Stannis's Decision to have Renly killed (long post).

[Antler's Fury]

Where have I said I don't fault Renly for doing this? I do, actually. But this is a thread about Stannis' decision to murder his brother, not about Renly's decisions.

Yes it is. You criticize Stannis' decision to murder Renly on the grounds that he should have bent the knee to him. But Stannis didn't because he expected Renly to do the bending. When Renly refused, Stannis killed him. How can you fault Stannis for killing him when you just admitted that you fault Renly for not bending the knee?

As for the proof - for the 17th time Stannis himself told Davos he had no proof. Do you think he was lying?

Do you deny that JA and Stannis were investigating the incest? Do you deny that they collected enough proof to convince themselves? Do you deny that Stannis lost this proof because of JA's murder? The fact that JA was murdered doesn't make his and Stannis' conclusion any less factually correct.

[Draco_Dracul]

So, what? Should Stannis just let the Lannisters takeover because they (as far as he's aware) killed JA and forced him to flee, abandoning his evidence? I don't know why Stannis' lack of proof on hand is such a big deal, since we know he originally had it, and more importantly, that he was RIGHT. And he may not have convinced Robert or Renly (who hated him) but he definitely confinced JA, who was smarter than both combined.

He should have informed both of his brother right after Jon Arryn's death, informed Ned from Dragon Stone, or let Renly take the throne and remove the Lannisters. As is he has let the Lannisters take over. He hasn't let them have it without a fight, but they have the throne, they have most of the kingdoms at least nominally supporting them, and they have the largest army.

[David Selig]

Do you deny that Stannis lost this proof because of JA's murder?

Uh, yes. What did he lose? Nothing. You can't really believe the book on genealogy Ned read was the only such book in Westeros.

How can you fault Stannis for killing him when you just admitted that you fault Renly for not bending the knee?

Very easily. They were both selfish fools. Why's this so hard to understand?

From Stannis' PoV he had 2 choices -

1)bend the knee to Renly, which means shorter war, less destruction in Westeros, and no need to become kinslayer. Easily the right choice IMO.

2) kill Renly - the selfish choice which made him a murderer of his brother, prolonged the war and let the Lannisters remain in power.

[Antler's Fury]

He should have informed both of his brother right after Jon Arryn's death, informed Ned from Dragon Stone,

Without sufficient proof, knowing that Robert and Ned probably wouldn't believe him and see him as a self serving usurper?

or let Renly take the throne and remove the Lannisters.

And violate Stannis' rights?

As is he has let the Lannisters take over.

No, he's resisted them tooth and nail.

He hasn't let them have it without a fight, but they have the throne, they have most of the kingdoms at least nominally supporting them, and they have the largest army.

Renly's bending the knee would have helped in their fight against the Lannisters too.

[Antler's Fury]

Uh, yes. What did he lose? Nothing. You can't really believe the book on genealogy Ned read was the only such book in Westeros.

He lost the bastards, which is one of the reasons he wanted Storm's End, to get Edric as proof.

From Stannis' PoV he had 2 choices -

1)bend the knee to Renly, which means shorter war, less destruction in Westeros, and no need to become kinslayer. Easily the right choice IMO.

How was it right to capituate to Renly's bullying, when Renly should have bent the knee to him? You're essentially saying that Reny was justified in stealing that which belonged to Stannis, and that Stannis was wrong in opposing bullying. How was Renly right in refusing to bend to Stannis? And if he was indeed a "selfish fool" how can you blame Stannis for killing him for refusing to bend the knee?

2) kill Renly - the selfish choice which made him a murderer of his brother, prolonged the war and let the Lannisters remain in power.

It only came to this because Renly refused to bend. His third choice was have Renly bend the knee, which is what he chose. Renly refused, so he had to kill him. The only other option was legitimizing theft, bullying, and usurpation.

[David Selig]

It's like talking to a wall.

Have you posted anything else except posts defending Stannis so far?

[Antler's Fury]

It's like talking to a wall.

Not really. You know that Stannis and JA had proof, but you see Stannis' not having any on Dragonstone thanks to JA's murder as somehow justification for his not claiming his crown. I really don't see what this has to do with anything. Proof or no, Stannis is king. He knows it, the Lannisters know it, the Starks know it. They're all just willing to ignore it.

You say that Renly was wrong in not bending the knee, yet paradoxically fault Stannis for killing him when he refuses. You also insist that Stannis should have bent and legitimized Renly's bullying and theivery, which means submitting to injustice.

Have you posted anything else except posts defending Stannis so far?

Yes, actually.

[aceluby]

It's like talking to a wall.

Have you posted anything else except posts defending Stannis so far?

The ironic part about this is that Davos is arguably the most loyal Stannis fan, yet even he is critical of some of Stan's decisions.

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

To me Renly´s murder was the worst play in terms of the Game of thrones.

This obsession with his rights is all wrong. I mean, he sends a letter denouncing the king as a monstrosity produced by incest, which of course makes him the heir to the Iron throne. Daemon Blackfyre did the same.

To any lord or commoner this just sounds like treason, an excuse to break the succession line in his advantage. We as readers know he is right, but to all westeros this is a bogus claim. There is no DNA test. The father himself never doubted, at least in public, the legitimacy of the heir. The main instigator of this claim actually confessed treason and was executed for it. The only thing backing up Stannis claim is his reputation as a just and fair man.

I mean, let’s look at the precedent it sets if Stannis could win the Iron Throne. Anyone with some distant claim might question the legitimacy of the heir on the grounds of bastardry, and start coup d’états. Even if a random lord knew this claim was correct, the right thing to do would still be to back the heir apparent. After all birth right as a way of defining succession of state don´t guaranty good governance. They are just a way of securing peaceful successions in contra position of force as the only driver to legitimacy.

Once we start a revolt against the crown, on whatever claim we say we have, rights (Stannis being the older brother) are superfluous. Both Renly and Stannis are trying to conquer the seven kingdoms.

This being said, a good Lord only enters a war for a good cause and with reasonable chances of success. Stannis had what? 2500 men?. Renly had an army of 100K and a political alliance with the Tyrells. More than enough to defeat the lannisters and the rest of the “kings”, which include Starks and Greyjoy if they don´t bent the knee.

In Stannis place I would have negotiated with Renly. A public renouncement of Stannis claim to the IT in favor of his brother has value (there is a fair deal of evidence to support this). That is Stannis bargaining chip, besides his ships (which would give Renly both superiority at sea and land, more than enough to siege KL, and take the city bloodlessly)

In exchange of this service, Stannis could be named Heir of Renly, until his son comes of age. He could keep his position as Master of Ships, even be named Lord of Storm's End (which he always wanted), and lord paramount of the Stormlands.

Once Renly (and the Tyrells) deal with the lannisters and the rest of the traitors, one night, Renly could be visited by a mysterious shadow, courtesy of Melisandre. And Stannis would be king of Westeros.

[aceluby]

snip

<slow clap>

In Stans defense I think he may have played the game a bit more w/ how he has developed at the wall, but it took the stunning defeat at BW to get him to where he is at the end of ADWD.

[E-Ro]

Snip

Well said, and I agree with everything you have said here! I love your posts, I think they are spot on brah. I look forward to seeing more of you, Antlers fury.

Anyway, there comes a time when you have to stop arguing with these people. Neither side is changing, and they don't seem to get any of the pro stannis points. Some of them do it just to egg stannis fans on, some do it because they really do feel this way about Stannis, many of them, hate the fact that stannis has fans, they just cant handle it so they spend a ton of time in stannis threads posting about it, its maddening. Its already sort of started happening, but now they are beginning to attack you rather then your arguments for example "have you posted anything but stannis posts" I mean, why on earth is that relevant to your points at all? It isnt, but when losing a debate horribly these sort of meta posts make people feel better.

Keep up the good work brah, and try not to let these sad petty insults bother you too much, you are in the right, and will have to be satisfied in knowing that.

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

<slow clap>

In Stans defense I think he may have played the game a bit more w/ how he has developed at the wall, but it took the stunning defeat at BW to get him to where he is at the end of ADWD.

I think most of his good calls in ADWD were thanks to the wise advise of Jon snow.

He isn´t a real player in the Game of thrones. Whatever the result of the battle of winterfell, it is pretty clear, that the northern backing he has will only take him that far (taking out Bolton).

No northern lord will march south again, much less for Stannis and his red god. So his chances of actually winning the IT are still pretty thin.. he is not in a much better position than after BW.

[Draco_Dracul]

1No, he's resisted them tooth and nail.

2Renly's bending the knee would have helped in their fight against the Lannisters too.

1. He did, yet they have the throne largely due to his own actions and inactions. Had he chose to get information to his brothers beforehand Ro

2.No, it would not have. It would have left them in the same position that Stannis was anyway. The support of the Reach was dependent on Renly becoming king.

[Lazy Lion]

Do you deny that JA and Stannis were investigating the incest?

Nobody is denying this. Swtich to decaf and stay on topic.

Do you deny that they collected enough proof to convince themselves?

Yes. Jon Arryn and Stannis collected evidence, not proof.

The evidence supported their conclusion, but it didn't come close to proving it.

The physical appearance of Cersei's children compared to Robert's bastards doesn't prove anything. No more than the physical appearance of Robb and Sansa compared to Jon proves that their real father was Edmure.

We, as readers, know that Cersei's children were not Robert's. We know for the same reason Ned knew: she confessed, and she did it in our hearing.

Cersei has not confessed to Stannis. He doesn't know that Joffrey is not Robert's son. He is convinced that is the case, and we know him to be correct, but he doesn't know and he certainly doesn't have proof.

[Antler's Fury]

To me Renly´s murder was the worst play in terms of the Game of thrones.

This obsession with his rights is all wrong. I mean, he sends a letter denouncing the king as a monstrosity produced by incest, which of course makes him the heir to the Iron throne. Daemon Blackfyre did the same.

But Blackfyre's claim had little to no proof. Stannis' claim was stronger, because he had proof.

To any lord or commoner this just sounds like treason, an excuse to break the succession line in his advantage. We as readers know he is right, but to all westeros this is a bogus claim. There is no DNA test. The father himself never doubted, at least in public, the legitimacy of the heir. The main instigator of this claim actually confessed treason and was executed for it. The only thing backing up Stannis claim is his reputation as a just and fair man.

So what should he have done? Let Joff take his throne?

I mean, let’s look at the precedent it sets if Stannis could win the Iron Throne. Anyone with some distant claim might question the legitimacy of the heir on the grounds of bastardry, and start coup d’états. Even if a random lord knew this claim was correct, the right thing to do would still be to back the heir apparent. After all birth right as a way of defining succession of state don´t guaranty good governance. They are just a way of securing peaceful successions in contra position of force as the only driver to legitimacy.

If birth right does not guarantee good governance, then why should random lords back the illegitimate heir apparent? He's only heir because people believe he has a birth right.

Once we start a revolt against the crown, on whatever claim we say we have, rights (Stannis being the older brother) are superfluous. Both Renly and Stannis are trying to conquer the seven kingdoms.

But Stannis is trying to enforce his rights. Renly is trying to deny them. The whole point of Stannis' obession with rights is predicated upon a desire to not have the kingdoms face revolt every time a king dies.

This being said, a good Lord only enters a war for a good cause and with reasonable chances of success. Stannis had what? 2500 men?. Renly had an army of 100K and a political alliance with the Tyrells. More than enough to defeat the lannisters and the rest of the “kings”, which include Starks and Greyjoy if they don´t bent the knee.

This is putting Stannis in a catch 22 situation. He needs more men to get a reasonable chance of success, yet the only way he'll get more men is if he already has a reasonable chance of success. Again, the whole point of the law that Stannis is focusing on is so that the lords always know who to support, rather than plunging the realm into war by trying to see who would be able to attract the most power.

In Stannis place I would have negotiated with Renly. A public renouncement of Stannis claim to the IT in favor of his brother has value (there is a fair deal of evidence to support this). That is Stannis bargaining chip, besides his ships (which would give Renly both superiority at sea and land, more than enough to siege KL, and take the city bloodlessly)

In exchange of this service, Stannis could be named Heir of Renly, until his son comes of age. He could keep his position as Master of Ships, even be named Lord of Storm's End (which he always wanted), and lord paramount of the Stormlands.

This is the exact same deal that Stannis offered Renly: Heir and SC seat. Yes, Stannis could have bent to Renly on these terms, or Renly to Stannis. Each insists that the other bends on these terms. What decides it? The law! The reason the law that Stannis cites exists is to prevent these very squabbles.

Once Renly (and the Tyrells) deal with the lannisters and the rest of the traitors, one night, Renly could be visited by a mysterious shadow, courtesy of Melisandre. And Stannis would be king of Westeros.

Wait...what? How exactly do you reconcile this with:

To me Renly´s murder was the worst play in terms of the Game of thrones.

...if you're advocating that Stannis just murder Renly using a shadow assasin later anyway?

[Antler's Fury]

1. He did, yet they have the throne largely due to his own actions and inactions. Had he chose to get information to his brothers beforehand Ro

Robert wouldn't have believed him. Hence the need for JA. Once JA was dead, Stannis had no way to convince Robert, nor the power to act independently in the form of the Handship.

2.No, it would not have. It would have left them in the same position that Stannis was anyway. The support of the Reach was dependent on Renly becoming king.

How do you know that? The Tyrells are pragmatists. Given Renly's connection with them, who's to say that he could not work out a deal where Shireen marries Willas, or something along those lines?

[Antler's Fury]

Nobody is denying this. Swtich to decaf and stay on topic.

Then why are people saying that Stannis had no proof? He did. He and JA collected evidence that proved their suspicions.

Yes. Jon Arryn and Stannis collected evidence, not proof.

The evidence supported their conclusion, but it didn't come close to proving it.

The physical appearance of Cersei's children compared to Robert's bastards doesn't prove anything. No more than the physical appearance of Robb and Sansa compared to Jon proves that their real father was Edmure.

Correct. Hence the book which proved that all Baratheons produced black haired children when cross with Lannisters. The bastards augmented this evidence because the ones whose mothers had fair hair proved that Robert could not have sired a blonde baby. If it wasn't proof, Stannis, Ned, and JA would not have been convinced.

We, as readers, know that Cersei's children were not Robert's. We know for the same reason Ned knew: she confessed, and she did it in our hearing.

Cersei has not confessed to Stannis. He doesn't know that Joffrey is not Robert's son. He is convinced that is the case, and we know him to be correct, but he doesn't know and he certainly doesn't have proof.

So getting a confession is the only way to prove something?

[David Selig]

Then why are people saying that Stannis had no proof? He did. He and JA collected evidence that proved their suspicions.

Correct. Hence the book which proved that all Baratheons produced black haired children when cross with Lannisters. The bastards augmented this evidence because the ones whose mothers had fair hair proved that Robert could not have sired a blonde baby. If it wasn't proof, Stannis, Ned, and JA would not have been convinced.

There's no reason to think Stannis found out about this. He certainly never mentioned the book at all or any genealogical evidence. If he had found out what Ned found out before the meeting with Cersei, he would be an extreme coward for not going to Robert with such strong evidence.

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

But Blackfyre's claim had little to no proof. Stannis' claim was stronger, because he had proof.

Is being blonde a much better "proof" that joffrey was a bastard? Sure, Robert had many bastards, and their hair color seems significant. But still you can’t be sure. Neither is the opinion of a confessed traitor like Ned Stark.

So what should he have done? Let Joff take his throne?

Either you have the strength to defeat the incumbent, or you don´t. Stannis didn´t. Renly did.

If birth right does not guarantee good governance, then why should random lords back the illegitimate heir apparent? He's only heir because people believe he has a birth right.

To maintain the Status quo of course. To avoid a civil war. Peace should be incentive enough in itself. That is the whole objective of birth right as a mechanism for succession of state. Being the son of the king certainly doesn´t make you a better ruler. But if the society agrees in that kind of inheritance, then wars are avoided each time a ruler dies. When you start making excuses for breaking the apparent succession line, the whole point of peaceful succession is lost. Since Stannis would still need to defeat the incumbent to sit in the IT. It really doesn´t matter whether he is right or wrong, once he claims the throne, peaceful succession is no longer an option.

Wars are paid by the common folk most of all. I´m just saying that if I were a random lord of Westeros, helping Stannis uphold his "rights", is not a good reason to call my banners and send my people to die.

But Stannis is trying to enforce his rights. Renly is trying to deny them. The whole point of Stannis' obession with rights is predicated upon a desire to not have the kingdoms face revolt every time a king dies.

His "alleged" rights. Stannis-like obsession with his "rights", is what takes kingdoms to civil war, not what keeps them from revolts every time a king dies. He is a rebel after all.

This is putting Stannis in a catch 22 situation. He needs more men to get a reasonable chance of success, yet the only way he'll get more men is if he already has a reasonable chance of success. Again, the whole point of the law that Stannis is focusing on is so that the lords always know who to support, rather than plunging the realm into war by trying to see who would be able to attract the most power.

Actually, it´s not. If the suspicion that a king is a bastard, is a reasonable way to claim the throne, then virtually any distant cousin could do the same, and expect the support of certain lords in civil wars... with the obvious effect of plunging the realms into war each time a king dies.

This is the exact same deal that Stannis offered Renly: Heir and SC seat. Yes, Stannis could have bent to Renly on these terms, or Renly to Stannis. Each insists that the other bends on these terms. What decides it? The law! The reason the law that Stannis cites exists is to prevent these very squabbles.

Why would Renly accept those terms? He has 100 k men. The weak party should bend the knee to the strong party. This is pretty obvious. Unless you want to take your men to useless death.

Once they intend to take the throne by force, there is no law they can invoke. A conquest is a conquest.

Wait...what? How exactly do you reconcile this with:

Very easily. The assassination of Renly, when he had an army strong enough to secure the Throne for the baratheons, but when he still wasn´t successful, was a very poor move.

If said throne was secured (once the war was over and other claimants defeated), then killing Renly makes sense. Since Stannis would be heir apparent.

[Draco_Dracul]

1. Robert wouldn't have believed him. Hence the need for JA. Once JA was dead, Stannis had no way to convince Robert, nor the power to act independently in the form of the Handship.

2. How do you know that? The Tyrells are pragmatists. Given Renly's connection with them, who's to say that he could not work out a deal where Shireen marries Willas, or something along those lines?

1. The funny thing is neither Renly nor Robert actually have to believe him for them to go along with it. Renly wants to remove Lannister influence in court and set up Robert with Margaery Tyrell, both him and Stannis saying the same thing is quite likely to convince Robert because they don't get along. Even if having both the brothers that dislike each other and rarely agree on anything telling him the same thing doesn't convince him, there is plentiful incentive for Robert to go along with it, namely the fact that he owes Tywin Lannister 3 million dragons which he can declare void with little repercussion by publicly revealing the incest.

2. The most pragmatic decision is to just send there army home and see how things play out. Remember Mace had his army sit for a year outside Storm's End rather than storm it and take it down in a day. If they wait, they can see how it plays out and then deal with the winner. If the Baratheon's win, they can poison Stannis and go with plan A, Renly and Margaery. if the Baratheon's are both killed, they can marry her off to Joffery. If Renly dies and Stannis takes the throne, all the other Armies in Westeros will be so thoroughly broken they can seize the throne for themselves. Trying to deal with Stannis is the most work for the least gain.