those who remained to bend the knee and become his subjects, and after having done this he planned on using it as a propaganda tool to try and win the North to his cause - oops the north clearly didn't give a shit.

Stannis wanted to "save the realm, to win the throne" not "save the wildlings to save the realm to win the throne." Stannis is not a tender humanitarian. And his attack on the wildlings has created it's own set of problems (The Weeper, Hard Home and the scattered masses who are now at the mercy of the Others and may well return to haunt the realm).

What exactly do you think would have happened had he bargained with the wildlings? If he somehow convinced the Watch to let them through, they would have wreaked havoc throughout the North and beyond - this would have turned even more of Westeros against him and you can't defend the Wall against the Others if you have a wildling-nonwildling war at your back.

The best solution (that which saves as many people as possible and gives the best foundation from which to defend the realm against the real enemy) was to defeat/crush the wildling army and force them into the Seven Kingdoms. The realm by the way, at least in the NW vow, is the 'realms of men' so saving the realm includes saving the wildlings. I think Jon points this out to Bowen Marsh.

I agree that Stannis isn't a tender humanitarian (is anyone arguing that?) and the battle creates problems like you mentioned, but how else should he have done it? It's more like burning a couple of buildings in the village to save the village.

[Cinder Stark]

It's not a fact, and it depends on where you derive your legitimacy from. Joffrey's is based on a lie as well as on the blatant ignorance of Robert's will proclaiming Ned as regent; Renly's is based on other people's treachery and 'dreams of power and glory'; Stannis's is based on the law.

I don't see the problem in using Melisandre as it's just a feature of a religion. It's no more 'black magic' than praying to the Seven, what makes it any different?

Stannis was planning on fighting Renly:

"I was still abed when he died. Your Devan will tell you. He tried to wake me. Dawn was nigh and my lords were waiting, fretting. I should have been ahorse, armored. I knew Renly would attack at break of day."

Unless you disbelieve him? But there's no evidence in the text to support the idea that he lied.

So what actually makes Stannis so unlawful or unrighteous?

He's with a witch!!!! Lawful by definition: being within the law; allowed by law; lawful methods of dissent; established, sanctioned or recognized by the law.

Stannis taking up the fire god and the witches methods is not lawful according to the 7 kingdoms. The people follow the seven and right now, robert's known heir. Stsnnis should take his lawful argument to the people and the high septon. He's choosing to rebel as is renly and Robb!!! He should cut the righteous crap, really!!

And magic is there but not widely known or accepted.

[Cinder Stark]

What exactly do you think would have happened had he bargained with the wildlings? If he somehow convinced the Watch to let them through, they would have wreaked havoc throughout the North and beyond - this would have turned even more of Westeros against him and you can't defend the Wall against the Others if you have a wildling-nonwildling war at your back.

The best solution (that which saves as many people as possible and gives the best foundation from which to defend the realm against the real enemy) was to defeat/crush the wildling army and force them into the Seven Kingdoms. The realm by the way, at least in the NW vow, is the 'realms of men' so saving the realm includes saving the wildlings. I think Jon points this out to Bowen Marsh.

I agree that Stannis isn't a tender humanitarian (is anyone arguing that?) and the battle creates problems like you mentioned, but how else should he have done it? It's more like burning a couple of buildings in the village to save the village.

Jon as LC let them through!! No harm no foul, now thats true leadership against the odds.

[Where Boars Glow]

Well, if you look at it from Stannis' point of view, those three were throne pretenders, people who had no right to claim to be kings and who had to be killed as traitors. Given the fact that Stannis doesn't like Ned Stark as much as other characters, it even looks like he doesn't even respect him as much. So for Stannis, Robb is no better than Joffrey.

Not sure if he's going to get just reward for the leeches (though I agree with Ran it's probably Mel pretending) , but from a moral point of view it's not as if Stannis is Ramsay Snow.

Then again it's not as if Rob Stark is Joffery :P

[Dragonstoned]

He's with a witch!!!! Lawful by definition: being within the law; allowed by law; lawful methods of dissent; established, sanctioned or recognized by the law.

Stannis taking up the fire god and the witches methods is not lawful according to the 7 kingdoms. The people follow the seven and right now, robert's known heir. Stsnnis should take his lawful argument to the people and the high septon. He's choosing to rebel as is renly and Robb!!! He should cut the righteous crap, really!!

And magic is there but not widely known or accepted.

Melisandre is a priestess of the Red God/Religion. I think you're applying double standards here: she's as much a witch as a septa of the Seven is - the difference is that R'hllor is the only god whose powers we can see tangible proof of so far.

What law states that 'magic' must be not used? As far as I can tell, the Seven Kingdoms is a place with freedom of religion, hence the Northmen generally worship the Old Gods, and anyone is free to follow the Red God too if they want.

Stannis is rebelling against the person (Joffrey) whom most people believe to be the king (on the basis of deception); he is not rebelling against the rightful king, i.e. the king who is king by law (because it's himself). How is this not lawful or right?

Cinder Stark, I'm happy to discuss this stuff with you or anyone else who doesn't like Stannis, but you're gonna need to explain yourself better and bring in more evidence for what you say.

[Dragonstoned]

Jon as LC let them through!! No harm no foul, now thats true leadership against the odds.

Jon let them through after the wildlings were defeated as a military force. And Stannis advocates letting the wildlings through at that point too.

[Where Boars Glow]

you realize Westeros is a Feudal society , right?

popularity plays no role , the law of succession determine the ruler.

by the way , Renly wasn't popular , Tyrells were using him the get more power.

The law of succession is more of a guidline as well :) it really is a right makes might kind of world.

[Unimportant]

Stannis will win the battle of Winterfell, smashing the Bolten's and Frey's. He will then be in command of the North very briefly before the 'others' descend on the wall and he falls in battle there creating the "big reveal" that he's not in fact AA reborn. Jon will not become king/warden of the north as he'll prove to be one of the 3 heads of the dragon. With Bran taking the role of the last Greenseer, that leaves Rickon to resurface again and become ruler of the North.

[Cinder Stark]

Melisandre is a priestess of the Red God/Religion. I think you're applying double standards here: she's as much a witch as a septa of the Seven is - the difference is that R'hllor is the only god whose powers we can see tangible proof of so far.

What law states that 'magic' must be not used? As far as I can tell, the Seven Kingdoms is a place with freedom of religion, hence the Northmen generally worship the Old Gods, and anyone is free to follow the Red God too if they want.

Stannis is rebelling against the person (Joffrey) whom most people believe to be the king (on the basis of deception); he is not rebelling against the rightful king, i.e. the king who is king by law (because it's himself). How is this not lawful or right?

Cinder Stark, I'm happy to discuss this stuff with you or anyone else who doesn't like Stannis, but you're gonna need to explain yourself better and bring in more evidence for what you say.

My point, Stsnnis is no more lawful than Robb or Renly. They are all rebelling, the difference is the methods and reasons. I don't agree with Stannis's methods or reason. I really didn't agree with the way he handled the Renly situation or his use of magic. I see Stannis lack of support from anyone other than Stannis as a problem. How can be a king without support?! IMO the war of the kings was good, because it would bring change. Robb or Remly would have been good kings IMO. I know that's not the story, nor is Stannis. It's all bout the north, and Jon and the others, I know.

It's fun chatting up with you mate. We're just not going to agree on most things Stannis related.

[W.Kane]

I agree, you have a point but they were weak and scared. That's all I'm saying......

yes, I agree . a combination of luck + good tactic and timing and the element of surprise + the condition of the wildings ( they were scared and desperate) caused the Stannis victory. in my opinion that is still impressive.

[Cinder Stark]

Stannis will win the battle of Winterfell, smashing the Bolten's and Frey's. He will then be in command of the North very briefly before the 'others' descend on the wall and he falls in battle there creating the "big reveal" that he's not in fact AA reborn. Jon will not become king/warden of the north as he'll prove to be one of the 3 heads of the dragon. With Bran taking the role of the last Greenseer, that leaves Rickon to resurface again and become ruler of the North.

I don't see a child being warden of the north, sorry. Rickon at most will be reunited with his remaining family. Everything else is unclear, but looks like Jon will be heading house stark as Robb wanted which would be the best for all remaining Starks. Not perfect but good,

[W.Kane]

The law of succession is more of a guidline as well :) it really is a right makes might kind of world.

The law of succession is a law that prevents war and chaos , don't look at the recent history of Westeros . look at the whole history , this law have kept the peace of the realm. is it democratic? hell No , but this is the best things those people in that time could afford. without that law every time a lord or a king dies , the war between the potential heirs or anyone with an army begin , chaos , death and blood. this law prevents that. (in theory of course).

the right makes right = law of jungle = chaos.

no it is not that kind of world , yes rebellions happen , but it is not very often.

[Rolex Baratheon]

'His evil magic killed Robb Stark'

This takes the cake for most ridiculous allegation made against Stannis.

[Where Boars Glow]

My Stannis take is somewhere between these two extreme viewpoints. I think of Stannis as a redemption both as a character and from my interest in reading him. I beleive that the leeches were a sham that Mel is putting forth, however Stannis intent was very real, and not very worthy. The shadowbaby is a constant sticking point for me, I think he has tried to rationalize to himself that he didn't have a hand in this, but the truth is he has continued to support Mel despite his misgivnings because she has given him victories. I think this is very against and hypocritical of everything Stannis stands for.

On the otherside. Since Stannis made the decision not to put the cart before the horse and save the land from the others he has overall become the type of King the people should want to follow. I think he has done some serious soul searching after his defeat on the Blackwater and has tempered his rigid demeanor with some understanding to make him a great ruler.

Now that he has evolved.....i think he is sure to die. Because thats how things go in this world of tragedy.

[Cinder Stark]

The law of succession is a law that prevents war and chaos , don't look at the recent history of Westeros . look at the whole history , this law have kept the peace of the realm. is it democratic? hell No , but this is the best things those people in that time could afford. without that law every time a lord or a king dies , the war between the potential heirs or anyone with an army begin , chaos , death and blood. this law prevent that. (in theory of course).

the right makes right = law of jungle = chaos.

no it is not that kind of world , yes rebellions happen , but it is not very often.

Stannis could have proven his claim, by going to the people, the other lords and the high septon to avoid war, he didn't. Stannis choose to fight renly, Robb, Joffrey etc. the person then who wins by might is the rightful ruler. The laws will then reflect the outcome.

[Where Boars Glow]

The law of succession is a law that prevents war and chaos , don't look at the recent history of Westeros . look at the whole history , this law have kept the peace of the realm. is it democratic? hell No , but this is the best things those people in that time could afford. without that law every time a lord or a king dies , the war between the potential heirs or anyone with an army begin , chaos , death and blood. this law prevents that. (in theory of course).

the right makes right = law of jungle = chaos.

no it is not that kind of world , yes rebellions happen , but it is not very often.

Even in history there are land disputes, assasinations, "accidents" that skip around in the law of succession all the time. The real reason things pass from father to son is that usually the sons of lords tend to be educated, trained in arms, and known to the people of a region. Law of succession is nice to fall back on....but you need to secure the powerbase of the land you are ruling if you want to hope to maintain power in any feudal system. Having the law on your side is a weak paper shield...ask Ned...if you have a Ouija board handy.

[By the Old Gods Not theNew]

I don't know what would have happened had Stannis heard and agreed to Mance's terms, Jon had his reservations but was open to the them. The wildlings may or may not have reaped havoc. I think there would be a much lower probability of hostilities between the wildlings and Stannis/Westeros had they been let through, not had their charismatic leader publicly burned on a pier of wierwoods (ie desecrating their Gods). I think some form of alliance could have been arranged. Mance could have maintained some degree of unity among the wildlings reducing the threat of people like the Weeper. The coming of winter could also reduce wildings willingness to waste their limited resources in futile warfare against better equipped westerosi. There are any number of possible counter-factual possibilities that could have arisen had Stannis decided not to have "saved" the wildlings by "defeat[ing]/crush[ing]" them and instead taken them up on their fair terms. Or he could have at the least conducted his post battle interactions more diplomatically and won allies (mance and robert were known to win former enemies to their side) but he went the show trial, religious conflagration route.

How much more of westeros could he have lost at that time? All of his allies were w/ him or at one of the two keeps left in his hands (Dragonstone, Storm's End).

The best solution (that which saves as many people as possible and gives the best foundation from which to defend the realm against the real enemy) was to defeat/crush the wildling army and force them into the Seven Kingdoms. The realm by the way, at least in the NW vow, is the 'realms of men' so saving the realm includes saving the wildlings. I think Jon points this out to Bowen Marsh.

Hardhome. The vast majority of the Wildings in Mance's host scattered beyond the wall becoming fodder for the others. So in your book the best solution for saving the realm is a.) not listening to the wildlings (who are part of said realm) and their more than fair terms because you have serious cultural bias, b.) attacking them and killing them as they break and flee (Godry the Gaintslayer), c.) scattering them across the lands beyond the wall (turning them into fodder for the others the real enemy) and d.) killing the one person who's united them in a public execution that desecrates their most important religious symbol and in a way that forces them to participate in the desecration? that sounds like a sure fire way to make enemies and ensure lasting enmity (see the new pissed off faces in the trees between Castle Black and Mole Town).

I think coming to terms w/ Mance and trying to work some sort of alliance could have a.) secured the realm of men far better (no hardhome, no more fodder for the others, possible alliance w/ relatively large force w/ knowledge of the real enemy) and b.) an alliance would have garnered far greater forces for Stannis than he could have accessed w/in westeros upon reaching the Wall (or even after he defeated Mance when nobody in the north gave a shit about his victory over Mance).

[Dragonstoned]

My point, Stsnnis is no more lawful than Robb or Renly. They are all rebelling, the difference is the methods and reasons. I don't agree with Stannis's methods or reason. I really didn't agree with the way he handled the Renly situation or his use of magic. I see Stannis lack of support from anyone other than Stannis as a problem. How can be a king without support?! IMO the war of the kings was good, because it would bring change. Robb or Remly would have been good kings IMO. I know that's not the story, nor is Stannis. It's all bout the north, and Jon and the others, I know.

It's fun chatting up with you mate. We're just not going to agree on most things Stannis related.

Yeah I enjoy talking about Stannis more with his detractors (/haters) than other fans. Even if we'll never agree.

Stannis's support is the law though, and it's up to him to make other people see this. The whole Stannis debate comes down to where each poster sees legitimacy as coming from (and is clouded by people mistakenly saying 'Stannis killed Renly').

Out of interest, if you were in Stannis's situation would you have renounced your claim to the throne and supported Renly? I think Stannis did the right thing to carry on fighting, simply he was in the right and Renly and the other rebels (less so Robb Stark) were in the wrong.

[W.Kane]

Stannis could have proven his claim, by going to the people, the other lords and the high septon to avoid war, he didn't. Stannis choose to fight renly, Robb, Joffrey etc. the person then who wins by might is the rightful ruler. The laws will then reflect the outcome.

they killed Jon Arryn , Ned and Robert (the freaking king!!!!) , they had the Capital. do you really think a psycho like Joffrey would have accepted that. Renly in the end acknowledged Stannis claim. but he simply said : "you may have the better claim brother , but I have the bigger army".

he didn't fight Robb , they never had the chance to meet (!) .