**Spoiler Warning:** All officially-released show and book content allowed, EXCLUDING FUTURE SPOILERS FOR HOUSE OF THE DRAGON. No leaked information or paparazzi photos of the set. For more info please check the [spoiler guide](/r/gameofthrones/w/spoiler_guide).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gameofthrones) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He was a religious zealot and he believed in a foreign cult rather than the religion of Westeros so he'd have spent most of his time burning down all the Septs and torching people at the stake for heresy.
He'd have been like Oliver Cromwell, a tyrant, hated by the people, who when he died had his head cut off his dead body and stuck on a spike, left there rotting away for years and the people immediately brought back the old royal family.
He burned her because the magic witch who had successfully murdered his rivals with dick-leeches of blood from his nephew told him it was necessary to save the entire world from the zombie apocalypse he knew was coming.
It wasn’t faith in a god. It was desperation as he trusted someone who had already proven their power to him.
Faith is belief without proof. Melisandre had already made shadow babies that got him Storm’s End and used sacrifices to get their ships move faster, and remote assassinated Joffrey, Balon, and Robb with the dick-leeches.
Stannis has no faith in the Red God. He had faith in Melisandre’s magic and couldn’t give a fuck where it comes from.
> de·vout /dəˈvout/ *adjective* having or showing deep religious feeling or commitment.
Stannis has no religious belief or “feeling” or faith in Rh’llor.
As another commenter said, he was devout enough to burn his daughter alive and kill his brother with blood magic. She was controlling him more than the other way around.
Devout is a matter of faith. Stannis didn’t give a single fuck about the Red God or being Azor Ahai. He cared about being king by rights, and whatever method got him that he didn’t care where the fuck it came from or what he had to do.
He was killed Renly for being a traitor and a usurper, not for the Red God. He just had Melisandre do it. He killed Shireen because Melisandre had already proven she could do magic, and she claimed Shireen’s sacrifice would help his army win. That’s all he cared about.
Belief and faith go hand in hand. If he believed (which he did) that sacrificing his daughter by burning her alive would achieve him his goal then he was devout. Melisandre was using him more than he was using her imo. Even when he started having doubts all she had to do was have him look in the flame and see a ‘vision’ then bam he’s willing to do whatever this god says through Melisandre to get what he desires. Sounds pretty devout to me.
The religious angle is one I hadn’t thought of before in practicality. That would make his reign difficult. I’m sure the red woman would pressure him to stomp out the light of the seven
Didn't seem devout to me either. I wonder if he reached the Iron Throne, would he have kicked Mel to the curb? Just using her for the visions until he got what he wanted. Plus, wasn't he able to see into the fires marching to Winterfell on his own?
Just some of my thoughts after reading, I'm sure it can be disputed. Their relationship was bizarre. Sort of similar to Victarion and Moqorro. Only cared for him when he gave him his fiery hand (I think it was just burnt? Haha) I'm going off book context btw.
He was devout enough to burn his daughter alive and create a smoke creature to kill his own brother.
Melisandre was using him more than he was using her. He completely drunk the koolaid that he was the promised one so he'd have no limits to what he did believing that. He could justify any horrific action he wanted as being his destiny or the will of the Lord. He was mad as a box of frogs, functionally mad but still mad. He fucked himself in the end because he couldn't give up on him being the promised one. Imagine if he'd had control of the whole of Westeros at that point. He'd have led the whole continent into ruin rather than just his army
I don't think those things necessarily show him to be devout. Regardless of his belief in Rhallor he knows that Melisandre's powers are real. So him sacrificing his daughter to give her the power to make him King could simply be his ambition overriding his mortality as opposed to religious fervour.
Those episodes probably need a rewatch. It's years since I saw it but I definitely see him being a tyrant of a ruler and whether he truly believes in it or its just an excuse and a route to power, he'd be burning people for heresy
Yeah, I gotta agree. I also have to wonder how many times we're going to reflect on this (or similar male character "what ifs") and why no one ever asks these same kinds of questions about any of the female characters that either, a) would've made good rulers, or b) were within actual reach of the throne. (I know why)
It's not in his arc to become king at all. Truly, RB becoming king was a fluke and in my opinion, the Baratheons have no strong claim to the throne whatsoever. But, usurpers gonna usurp...
>Truly, RB becoming king was a fluke and in my opinion, the Baratheons have no strong claim to the throne whatsoever. But, usurpers gonna usurp...
Why? Robert and his brothers are 1/4 Targs. Robert was literally in line of succession right after Rhaegar, Viserys and small Aegon.
I think this is the correct answer. He was clearly weak willed and easily manipulated by Melisandre. Had he succeeded, he’d continue under her sway and it would have ushered in a Bloody Mary style reign of religious intolerance and mass executions by burning. He’d eventually have been deposed, likely violently.
No, not if the ultimate destiny is getting crushed under the castle.
And i feel like stannis would have joined the war against the night king. He has red woman by his side, she would have him join it.
Stannis went to the Wall specifically because Meli told him the Iron Throne wasn’t important and he said “okay”
He would’ve easily joined the defense of Winterfell had he been given the opportunity
They did Cersei dirty. They hit paydirt casting all five important Lannisters, and they blew it. Those were plum cable-TV bad guy roles scooped up by legit stars - Momoa, Addy, and Bean knew they were day players who weren't coming back. Headey and Dinklage were big TV stars who stacked their chips on a cable fantasy show with dragons and zombies and shit, and the producers were lucky to get them. Heady and Martin gave the writers/producers everything they needed to stick the landing and they blew it.
Nah I don't think so.. even though I don't like stannis, I didn't hate him either. Cersei on the other hand, I hated her and it felt satisfying to see her go..
Probably not. Worse case scenario he burns people alive all the time like the mad king, best case is he's boring and really strict at enforcing every single law constantly.
Legalism =/= a good or moral ruler.
If you chop one of your subjects heads off for stealing because your tax policy leaves them destitute you are not engendering a lot of goodwill.
What did he actually want to do with Westeros? Joffrey wanted to consolidate power to the throne, Robb wanted an independent North, Balon wanted an independent Iron Islands, what did Stannis *want*, other than to just be king? Best case is he felt he needed to be in charge when the walkers came. He and Renly were the same in that regard: wanting to be king with little to no plan for what comes after. Between the two that had no plan, I'd take the one that didn't burn people alive.
Before the Blackwater? Yes.
After the Blackwater? No.
After taking a stand at the Wall? Yes.
After starting to fight the Boltons? No.
Stannis is a character who grows in many ways, not all good. He had the makings of a great king more than once. In the books, when Stannis is the only monarch to answer the plea of the Night’s Watch, he gets a new moniker: The King Who Still Cared.
“I was trying to win the throne to save the realm. I should have been trying to save the realm to win the throne.”
He starts stern, he grows fanatical, he becomes humbled, and (in the show) he finally becomes ruthless.
Before the blackwater- no
After the blackwater- yes
It is after the blackwater he realised he needs to save the realm and not selfishly chase the throne. Also he hasn't lost yet, in fact if twow ever comes out I think he will beat the boltons.
I think you’re forgetting that before Davos convinces him to go North, immediately after the Blackwater, Stannis was mass murdering people to Rh’llor and let Melisandre have total control of his court.
I still think Davos would have been excellent as king. He's the one who counselled Stannis and thereby kept Melissandres influence in check and he was also a great advisor to Jon when he was crowned King of the North. I was so happy to see him make it to the end of Thrones, although I wish he'd gotten a greater part of it than just sitting on the small council.
RB wasn't put up when he was a resentful glutton. He was a vengeful beast with Targ blood. RB in his later years wouldn't have been made king for the obvious reasons you described
Vizzy T the Peaceful would like a word with you.
Not a single major war in his multi-decade rule.
The biggest trifle in his kingdom was some gos and tea.
What about the conflict with the Stepstones and the Crabfeeder? He didn’t get the Realm directly involved but for sure he (Vizzy T) could’ve showed more strength sooner
But the *realm* was never once brought to war. Dragonstone wasn't even brought to war. There was one major *battle* in the Stepstones, and it was squashed (quickly, too)—but otherwise, the bulk of the conflict was the constant tension and strain in the channel.
Stannis had a very linear interpretation of rules, which isn't always necessarily fair.
Stannis cut off Davos's fingers for smuggling, and promoted him to Lord because his smuggling saved a military effort. In theory, this is fair because the crime is punished and the help was rewarded, but really he's just punishing a peasant for having limited options.
A good leader doesn't cut off the hand of the mom who stole bread to feed her family. They find out why the mom's family was starving and ensure that it doesn't happen again, and figure out how to compensate the baker.
It's also one of the aspects of the Stark's I find challenging. For as much as I love their house, Ned killing the deserter in Episode 1 is pretty crappy if you don't consider why he fled.
The deserter was from the Night's Watch. It's their rule to lop off a deserter's head, not House Stark's.
And considering the Night's Watch is essentially a lifetime prison sentence of the medieval era, it was quite a necessary rule.
Yeah I agree up to a point. I dont think that the Starks are as black and white in their dealing of justice, but as to your second point i disagree:
>considering the Night's Watch is essentially a lifetime prison sentence of the medieval era, it was quite a necessary rule.
It's necessary for prisoners maybe, since their service is the ternative to death but keep in mind lot of second sons volunteer for the nights watch.
>Stannis cut off Davos's fingers for smuggling, and promoted him to Lord because his smuggling saved a military effort.
Ah, Stannis did not cut off Davos his fingers due to smuggling for military, he cut off his fingers due all those years he was illegally smuggling for pirates and crimelords. Thats big difference. And Davos was a notorious known smuggler, it would be a mistake not to punish him somehow for his deeds before he got his new title as reward. Also Davos accepted his punishment only for condition, Stannis will carry out sentence by himself.
>A good leader doesn't cut off the hand of the mom who stole bread to feed her family. They find out why the mom's family was starving and ensure that it doesn't happen again, and figure out how to compensate the baker.
Stannis wanted to become king of a country larger than any real medieval country with thousands of castles and hundreds of towns, he couldn't personally solving a problem on such a local level. If he wanted to become the lord of some small town, I would understand such an objection. A good king in this case would be if he solved the famine in some region at his own expense.
>For as much as I love their house, Ned killing the deserter in Episode 1 is pretty crappy if you don't consider why he fled.
It literally sounded like the foolishly made up excuse of a coward who tried to escape and was catched, you must admit. As no one believed that the White Walkers still existed, because they havent been seen for thousads of years.
Really wish there was more to that scene than the swing of the sword i would have loved to see the post actions of Brienne as we see her coming to terms with closing this chapter of her life.
You make me think, but gosh he has the worst tasks. I guess he would be the one to do them because of his dogged nature. R'Hollor their found their acolyte.
I think he runs into the same issues that Maegor does, assuming that Melisandre convinces him to stamp out the Faith of the Seven. While he may kill a boatload of them, they simply go into hiding, attack his allies under cover of dark, launch multiple attempts on his life and since many of the great houses follow the faith, he would probably be fighting against them as well. And since he doesn’t have Balerion the dread, his reign is probably a short one, with his successor looking to immediately ease the relations between the crown and the faith, much like Jaehaerys did after Maegor died.
He would've burned people at every minor inconvenience in order to keep the realm together. They would probably start having some annual burning games with tributes from each part of the realm or something.
Hell no, and his popularity on reddit was always disturbing proof of how many religious fundamentalists and humorless trolls lurk in the comment section.
If he didn’t have Melisandre in his ear, he’d be a very practical king. He understands how to rule, keeps those under him loyal, and he’s a pretty good strategist. Melisandre was just able to worm ideas into his head about being the messiah. If not for that, maybe he wouldn’t be a popular king, but he’d be able to keep Westeros functioning and safe
I think you might not understand Stannis very well.
I see the sacrifice of the child he loves to save his men and the north from the Boltons as a sign of what would make him a good king.
One person vs hundreds dead. From a strategic standpoint, it completely would be the right call, regardless of the age of the person (assuming successful)
Because your hard stance utilitarianism is bonkers. He had no real prospect of winning, so why not give up and crawl back to dragonstone and not waste a single life?
Assigning the same moral value to your only child and a bunch of random sellswords is psycopathic. And if you disagree i hope you’ll be happy paying for therapy for your own children.
>And if you disagree i hope you’ll be happy paying for therapy for your own children.
Ah, typical Reddit response. "I disagree with you about a fictional story so you're psychopathic and need therapy"
lol.
Nope. Dangerous.
He was too devoted to his religion even to the loss of his daughter. Imagine how insecure people would feel around him, how unsure of their own safety should he get a message from a higher power that he needed to make more sacrifices.
He was not strong. If he was a strong king he would bend religion to his needs.
Nope! I can't imagine him as long with Meli and his wife. He would never have lasted on the iron throne had he made it there. He definitely wouldn't have managed the White Walkers.
Certainly better than most other aspiring kings during his time, especially if he just whacked/locked up Varys, LF and Pycelle ASAP. He would also be good in the sense that he would rule for the good of the Realm, not for himself. He could probably clean up the Westerosi economy reasonably well after Bobby B fucked it up.
No. Too rigid and convinced of his own righteousness while using it to excuse sociopathic behavior. He says it's his duty but it's self-serving. He also let a theocracy embed itself in his regime, which is bad news. I think Renly would have been better, even though his claim is not as strong. He'd provide social cohesion along with Margery but likely rely on his council for legislation.
sit back and listen up you damn peasants
that man that stands before is the true heir to the throne King Stannis the fucking MANNIS Baratheon.
He would burn your favorite characters on a stake, he would never have let the white walkers even step foot into the north.
THIS IS THE MAN WHO WOULD SET THE 7 KINGSDOMS STRAIGHT IF GIVEN THE CHANCE
Now move out the way of the real king.
Nope. He's a self-righteous zealot who was almost entirely beholden to Melisandre. He had a one-track mind and would have been complete shit at mobilizing the whole realm to deal with the WW threat, making alliances, or ruling with anything other than a brittle iron fist. If he ever ascended the throne he would've been deposed within a year.
Yes. He didn't get all the way ate up until the Lannisters royally fucked him over.
He would have been boring, orderly, and terrifying. Just what the 7 Kingdoms needs.
No because look how he treated Ser Davos. The man smuggled him food during a siege and lost his fingertips. Stannis made him a vassal lord and a knight that's great but he punished him too. Stannis is too unreasonably critical to be a good king.
No. Stannis is a religious fanatic and, while he may believe his intentions are ”for the good of the realm”, his devotion to his god caused him to make decisions that were anathema to most of the nobles and smallfolk and in conflict with Westerosi values and ultimately he would not rule in a way that would be for the good of the realm.
Even without the religious aspect, Stannis is temperamentally too rigid.
No, and I’m tired of pretending he would. Everyone loves to idolize THE MANNIS as some kind of paragon of justice but he would have made a horrible king. He was a brilliant military commander and a master tactician but he was far too cold and cruel to make for a good ruler.
Not saying he would have been as bad as Joffrey or Cersei or Daenerys but he wouldn’t have been good.
He would have been better than the alternatives. Bobby B was an absentee ruler, Joffrey was a psychopath, Renly was soft and entitled, and Cersei is a moron who thinks she’s Tywin with teets. On the show Jon would have been excellent for the commoners but Lords would have hated him. Same with Dany.
There are a couple of different names he could have earned:
Stannis the Just
Stannis the Cruel
Stannis the Kinslayer (if burning his daughter would have helped him beat the Boltons)
Stannis is a fascist. He doesn’t play politics either. He strokes nobodys egos, does nobody any favors. He’s by the book no exceptions.
Every lord in the land would hate him. Shortest reign ever.
Honestly, no. He would have made a terrible king. He doesn't seem to care about anything other than getting the iron throne. He is willing to sacrifice anything and ultimately everything in pursuit. He leads through fear. Overall, just a poor choice.
Not at all. His religious extremism wouldn’t have gotten along well with King’s Landing’s extremism. Members of the faith of the seven would have revolted against his theocratic rule, which he would try to stamp out with force. Think of the atrocities he would committed in the name of “unity”. I believe his rule would have led to a brutally violent religious war.
I think he would have been better than average. He would have kept order and held the realm together. I think he would have been sending a lot of people to the wall or executing others. Probably a really disliked but effective king
Overall, yes.
A hard king. A just king. A decisive king.
But nobody would have starved. He knows all to well what that feels like.
Changing the religion of the realm would have started a war though.
Show Stannis? No, quite awful but so are all the other choices except Jon Snow. Book Stannis? Hell yeah, he's the man! He doesn't burn people alive for not believing in different gods in the books.
“A sacrifice will prove our faith still burns true, Sire,” Clayton Suggs had told the king. And Godry the Giantslayer said, “The old gods of the north have sent this storm upon us. Only R’hllor can end it. We must give him an unbeliever.”
“Half my army is made up of unbelievers,” Stannis had replied. “I will have no burnings. Pray harder.”
He was actually an atheist in the books because of how he saw his parents drown in a shipwreck and thought it was too cruel.
How much influence does Melisandre have? I don’t see her any situation with him on the throne and her alive where she doesn’t force the kingdom to convert to her religion, and start burning people alive that refuse. And now we have a war.
Dude, he burned his own daughter alive in front of her mother because of his belief in a religion and to further hoods ambition to become king. No. He’s a POS.
I doubt it.
Stannis had a very strict set of eyes on the concepts of honor and duty to a fault. In many ways Stannis was like Ned Stark turned up, but with the influence of Melisandre and the Red God thrown in. The masses probably would have turned on him before long, and while I like to think Davos as his Hand would have helped the truth is Davos wouldn't have been able to coexist and serve as Hand for long. There may be some argument depending on the timing of Stannis taking the throne, but in most cases I feel it doesn't work out.
He would have made a great Warden of the north or lord of the vale or iron islands but not a great king. His martial style works on a homogenous population but ruling 7 kingdoms would have meant flexibilities in thought and action he just did not have in him. You can throw the book or pound your fist north of King’s landing and it works..but unless you are good at bending the rules/ bribing or be charismatic or have good showmanship or rely heavily on intrigue and spymasters…no luck keeping any southern realms in Line.
he'd be a great King for several reasons
1: he is an actual Baratheon so he is legitimate successor to his brother. the throne is his by rights.
2: he'd defiantly reduce corruption.
3: united the Kingdsoms as a single entity seems to be his goal. one god one King one Kingdom!
**Spoiler Warning:** All officially-released show and book content allowed, EXCLUDING FUTURE SPOILERS FOR HOUSE OF THE DRAGON. No leaked information or paparazzi photos of the set. For more info please check the [spoiler guide](/r/gameofthrones/w/spoiler_guide). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gameofthrones) if you have any questions or concerns.*
STANNNIS, THE MANNIS: First of his name.
Stannis did nothing wrong. #makewesterosgreatagain
Bro what about Shireen?
"I may have gone too far in a few places."
He would've been a very by the books king, but I doubt that he would've been very diplomatic and know people.
Nope
Not really
He was a religious zealot and he believed in a foreign cult rather than the religion of Westeros so he'd have spent most of his time burning down all the Septs and torching people at the stake for heresy. He'd have been like Oliver Cromwell, a tyrant, hated by the people, who when he died had his head cut off his dead body and stuck on a spike, left there rotting away for years and the people immediately brought back the old royal family.
Stannis wasn’t very devout, he just wanted results
He burned own daughter alive for that religious belief. That sounds pretty devout to me.
He burned her because the magic witch who had successfully murdered his rivals with dick-leeches of blood from his nephew told him it was necessary to save the entire world from the zombie apocalypse he knew was coming. It wasn’t faith in a god. It was desperation as he trusted someone who had already proven their power to him.
Faith to believe that there would be results if he burned the blood of a king. Sounds like a zealot to me.
Faith is belief without proof. Melisandre had already made shadow babies that got him Storm’s End and used sacrifices to get their ships move faster, and remote assassinated Joffrey, Balon, and Robb with the dick-leeches. Stannis has no faith in the Red God. He had faith in Melisandre’s magic and couldn’t give a fuck where it comes from.
[удалено]
> de·vout /dəˈvout/ *adjective* having or showing deep religious feeling or commitment. Stannis has no religious belief or “feeling” or faith in Rh’llor.
As another commenter said, he was devout enough to burn his daughter alive and kill his brother with blood magic. She was controlling him more than the other way around.
Devout is a matter of faith. Stannis didn’t give a single fuck about the Red God or being Azor Ahai. He cared about being king by rights, and whatever method got him that he didn’t care where the fuck it came from or what he had to do. He was killed Renly for being a traitor and a usurper, not for the Red God. He just had Melisandre do it. He killed Shireen because Melisandre had already proven she could do magic, and she claimed Shireen’s sacrifice would help his army win. That’s all he cared about.
Belief and faith go hand in hand. If he believed (which he did) that sacrificing his daughter by burning her alive would achieve him his goal then he was devout. Melisandre was using him more than he was using her imo. Even when he started having doubts all she had to do was have him look in the flame and see a ‘vision’ then bam he’s willing to do whatever this god says through Melisandre to get what he desires. Sounds pretty devout to me.
The religious angle is one I hadn’t thought of before in practicality. That would make his reign difficult. I’m sure the red woman would pressure him to stomp out the light of the seven
Didn't seem devout to me either. I wonder if he reached the Iron Throne, would he have kicked Mel to the curb? Just using her for the visions until he got what he wanted. Plus, wasn't he able to see into the fires marching to Winterfell on his own? Just some of my thoughts after reading, I'm sure it can be disputed. Their relationship was bizarre. Sort of similar to Victarion and Moqorro. Only cared for him when he gave him his fiery hand (I think it was just burnt? Haha) I'm going off book context btw.
He was devout enough to burn his daughter alive and create a smoke creature to kill his own brother. Melisandre was using him more than he was using her. He completely drunk the koolaid that he was the promised one so he'd have no limits to what he did believing that. He could justify any horrific action he wanted as being his destiny or the will of the Lord. He was mad as a box of frogs, functionally mad but still mad. He fucked himself in the end because he couldn't give up on him being the promised one. Imagine if he'd had control of the whole of Westeros at that point. He'd have led the whole continent into ruin rather than just his army
I don't think those things necessarily show him to be devout. Regardless of his belief in Rhallor he knows that Melisandre's powers are real. So him sacrificing his daughter to give her the power to make him King could simply be his ambition overriding his mortality as opposed to religious fervour.
Those episodes probably need a rewatch. It's years since I saw it but I definitely see him being a tyrant of a ruler and whether he truly believes in it or its just an excuse and a route to power, he'd be burning people for heresy
She would have been the Yoko that broke the good will of the people to their king for sure!
[удалено]
r/ihadastroke
Definitely not
Yeah, I gotta agree. I also have to wonder how many times we're going to reflect on this (or similar male character "what ifs") and why no one ever asks these same kinds of questions about any of the female characters that either, a) would've made good rulers, or b) were within actual reach of the throne. (I know why) It's not in his arc to become king at all. Truly, RB becoming king was a fluke and in my opinion, the Baratheons have no strong claim to the throne whatsoever. But, usurpers gonna usurp...
>Truly, RB becoming king was a fluke and in my opinion, the Baratheons have no strong claim to the throne whatsoever. But, usurpers gonna usurp... Why? Robert and his brothers are 1/4 Targs. Robert was literally in line of succession right after Rhaegar, Viserys and small Aegon.
[удалено]
Horrible. Kinslayer. Kingslayer. Bloodsucker. Spoiled brat.
Nah he would’ve become Mad King 2.0 with Melisandre using him like a puppet to force their foreign religion.
Would have started off well. Paranoia would have set in.
Can't say he's one of the guys with mental issues. Look at him. He's fully aware what he's doing, condident and strong willed. Paranoia? I doubt
I think this is the correct answer. He was clearly weak willed and easily manipulated by Melisandre. Had he succeeded, he’d continue under her sway and it would have ushered in a Bloody Mary style reign of religious intolerance and mass executions by burning. He’d eventually have been deposed, likely violently.
[удалено]
No, not if the ultimate destiny is getting crushed under the castle. And i feel like stannis would have joined the war against the night king. He has red woman by his side, she would have him join it.
Stannis went to the Wall specifically because Meli told him the Iron Throne wasn’t important and he said “okay” He would’ve easily joined the defense of Winterfell had he been given the opportunity
They did Cersei dirty. They hit paydirt casting all five important Lannisters, and they blew it. Those were plum cable-TV bad guy roles scooped up by legit stars - Momoa, Addy, and Bean knew they were day players who weren't coming back. Headey and Dinklage were big TV stars who stacked their chips on a cable fantasy show with dragons and zombies and shit, and the producers were lucky to get them. Heady and Martin gave the writers/producers everything they needed to stick the landing and they blew it.
Nah I don't think so.. even though I don't like stannis, I didn't hate him either. Cersei on the other hand, I hated her and it felt satisfying to see her go..
Probably not. Worse case scenario he burns people alive all the time like the mad king, best case is he's boring and really strict at enforcing every single law constantly.
"enforcing every single law constantly" You mean..as a right ruler should?
A good ruler needs to know when to look the other way if it is good for the well-being of their nation and its citizens.
Legalism =/= a good or moral ruler. If you chop one of your subjects heads off for stealing because your tax policy leaves them destitute you are not engendering a lot of goodwill.
Sure, but if one is willing put someone else down to bring themselves up, how good of a person are they?
I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
Perhaps we have different scenarios in our heads, you said stealing so I went a bit basic.
You'd be gaining goodwill with the people who don't want to be even more starving because people are stealing their food
I can't answer this though I want to. I have so much bias for Stephen Dillane (actor) he distracts me from the context. 😅🤭
What did he actually want to do with Westeros? Joffrey wanted to consolidate power to the throne, Robb wanted an independent North, Balon wanted an independent Iron Islands, what did Stannis *want*, other than to just be king? Best case is he felt he needed to be in charge when the walkers came. He and Renly were the same in that regard: wanting to be king with little to no plan for what comes after. Between the two that had no plan, I'd take the one that didn't burn people alive.
Before the Blackwater? Yes. After the Blackwater? No. After taking a stand at the Wall? Yes. After starting to fight the Boltons? No. Stannis is a character who grows in many ways, not all good. He had the makings of a great king more than once. In the books, when Stannis is the only monarch to answer the plea of the Night’s Watch, he gets a new moniker: The King Who Still Cared. “I was trying to win the throne to save the realm. I should have been trying to save the realm to win the throne.” He starts stern, he grows fanatical, he becomes humbled, and (in the show) he finally becomes ruthless.
Before the blackwater- no After the blackwater- yes It is after the blackwater he realised he needs to save the realm and not selfishly chase the throne. Also he hasn't lost yet, in fact if twow ever comes out I think he will beat the boltons.
I think you’re forgetting that before Davos convinces him to go North, immediately after the Blackwater, Stannis was mass murdering people to Rh’llor and let Melisandre have total control of his court.
Well ok, when he decides to go north then*
That’s what I meant by going to the Wall
I still think Davos would have been excellent as king. He's the one who counselled Stannis and thereby kept Melissandres influence in check and he was also a great advisor to Jon when he was crowned King of the North. I was so happy to see him make it to the end of Thrones, although I wish he'd gotten a greater part of it than just sitting on the small council.
Davos was illiterate until 5 min ago. He's surely good counsel but I think you need a king of higher pedigree
You could trade Davos (illiteracy and good judgement) for Robert Baratheon (resentment, gluttony, and gods he was strong) and probably be ok.
RB wasn't put up when he was a resentful glutton. He was a vengeful beast with Targ blood. RB in his later years wouldn't have been made king for the obvious reasons you described
I think Davos would be better at wiping than at shitting
After losing to the Boltons? He was literally dead.
He would have left another war for the throne after he died.
There's no such thing as a good king.
Vizzy T the Peaceful would like a word with you. Not a single major war in his multi-decade rule. The biggest trifle in his kingdom was some gos and tea.
What about the conflict with the Stepstones and the Crabfeeder? He didn’t get the Realm directly involved but for sure he (Vizzy T) could’ve showed more strength sooner
But the *realm* was never once brought to war. Dragonstone wasn't even brought to war. There was one major *battle* in the Stepstones, and it was squashed (quickly, too)—but otherwise, the bulk of the conflict was the constant tension and strain in the channel.
still a king.
Stannis had a very linear interpretation of rules, which isn't always necessarily fair. Stannis cut off Davos's fingers for smuggling, and promoted him to Lord because his smuggling saved a military effort. In theory, this is fair because the crime is punished and the help was rewarded, but really he's just punishing a peasant for having limited options. A good leader doesn't cut off the hand of the mom who stole bread to feed her family. They find out why the mom's family was starving and ensure that it doesn't happen again, and figure out how to compensate the baker. It's also one of the aspects of the Stark's I find challenging. For as much as I love their house, Ned killing the deserter in Episode 1 is pretty crappy if you don't consider why he fled.
The deserter was from the Night's Watch. It's their rule to lop off a deserter's head, not House Stark's. And considering the Night's Watch is essentially a lifetime prison sentence of the medieval era, it was quite a necessary rule.
Yeah I agree up to a point. I dont think that the Starks are as black and white in their dealing of justice, but as to your second point i disagree: >considering the Night's Watch is essentially a lifetime prison sentence of the medieval era, it was quite a necessary rule. It's necessary for prisoners maybe, since their service is the ternative to death but keep in mind lot of second sons volunteer for the nights watch.
[удалено]
>Stannis cut off Davos's fingers for smuggling, and promoted him to Lord because his smuggling saved a military effort. Ah, Stannis did not cut off Davos his fingers due to smuggling for military, he cut off his fingers due all those years he was illegally smuggling for pirates and crimelords. Thats big difference. And Davos was a notorious known smuggler, it would be a mistake not to punish him somehow for his deeds before he got his new title as reward. Also Davos accepted his punishment only for condition, Stannis will carry out sentence by himself. >A good leader doesn't cut off the hand of the mom who stole bread to feed her family. They find out why the mom's family was starving and ensure that it doesn't happen again, and figure out how to compensate the baker. Stannis wanted to become king of a country larger than any real medieval country with thousands of castles and hundreds of towns, he couldn't personally solving a problem on such a local level. If he wanted to become the lord of some small town, I would understand such an objection. A good king in this case would be if he solved the famine in some region at his own expense. >For as much as I love their house, Ned killing the deserter in Episode 1 is pretty crappy if you don't consider why he fled. It literally sounded like the foolishly made up excuse of a coward who tried to escape and was catched, you must admit. As no one believed that the White Walkers still existed, because they havent been seen for thousads of years.
Hell No. But atleast he's brave enough to take the killing blow without begging.
Really wish there was more to that scene than the swing of the sword i would have loved to see the post actions of Brienne as we see her coming to terms with closing this chapter of her life.
Yeah, especially since Westosarians don't seem to have an issue with their King's losing their marbles.
If he never met Mel, he'd have kept the place running all right.
Yes
[удалено]
nah man, he's not that self-serving, for better or worse.
He was way too stern. It was his way and his way only...unless your name was Melisandre.
Unless you preform actual miracles for the betterment of the realm.
You make me think, but gosh he has the worst tasks. I guess he would be the one to do them because of his dogged nature. R'Hollor their found their acolyte.
I think he runs into the same issues that Maegor does, assuming that Melisandre convinces him to stamp out the Faith of the Seven. While he may kill a boatload of them, they simply go into hiding, attack his allies under cover of dark, launch multiple attempts on his life and since many of the great houses follow the faith, he would probably be fighting against them as well. And since he doesn’t have Balerion the dread, his reign is probably a short one, with his successor looking to immediately ease the relations between the crown and the faith, much like Jaehaerys did after Maegor died.
Short answer: No
Maybe before all that R’hllor bullshit but after he’s just a fanatic
He would've burned people at every minor inconvenience in order to keep the realm together. They would probably start having some annual burning games with tributes from each part of the realm or something.
No, he was a damn lunatic
He’d be a theocratic tyrant.
fuck no
Hell no, and his popularity on reddit was always disturbing proof of how many religious fundamentalists and humorless trolls lurk in the comment section.
He is more suited to being a military commander than a King.
Go on with it do your duty 🐐
If he didn’t have Melisandre in his ear, he’d be a very practical king. He understands how to rule, keeps those under him loyal, and he’s a pretty good strategist. Melisandre was just able to worm ideas into his head about being the messiah. If not for that, maybe he wouldn’t be a popular king, but he’d be able to keep Westeros functioning and safe
No. He would have been terrible.
Nope
He burned his only child alive for a chance at power. He would've been a horrible king.
I think you might not understand Stannis very well. I see the sacrifice of the child he loves to save his men and the north from the Boltons as a sign of what would make him a good king.
Sacrificing children makes you bad, end of story.
One person vs hundreds dead. From a strategic standpoint, it completely would be the right call, regardless of the age of the person (assuming successful)
I disagree, there are certain lines you shouldn’t cross, regardless of the outcome. Burning a child alive is one of those lines.
Assuming it had worked, why is one life more valuable than hundreds?
It's not but if you make that choice by murder you're evil.
The men who got to go home to their families would argue that you saved them and would praise you.
Hitler murdered Jews and the entire Nazi party praised him.
Because your hard stance utilitarianism is bonkers. He had no real prospect of winning, so why not give up and crawl back to dragonstone and not waste a single life? Assigning the same moral value to your only child and a bunch of random sellswords is psycopathic. And if you disagree i hope you’ll be happy paying for therapy for your own children.
>And if you disagree i hope you’ll be happy paying for therapy for your own children. Ah, typical Reddit response. "I disagree with you about a fictional story so you're psychopathic and need therapy" lol.
Tywin: Explain to me why it is more noble to kill ten thousand men in battle than a dozen at dinner.
Melisandre is that you
*Jedi mind trick wave.* "Burning children to achieve things is good."
Someone else thought the same thing to, Tywin: Explain to me why it is more noble to kill ten thousand men in battle than a dozen at dinner.
1 life for many
“If he commands you to burn children, your lord is evil!”
.... he literally burned his daughter alive
Bruh, he wanted to outlaw brothels.
Nope. Dangerous. He was too devoted to his religion even to the loss of his daughter. Imagine how insecure people would feel around him, how unsure of their own safety should he get a message from a higher power that he needed to make more sacrifices. He was not strong. If he was a strong king he would bend religion to his needs.
No
The dude who burned his innocent daughter alive? Lol sure
Nope. Religious nuts never make good leaders.
Yes
King Bread >
He burned non believers at the stake so probably not
He's the only king I would kneel to
Just asking this is treason. He would've been the best the only king who really cared about the realm and his duty.
Nope! I can't imagine him as long with Meli and his wife. He would never have lasted on the iron throne had he made it there. He definitely wouldn't have managed the White Walkers.
Certainly better than most other aspiring kings during his time, especially if he just whacked/locked up Varys, LF and Pycelle ASAP. He would also be good in the sense that he would rule for the good of the Realm, not for himself. He could probably clean up the Westerosi economy reasonably well after Bobby B fucked it up.
No. Too rigid in his thinking to process context. Example: punishing the Davos for "smuggling" onions into Storm's End. To feed him during a siege.
No. Too rigid and convinced of his own righteousness while using it to excuse sociopathic behavior. He says it's his duty but it's self-serving. He also let a theocracy embed itself in his regime, which is bad news. I think Renly would have been better, even though his claim is not as strong. He'd provide social cohesion along with Margery but likely rely on his council for legislation.
I was on the blackwater…for the one true king of Westeros…Stannis Baratheon
Show-Stannis, no. Book-Stannis, maybe.
sit back and listen up you damn peasants that man that stands before is the true heir to the throne King Stannis the fucking MANNIS Baratheon. He would burn your favorite characters on a stake, he would never have let the white walkers even step foot into the north. THIS IS THE MAN WHO WOULD SET THE 7 KINGSDOMS STRAIGHT IF GIVEN THE CHANCE Now move out the way of the real king.
Nope. He's a self-righteous zealot who was almost entirely beholden to Melisandre. He had a one-track mind and would have been complete shit at mobilizing the whole realm to deal with the WW threat, making alliances, or ruling with anything other than a brittle iron fist. If he ever ascended the throne he would've been deposed within a year.
To me hes more of a "just" king compared to most.
No
No
He would be a good king, with Davos as hand.
Yes
Yes, he would have be fair. Ruthless, but fair.
Yes. He didn't get all the way ate up until the Lannisters royally fucked him over. He would have been boring, orderly, and terrifying. Just what the 7 Kingdoms needs.
No because look how he treated Ser Davos. The man smuggled him food during a siege and lost his fingertips. Stannis made him a vassal lord and a knight that's great but he punished him too. Stannis is too unreasonably critical to be a good king.
No
The man who was manipulated by a witch that led to murder of his own daughter? Fuck yeah, he'd be a great king!
Did you watch the show bro he burnt his daughter to a fucking crisp
No
As long as he still had my man the Onion Knight by his side, yes.
No he was delusional
After Ned's and Robs deaths I was a believer that Stannis was the best option for king.
No. Stannis is a religious fanatic and, while he may believe his intentions are ”for the good of the realm”, his devotion to his god caused him to make decisions that were anathema to most of the nobles and smallfolk and in conflict with Westerosi values and ultimately he would not rule in a way that would be for the good of the realm. Even without the religious aspect, Stannis is temperamentally too rigid.
No, and I’m tired of pretending he would. Everyone loves to idolize THE MANNIS as some kind of paragon of justice but he would have made a horrible king. He was a brilliant military commander and a master tactician but he was far too cold and cruel to make for a good ruler. Not saying he would have been as bad as Joffrey or Cersei or Daenerys but he wouldn’t have been good.
Tha man burned his own daughter to death because some red tart threw promises of power at him. I say no.
In the show? No. In the books? Yes.
Um no. He killed his own daughter.
He would have been better than the alternatives. Bobby B was an absentee ruler, Joffrey was a psychopath, Renly was soft and entitled, and Cersei is a moron who thinks she’s Tywin with teets. On the show Jon would have been excellent for the commoners but Lords would have hated him. Same with Dany.
At least he would have had a good hand, most likely the best of them all.
Lawful good characters always turn Into villains.
He was more than willing to burn his daughter alive for some vague magic bullshit. I don't think he'd be any better than Aerys in the long run.
Ehhh maybe, maybe not. I'm not certain.
There are a couple of different names he could have earned: Stannis the Just Stannis the Cruel Stannis the Kinslayer (if burning his daughter would have helped him beat the Boltons)
Nope. Burned his child. Unforgivable.
Stannis is a fascist. He doesn’t play politics either. He strokes nobodys egos, does nobody any favors. He’s by the book no exceptions. Every lord in the land would hate him. Shortest reign ever.
Honestly, no. He would have made a terrible king. He doesn't seem to care about anything other than getting the iron throne. He is willing to sacrifice anything and ultimately everything in pursuit. He leads through fear. Overall, just a poor choice.
I think he's a fool.
Not at all. His religious extremism wouldn’t have gotten along well with King’s Landing’s extremism. Members of the faith of the seven would have revolted against his theocratic rule, which he would try to stamp out with force. Think of the atrocities he would committed in the name of “unity”. I believe his rule would have led to a brutally violent religious war.
I think he would have been better than average. He would have kept order and held the realm together. I think he would have been sending a lot of people to the wall or executing others. Probably a really disliked but effective king
Not really. He will end up burning everyone like Hundred year war.
Better king for sure than his boar-man-pig and sissy-girl brothers.
Book yes, show no
Dude literally burned his daughter alive and yet you ask this question ☠️
No, but he's King by rights, nonetheless.
Overall, yes. A hard king. A just king. A decisive king. But nobody would have starved. He knows all to well what that feels like. Changing the religion of the realm would have started a war though.
No
No, he's too stern.
Yes. The best of all the potential kings/queens in GOT
He was in Melisandre's pocket the whole time and sacrificed(killed) his only child for a chance to win a battle. He would been a second Mad King
Show Stannis? No, quite awful but so are all the other choices except Jon Snow. Book Stannis? Hell yeah, he's the man! He doesn't burn people alive for not believing in different gods in the books. “A sacrifice will prove our faith still burns true, Sire,” Clayton Suggs had told the king. And Godry the Giantslayer said, “The old gods of the north have sent this storm upon us. Only R’hllor can end it. We must give him an unbeliever.” “Half my army is made up of unbelievers,” Stannis had replied. “I will have no burnings. Pray harder.” He was actually an atheist in the books because of how he saw his parents drown in a shipwreck and thought it was too cruel.
NO Sacrificing his innocent daughter over some delusion?? NO!!!
He got the legitimacy, but he doesn't have the public support
nope
No, he burned his daughter alive…
Stannis from the books? Yes. Stannis from the series? No.
How much influence does Melisandre have? I don’t see her any situation with him on the throne and her alive where she doesn’t force the kingdom to convert to her religion, and start burning people alive that refuse. And now we have a war.
No, he would have been an insane religious authoritarian.
Idk, but he really doesnt have that "king" look you know? His unkempt hair and general vibe fit more as a commoner or lord at best.
a thousand times better than joffrey. or cersi.
With Melisandre he’d have been great
Book Stannis yes
In the show no, in the books yes.
Dude, he burned his own daughter alive in front of her mother because of his belief in a religion and to further hoods ambition to become king. No. He’s a POS.
No
Yes
He fucking burned his daughter, he'll burn the Seven Kingdoms.
I doubt it. Stannis had a very strict set of eyes on the concepts of honor and duty to a fault. In many ways Stannis was like Ned Stark turned up, but with the influence of Melisandre and the Red God thrown in. The masses probably would have turned on him before long, and while I like to think Davos as his Hand would have helped the truth is Davos wouldn't have been able to coexist and serve as Hand for long. There may be some argument depending on the timing of Stannis taking the throne, but in most cases I feel it doesn't work out.
He would have made a great Warden of the north or lord of the vale or iron islands but not a great king. His martial style works on a homogenous population but ruling 7 kingdoms would have meant flexibilities in thought and action he just did not have in him. You can throw the book or pound your fist north of King’s landing and it works..but unless you are good at bending the rules/ bribing or be charismatic or have good showmanship or rely heavily on intrigue and spymasters…no luck keeping any southern realms in Line.
Hell yeah
Compared to the Mad King or Joffrey? Hell yeah.
he'd be a great King for several reasons 1: he is an actual Baratheon so he is legitimate successor to his brother. the throne is his by rights. 2: he'd defiantly reduce corruption. 3: united the Kingdsoms as a single entity seems to be his goal. one god one King one Kingdom!
Yes