The Realm will be best off with Stannis as King

[W.Kane]

As far as I know, wasn't the message from the NW kept from him by the previous Hand? That's what I got...

Anyways, you realize that you'd have to land your army on the island first to siege it, Dragonstone has farms and fisheries there to support the army if blockaded. And the perfect opportunity to catch an enemy army off-guard is when they're still getting off the boats and getting organized. All Stannis would have to do is wait for a good 1/3 of their men to get off the ships, start trying to organize their gear and themselves, send in the light cavalry to scatter them.

And not necessarily, it's not exactly taboo for a ruler to go to the East to rally swords to his cause, (SPOILER Jason Massey suggests it to Stannis in the Theon preview chapter. Stannis refused because it would make him look cowardly and that he'd rather let his generals fight his War in the North for him.)

this.

and yes the letter was kept from him and he became aware of it after Davos read it to him .

[you snow muffin poncho]

I think Stannis would be a pretty good king, better than both his brothers (show!Renly is depicted as being far statelier than book!Renly) Better than Rob, or Dany? Debatable...Don't know how he (or Rob, for that matter) would deal with the Varys / LF types. And if you cut their heads off, other people like them just pop right back up.

a lot of people are knocking him for Edric Storm but that was Stannis' big turning point. Yes, it was Davos' who hid the child and convinced Stannis of his duty, but remember its Stannis who elevated Davos to the position he's in, and I have a hard time seeing any of the other kings doing something like that. I imagine Stannis would have the best small council out of any potential ruler - the guy just doesn't tolerate fools and snakes that well.

I have to laugh at the people suggesting Stannis only went to the wall because it was so advantageous to him. True, the One True King is sadly only a pretender, and maybe his motivations for going up there are more about a quixotic fulfillment of his ego ("This is what a True King would do!") than duty to the realm. But how is dragging what few soldiers you have across thousands of miles of ocean to the frozen north to defeat an enemy that only 300 crows take seriously advancing your position?

[Maegor the Cuddly]

I have to laugh at the people suggesting Stannis only went to the wall because it was so advantageous to him. True, the One True King is sadly only a pretender, and maybe his motivations for going up there are more about a quixotic fulfillment of his ego ("This is what a True King would do!") than duty to the realm. But how is dragging what few soldiers you have across thousands of miles of ocean to the frozen north to defeat an enemy that only 300 crows take seriously advancing your position?

Thank you. This is a big point people miss about Stannis. The move absolutely baffles the Lannisters, confuse the NW themselves, and flies in the face of a tactical move made by one of the most ruthless and cunning lords of the realm, Tywin Lannister, who commented on how Rayder could make a useful ally against the Starks if it came down to it. There's little-to-no strategic value in the move, sure, take them North and rally men to return the Starks to power, but to go all the way to the Wall and fight off the Wildlings, and later help incorporate them into the Realm? It's a move that'd bamboozle the greatest military minds of the time, because they simply wouldn't get why. He didn't do it for strategic reasons, but because he felt it was his duty.

[Lady of Castamere]

He didn't burn an innocent child because the child was taken away from him. That's not the same as being tempted and then saying, no, this is not right.

But he didn't punish Davos for what he did. Maybe he wanted Edric to escape. Or maybe he would burn that child if he could. Nobody knows.

first: no problem here!

second : actually I'm not convinced that he knew about Mel's plan to begin with! from the texts it appears that he didn't know.

third : I don't remember but maybe I'm mistaking.

and don't worry, my English will get the gold cup (or crap cup) for being the crappiest! in this forum. LOL

Yeah, maybe he didn't. But it's sure that he wanted Renly to die. I mean of course he did. Renly said some unfertile things.

And he didn't punish Melisandre either for what she did.

Damn, I wish I could remember... I really can't remember from what book it is. But I'm so sure that someone said like that!

...and thanks. ^_^

[Maegor the Cuddly]

Yeah, maybe he didn't. But it's sure that he wanted Renly to die. I mean of course he did. Renly said some unfertile things.

And he didn't punish Melisandre either for what she did.

Damn, I wish I could remember... I really can't remember from what book it is. But I'm so sure that someone said like that!

I know he was depressed and repentant, and he actually goes over and says to Jon, "Yes, I loved my brothers, even if they were intolerable.", I am not even sure that he can prove Mel did it, does she ever tell him what happened? Davos saw her shadow-baby Penrose, and Cat and Brienne saw Renly get Shadowbaby'd, and theorize its Stannis, but one's undead and the other isn't exactly held in high regard. How could he know that he was the cause of Renly's death? He may think it, but he has no way of knowing.

[W.Kane]

But he didn't punish Davos for what he did. Maybe he wanted Edric to escape. Or maybe he would burn that child if he could. Nobody knows.

Yeah, maybe he didn't. But it's sure that he wanted Renly to die. I mean of course he did. Renly said some unfertile things.

And he didn't punish Melisandre either for what she did.

I kinda agree with this . although he didn't order Renly's death but he wanted him dead after the parley. (after all those insults and threats from Renly)

that why he didn't punish Mel , because he kind of feels guilty and responsible for what happened to Renly , after all he killed Renly in his dream.

Damn, I wish I could remember... I really can't remember from what book it is. But I'm so sure that someone said like that!

bring the proof or it didn't happen. :D

...and thanks. ^_^

;)

[WhatIsDeadMayNeverLive]

There's nothing like a king who burns people alive. Just ask Rickard Stark.

Stannis would turn into Aerys 2.0 long ago if it weren't for Davos. And people are saying Dany is mad...

[Maegor the Cuddly]

There's nothing like a king who burns people alive. Just ask Rickard Stark.

Stannis would turn into Aerys 2.0 long ago if it weren't for Davos. And people are saying Dany is mad...

Stannis's appointment and keeping of Davos is what makes a good ruler. Aerys had people like Merryweather as his Hand, people who stood by as people were burned for his mad pleasure. Stannis was desperate, and considered burning a child, he had a Hand that was willing to take action. He kept said Hand around, because he knew how effective he was.

That's a big reason Dany has such a low chance of success, who is her Hand? Barristan Selmy, a good fighter and dutiful man, but not a ruler, at all...

[Nictarion]

There's nothing like a king who burns people alive. Just ask Rickard Stark.

Stannis would turn into Aerys 2.0 long ago if it weren't for Davos. And people are saying Dany is mad...

:cheers: Yeah people always claim Stannis would be a good king because od Davos. Well, how bout Davos for king, leave Stannis out of it. What happens if Stannis becomes king and Davos dies, ugh Westeros is left in the hands of Stannis, with Mel as his only advisor. That is a scary thought.

[Maegor the Cuddly]

:cheers: Yeah people always claim Stannis would be a good king because od Davos. Well, how bout Davos for king, leave Stannis out of it. What happens if Stannis becomes king and Davos dies, ugh Westeros is left in the hands of Stannis, with Mel as his only advisor. That is a scary thought.

Not necessarily. Every good ruler in history's success can be attributed to good/willing advisers. Let's look at Robert's advisers...

Treacherous, self-absorbed Littlefinger

Sneaky, schemey, stability-disrupting Varys

Old, decadent, slimy Pycelle

Equally self-absorbed, but competent Renly

Lawful, ruthless, stubborn Stannis

Not exactly a good set of advisers. Good counsel is the key to a successful realm as history has proven time and time again. Let's look at Tommen's council under Cersei...

Goldenhand the Just (AKA, Jaime), competent and semi-moral, but absent

The Bastard of Driftmark, who ran away with his navy.

Harrold Swyft, man chosen BECAUSE he was easy to manipulate

Pycelle, old, decadent, slimy servant of Cersei

Qyburn, just... Qyburn.

Then let's look at the council under Kevan.

Doofish Mace Tyrell

Competent and powerful Redwyne

Tarly (I believe... Confirm?)

Pycelle still

Qyburn still.

You can't say these people have grade A counsel to trust on. People need good advice, and Stannis has set a precedent for this. Davos isn't the only competent and moral man in Westeros... There's like, three more, at least.

[WhatIsDeadMayNeverLive]

Not necessarily. Every good ruler in history's success can be attributed to good/willing advisers. Let's look at Robert's advisers...

Treacherous, self-absorbed Littlefinger

Sneaky, schemey, stability-disrupting Varys

Old, decadent, slimy Pycelle

Equally self-absorbed, but competent Renly

Lawful, ruthless, stubborn Stannis

Not exactly a good set of advisers. Good counsel is the key to a successful realm as history has proven time and time again. Let's look at Tommen's council under Cersei...

Goldenhand the Just (AKA, Jaime), competent and semi-moral, but absent

The Bastard of Driftmark, who ran away with his navy.

Harrold Swyft, man chosen BECAUSE he was easy to manipulate

Pycelle, old, decadent, slimy servant of Cersei

Qyburn, just... Qyburn.

Then let's look at the council under Kevan.

Doofish Mace Tyrell

Competent and powerful Redwyne

Tarly (I believe... Confirm?)

Pycelle still

Qyburn still.

You can't say these people have grade A counsel to trust on. People need good advice, and Stannis has set a precedent for this. Davos isn't the only competent and moral man in Westeros... There's like, three more, at least.

Ah, but you forgot another one of Stannis' advisors - the pyromaniac Mel. For god's sake, the man burnt his former Hand. Burning people alive is what started RR and unless Stannis sends Mel away and stops with sacrifices to R'hllor, he will make one of the worst kings in Westeros history.

[The Great Walrus]

Ah, but you forgot another one of Stannis' advisors - the pyromaniac Mel. For god's sake, the man burnt his former Hand. Burning people alive is what started RR and unless Stannis sends Mel away and stops with sacrifices to R'hllor, he will make one of the worst kings in Westeros history.

I'm gonna have to call B.S. on this one. Stannis lacks the qualities of truly monstrous kings such as Aegon IV, Aerys II, and Joffrey. Mainly he actually has a conscience, and does not derive pleasure from the suffering of others.

[Maegor the Cuddly]

Ah, but you forgot another one of Stannis' advisors - the pyromaniac Mel. For god's sake, the man burnt his former Hand. Burning people alive is what started RR and unless Stannis sends Mel away and stops with sacrifices to R'hllor, he will make one of the worst kings in Westeros history.

The only reason he even keeps her around is because her power is apparently legitimate. I wouldn't put it past Stannis to re-convert to the Seven once he gets the IT.

Edit: Not to mention, it'd be a good way to get rid of really bad criminals. It'd be cheaper than providing provisions to get them to the Wall after all... And one out of six bad advisers isn't going to doom the realm. I mean, Baelor the Blessed/Befuddled had his sisters imprisoned, and was a level of zealous that the High Septon could hardly match, and he isn't regarded as bad.

[Nictarion]

I'm gonna have to call B.S. on this one. Stannis lacks the qualities of truly monstrous kings such as Aegon IV, Aerys II, and Joffrey. Mainly he actually has a conscience, and does not derive pleasure from the suffering of others.

Aerys ll started of a really good king though. I would say Stannis is already burning people and he is not even on the throne yet. Basically it all comes down to Mel, I would have no problem with him if he would get rid of the religious fanatic red witch.

[Maegor the Cuddly]

Aerys ll started of a really good king though. I would say Stannis is already burning people and he is not even on the throne yet. Basically it all comes down to Mel, I would have no problem with him if he would get rid of the religious fanatic red witch.

Which he very well may be able to. That's part of the reason I think he left Mel behind when he marched on Winterfell. To give him a reason to ditch her entirely, since she wasn't influencing their chances of victory at all if they end up winning without her.

[WhatIsDeadMayNeverLive]

I'm gonna have to call B.S. on this one. Stannis lacks the qualities of truly monstrous kings such as Aegon IV, Aerys II, and Joffrey. Mainly he actually has a conscience, and does not derive pleasure from the suffering of others.

note that I wrote "unless". What do you think will happen if Stannis takes IT and burns Tommen alive? Major rebellion against "Mad King Stannis"! This is all hypothetical of course, but you cannot say it would be OOC for him to burn this "abomination". If he manages to send Mel away, say no to the Queen's Men and stop with the burnings, he might turn out to be a great king. If not, he might cause major rebellions in Westeros and go down as one of the worst kings in history. But if I had the power to decide who sits the IT, would I be willing to take the risk with Stannis? No, definitely not.

And burning is not a good way to get rid of criminals. It's one of the most painful deaths imaginable, together with flaying and crucifiction.

Also, it's not about how bad the advisor is, it's about how much and in what ways she influences the king. Burnings alone will not bring ruin to Westeros, but they will start rebellions and we will be where we were and the end of GoT.

[JonisHenryTudor]

The realm will be best off with the IT destroyed and 7 independent kingdoms coming back again.

Then how would you explain the prosperity and strength of England and later Great Britain, which was also broken into several small kingdoms. Just thought I would point that out.