why did Stannis mock Maester Cressen?

[E-Ro]

Aerys grew brutal, capricious and increasingly fascinated with fire, especially the highly flammable substance known as wildfire. Aerys began to use wildfire for executing alleged traitors. The procedures aroused him and, while he and his wife had slept in separate chambers for some years and avoided each other by day as well, Aerys would always claim his marriage rights after such an execution by fire, brutally abusing his wife in bed.

Go right on ahead and make that thread, james arryn, I look forward to using the above two quotes(as well as any others I can find) to prove that the aerys stannis comparison is based on nothing but mindless hate. It comes incredibly close to a poor attempt at trolling in fact.

[David Selig]

Yeah, Aerys was executing traitors by burning. Just like Stannis. That was my point.

[The Drunkard]

Wrong again. He had exactly one person burned to death: Rickard Stark. His son was strangled. His son was absolutely guilty of high treason and if Rickard was defiant in his defence of him, so was he.

The Mad King burned far fewer people than Stannis. None for religious purposes.

Odd that you claim I'm wrong and then go on to make that particular error. In addition to Rickard, Aerys had Qarlton Chelsted burnt alive, as well as Lady Serala. In fact, we also know that Aerys burnt a number of other 'traitors' throughout his rule, as Jaime comments that it aroused him and led to the raping of Rhaella multiple times.

(I'm actually going to have an 'Aerys, Stannis, or Both?' thread with about 40 questions. I don't think you'll like it, but for neutral observers it should raise interesting questions.)

I'd suggest a reread or three before that.

[EstEst]

<snip> Stannis may have thought to have Cressen's best interest in mind, but not being open about that shows his lack in social and communication skills.

Agreed.

[E-Ro]

Yeah, Aerys was executing traitors by burning. Just like Stannis. That was my point.

Wasn't directed at you, another poster claimed that Stannis burned more people alive then aerys, which is categorically false.

Just checked the wiki, burning all of house darklyn minus ser dontos amounts to over 8 people burned alive. That right there is more people then stannis has ever burned, and that's just one house.

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/House_Darklyn

[Gargarax]

Wrong again. He had exactly one person burned to death: Rickard Stark. His son was strangled. His son was absolutely guilty of high treason and if Rickard was defiant in his defence of him, so was he.

The Mad King burned far fewer people than Stannis. None for religious purposes.

This is particularly important because Aerys' paranoia might not have been unfounded, if Robert's Rebellion was more than we are made to believe (see Southron Ambitions theory). Not that I want Aerys back on the IT, but considering the books have told us about the cruelty of burnings from very early on, downplaying the burnings under Stannis seems ignore one of the books' narrative strategies (in my humble opinion anyway).

Edit: Refering to the first part of the quote, not the second.

[David Selig]

Odd that you claim I'm wrong and then go on to make that particular error. In addition to Rickard, Aerys had Qarlton Chelsted burnt alive, as well as Lady Serala, and every member of House Hollard and Darklyn bar one. In fact, we also know that Aerys burnt a number of other 'traitors' throughout his rule, as Jaime comments that it aroused him and led to the raping of Rhaella multiple times.

Well, all of those people we know about were actually traitors. Houses Hollard and Darklyn rebelled and captured the king. Chelsted disobeyed direct orders during wartime. It's a cruel and unfair system, but if you are going to defend Stannis for his burnings, you can't condemn Aerys for doing the same.

[E-Ro]

Well, all of those people we know about were actually traitors. Houses Hollard and Darklyn rebelled and captured the king. Chelsted disobeyed direct orders during wartime. It's a cruel and unfair system, but if you are going to defend Stannis for his burnings, you can't condemn Aerys for doing the same.

What about the other unnamed people in those two houses? You don't think there were any kids or members that had nothing to do with it burnt alive? How about the people he burned in kl and then would attack his wife? The point is, stannis only burns when 100% sure, he doesn't get horny over it, and would never tape anyone. If you want to compare Aerys and stannis fine, but at least be objective about it.

[The Drunkard]

Well, all of those people we know about were actually traitors. Houses Hollard and Darklyn rebelled and captured the king. Chelsted disobeyed direct orders during wartime. It's a cruel and unfair system, but if you are going to defend Stannis for his burnings, you can't condemn Aerys for doing the same.

Rickard hadn't committed a crime, though, and there were children amongst the Darklyns and Hollards. The moment Stannis starts killing kids out of spite and innocent men trying to prove the innocence of others, my defense will stop.

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

So how did Stannis mocking his maester escalate into comparing the number of people Aerys and Stannis have burned?

[Jory Cassel]

Wasn't directed at you, another poster claimed that Stannis burned more people alive then aerys, which is categorically false.

Just checked the wiki, burning all of house darklyn minus ser dontos amounts to over 8 people burned alive. That right there is more people then stannis has ever burned, and that's just one house.

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/House_Darklyn

False, the members of House Darklyn were beheaded, save for Lady Serala who was burned.

Three people burned by Aerys are confirmed, possibly more but none that we know of.

[E-Ro]

False, the members of House Darklyn were beheaded, save for Lady Serala who was burned.

Three people burned by Aerys are confirmed, possibly more but none that we know of.

Lord Denys immediately surrendered and begged for mercy, but in his fury Aerys had him immediately beheaded. His rage still not sated, the king ordered House Darklyn utterly destroyed, along with House Hollard, which had sided with them. Every last member of both families was tortured at excruciating length before being burned alive,

Aerys grew brutal, capricious and increasingly fascinated with fire, especially the highly flammable substance known as wildfire. Aerys began to use wildfire for executing alleged traitors. The procedures aroused him and, while he and his wife had slept in separate chambers for some years and avoided each other by day as well, Aerys would always claim his marriage rights after such an execution by fire, brutally abusing his wife in bed.

Tortured, and THEN burned alive. the criminals under stannis were just burned.

ETA: Will look for the quotes from the books later, if anyone could provide them now, I would be much obliged.

ETA 2: We do know for a fact that he burned more people then just those three, it is said he would go and rape his wife afterward, during one of those rapes dany was likely conceived. Lets do the math here, Stannis burned a florent, fake mance, and 3 peasbury soldiers. Thats five people.

[Jory Cassel]

"Every last member of both families was tortured at excruciating length before being burned alive"

wiki or books? Because according to the latter:

Once Lord Denys lost his hostage, he opened his gates and ended his defiance rather than let Lord Tywin take the town. He bent the knee and begged for mercy, but the king was not of a forgiving mind. Lord Denys lost his head, as did his brothers and his sister, uncles, cousins, all the lordly Darklyns.

[E-Ro]

"Every last member of both families was tortured at excruciating length before being burned alive"

wiki or books? Because according to the latter:

Alright, fair enough, the entry is false. Of course, it still amounts to aerys executing more people then Stannis. Just not as many by fire that we know of. This really is a terrible argument. "aerys executed way more innocent people, but hey, at least not all of them were by fire!" The end result is the same, people killed. Stannis has executed by burning 5 criminals that were undoubtedly guilty. Aerys tortured, burned, and beheaded numerous people, then would go and rape his wife. Were is the similarity again?

[Gargarax]

Tortured, and THEN burned alive. the criminals under stannis were just burned.

Well, that's the problem with the discussion, I guess. There is no such thing as "just burned". Nobody has burned people as a punishment apart from Stannis, Aerys and Dany. Aerys was a monster, because he burned people - it's the one things that makes him a villain and the burnings are the one reason why we (or most of us) don't regard Robert's Rebellion as treason. Aerys burned people because he thinks they committed treason. And now there is Stannis, doing the same. Yes, he doesn't enjoy it. Yes, they might deserve to die. That doesn't change the fact that the precedent makes it very unlikely that within the narrative logic of the story, Stannis' burnings are in any way excuseable.

[E-Ro]

Well, that's the problem with the discussion, I guess. There is no such thing as "just burned". Nobody has burned people as a punishment apart from Stannis, Aerys and Dany. Aerys was a monster, because he burned people - it's the one things that makes him a villain and the burnings are the one reason why we (or most of us) don't regard Robert's Rebellion as treason. Aerys burned people because he thinks they committed treason. And now there is Stannis, doing the same. Yes, he doesn't enjoy it. Yes, they might deserve to die. That doesn't change the fact that the precedent makes it very unlikely that within the narrative logic of the story, Stannis' burnings are in any way excuseable.

Would you rather be tortured, then burned alive, or just burned alive? Which is worse? Yes, we only know of three people that burned someone alive, but the lords of westeros commit atrocities that can be far far worse then just burning someone. Tywin never burns anyone alive, yet of tywin, and Stannis, who is the worse?

The rebellion WAS treason, burning or no. But it was the most justified war we know of in the entire series. Justified because Lyanna was stolen and betrothed to someone else, aerys was insane, and aerys called for both ned and roberts heads. The lord paramount of the Stormlands and north were to be killed, for no reason at all. Thats why the rebellion is ok. Because it was self defense of two kids(robert and ned were very young) who had done nothing.

I agree that the burnings aren't excusable. I dont find ANY execution as excusable, whether its beheading or lethal injection or hanging. The method doesnt matter to me, execution is execution and im against it. But ALL the lords of westeros execute people. Yet no one complains about ned doing it, or anyone else doing it. My point, is that you either find execution bad but are willing to overlook it because its westeros and not modern day earth, you find execution bad and cannot overlook it no matter what because executing someone is horrible to you no matter what. You cannot be ok with killing someone as long as the method is deemed less painful to you. The end result is the same.

[Gargarax]

There's another problem with burning. Both in Aerys' an in Stannis' case, the death of the person burnt is not the main reason for the manner of execution. In both cases, there is a ritual aspect: Aerys sees fire as his champion and is turned on by people who burn, Stannis is doing it to get R'hllor's favor (or, argueably, the queen's men's). That is why the burnings are so problematic - they are more than executions and ritual killings are among the most barbaric customs in any human society.

[Gargarax]

Would you rather be tortured, then burned alive, or just burned alive? Which is worse? Yes, we only know of three people that burned someone alive, but the lords of westeros commit atrocities that can be far far worse then just burning someone. Tywin never burns anyone alive, yet of tywin, and Stannis, who is the worse?

The rebellion WAS treason, burning or no. But it was the most justified war we know of in the entire series. Justified because Lyanna was stolen and betrothed to someone else, aerys was insane, and aerys called for both ned and roberts heads. The lord paramount of the Stormlands and north were to be killed, for no reason at all. Thats why the rebellion is ok. Because it was self defense of two kids(robert and ned were very young) who had done nothing.

I agree that the burnings aren't excusable. I dont find ANY execution as excusable, whether its beheading or lethal injection or hanging. The method doesnt matter to me, execution is execution and im against it. But ALL the lords of westeros execute people. Yet no one complains about ned doing it, or anyone else doing it. My point, is that you either find execution bad but are willing to overlook it because its westeros and not modern day earth, you find execution bad and cannot overlook it no matter what because executing someone is horrible to you no matter what. You cannot be ok with killing someone as long as the method is deemed less painful to you. The end result is the same.

I completely agree with you on the Stannis-Tywin part - Tywin is a despicable human being with no redeeming qualities, Stannis has his dark sides that can be seen as despicable as well, but he has a lot of redeeming qualities. I also agree on the rebellion part; I wasn't saying that I'm one of those who say it was wrong.

What I don't agree with is the last part, for the reason mentioned above. The manner of execution does matter. There is a reason why in some countries capital punishment is practiced, but torture isn't. A quick death does not violate a person's dignity (which is untouchable, according to most constitutions), but torture does, and so does a death that involves torture or ritual. Also remember that historically (and ASOIAF is drawing heavily on historical realities, as we know), death by fire is reserved for heretics who fell victim to religious fanatism. So both in westeros and our world, the precendences for burnings are only negatively connotated and have no root in the judicial system of either.

[Antler's Fury]

Wrong again. He had exactly one person burned to death: Rickard Stark.

And Quarlton Chelsted. And a bunch of other people, though we never learn the specifics. In AFFC, Jaime says "whenever Aerys gave a man to the flames", implying that it was a repeated occurance.

The Mad King burned far fewer people than Stannis. None for religious purposes.

All the people Stannis burned were people guilty of some kind of crime deserving of the death sentence. The fact that these burnings appeased the Red God was killing two birds with one stone, but religion was not the primary motivator.

[Gargarax]

All the people Stannis burned were people guilty of some kind of crime deserving of the death sentence. The fact that these burnings appeased the Red God was killing two birds with one stone, but religion was not the primary motivator.

Nope. They were burned specifically to appease the red god. Religion was not a primary factor in the death itself, but in the manner of death. And that, as I tried to explain above, makes all the difference.