Stannis vs Daenerys

Who do you think would be the better ruler, should they seize the Iron Throne?

The argument for Daenerys: Daenerys is clearly more compassionate and understanding of her subjects than Stannis. Her liberation of the slaves is pretty admirable, and unlike Stannis, she can make compromises with people. It's quite impressive that she was able to take three prominent cities in Slaver's Bay despite being a foreign teenager. Like Stannis, she can also dispense harsh justice to wrongdoers such as her crucifixion of the Grand Masters and has a notion of right and wrong. However, she often lets her own emotions cloud her judgments, and the conflict in Meereen is a clear sign that she's not the perfect queen we originally expected her to be. Her unwillingness to accept that her father deserved his downfall is worrying, as this means that she would possibly punish everyone allied to Robert if she ever took the Throne.

The argument for Stannis: Stannis has had far more experience in a leadership role, ruling Dragonstone for many years as well as being a skilled naval commander. The fact that he was able to rule the Targaryen stronghold for so many years without conflict is a testament to his ruling capability. His notion of justice is in a way admirable, in his belief that no good or bad deeds must go ignored, and that good and bad acts don't wash each other out. By saving the Wall, it's clear that he's the only King that cares about the threat of the Others and acts to save the realm. However, his extreme stubbornness is a huge misgiving, as it makes ruling a feudalistic kingdom that much harder. His refusal to ally himself with either Renly or Robb Stark was borderline retarded, and his cold withdrawn personality makes it much harder to gain allies. It's clear that he lacks the political pragmatism that men like Tywin Lannister possessed in order to rule the realm effectively.

Thoughts?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=QmKhGqWcJGY
youtu.be/eFDB3cRtklY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Renly

...

Basted off what we have seen so far, Kelly C would be an awful ruler and Westeros would suffer under her. Though the show will probably end with her being le best queen ever and everyone lover her.

Stannis would be a dutiful ruler, the only thing noteworthy about him being the circumstances in which he became king.

It's been said before but stannis combined with loyal and politically savvy underlings is the way to go. He isn't as clueless as old Ned but if you gave him a Varys he'd absolutely dominate.

Stannis succeeds or fails purely on the virtue of his underlings. Without loyal, cunning followers willing to lie to their king he'd fall inside a year

How is this even a question?

I didnt mean he would be bad, he would just be boring. No great works or reforms would happen under King Stannis. Probably what Westeros needs right now though.

>Chronic Diarrhea

youtube.com/watch?v=QmKhGqWcJGY

I, for one, am cheering for the snow zombies.

I defeated your uncle Victarion and his Iron Fleet off Fair Isle, the first time your father crowned himself. I held Storm's End against the power of the Reach for a year, and took Dragonstone from the Targaryens. I smashed Mance Rayder at the Wall, though he had twenty times my numbers. Tell me, turncloak, what battles has the Bastard of Bolton ever won that I should fear him?

>20 good men

As the oldest male blood relative to the dead King, Stannis is King. It's that simple. Daenerys has no claim to the throne, because her dynasty was deposed and a new one was installed. Even if it hadn't, Viserys was rightfully King and her husband still executed him. Accession to a throne isn't traditionally done through fratricide.

>I held Storm's End against the power of the Reach for a year

Nigger they were literally not attacking you on purpose.

Attacking storm's end is suicidal and has never been done.

Well, theoretically she has a weak claim to the Iron Throne, which may be pushed when the title is already being contested or in case of regency. She better hurry up.

>loses to 20 good men

They camped out with far greater supplies & had regular feasts. Some even positioned themselves so that the wind will carry the smells of their food to Stannis' hungry men.

>with loyal and politically savvy underlings
This. If Stannis had just one fucker who was willing to do what needed to be done without Stannis' knowledge then he'd be perfect.

>yfw The Fat One makes this shit canon

Other than dragons that can barely be controlled this is just about the only benefit they have.

I forgot
>Allies: Midget.

O N E T R U E K I N G

Is he, dare I say, /ourguy/

They'd both suck. Mostly because they're written by a fat, lazy, sell out. But also because absolute power corrupts absolutely, etc., etc.

>All her people and the parts of her military that aren't banging her/unsullied defect immediately because they're tired of being eaten and/or burned alive by her 'babies'

There is certainly nothing wrong with a dutiful King. A king that can justly rule a nation without crisis is a very good King.

>Summer 2017
>This thread is still reposted

Depends on the canon, really. Show canon seems to be setting Dany up for the throne, because 'muh strong independent women'. Show Stannis was just as gimped as Doran's plot, but still not as bad Euron.

>Comes from deposed dynasty
>Has no claim
Son, that's the perfect pretender claim.

I think only reading the books is why I love Stannis so much.

>Theon I
So he became a king?

tfw you try to talk to showfags about how awesome Stannis is

>b..but he killed is daughter, hes a villain!

Stannis was too complex for the show so they had to flanderize him. Only one protag allowed.

They're trying to show how Daenerys is supposed to growing as a person and to become a good ruler and shit but they've failed at this spectacularly. She's proven herself retarded time and time again and incapable of learning anything until the plot requires her to do so magically.

I'll take a shot at the bait.

>Dany discredit.

Political murders are not a crime should go unpunished. Medieval punishments for murder will often take the form of an execution depending on context of the attack. This was a call for mass slaughter of the former slave owners and needed to be stomped before it really starts rolling. Dany freed the slaves from the slavers. She does not give them special treatment beyond that because all citizens are equal under her rule.

>Rob discredit.

Walter Frey holds nothing sacred, what he does is done for the accumleation of power and nothing else. This is the guy who made the red wedding happen after all. Rob's actual love was true and furthermore he tried to make up for the oathbreak by keeping his end of the bargain later on.

>Drogo discredit.

Can't argue with that drogo is evil. Who the hell says he'd be a good king?

>Renley discredit.

The war of five kings was caused because of a conflict of succession. Renley had been acting as a fine king over Baratheon lands for many years while stannis had been keeping to himself on dragonstone. Stannis would be a horrible king and renley knew it.

>im a cuck
>im a cuck
>im a cuck
>im a cuck

>fat fucking shit kills all the interesting characters for the sake of edginess and proving a point that everyone can die in his dark and serious donut steel setting
>daeayunaerys is unkillable mary sue saved by plot armor over and over again
>and he keeps getting away with it

>you didn't just report the thread then hide it

You're the real problem here, kiddo.

Mostly agree but for the Renly points. Renly had no plans nor experience for ruling, spending his time trying to get in with the Tyrells. His whole plan for attacking storms end was to let Loras charge forward and expect his numbers win, despite Stannis' defences
And speaking of Stannis, Renly had no claim to the throne as the youngest son. Stannis only had few feverent supporters, Renly had a ton of people who liked his image and idea.
Plus if Renly wins, it's a cue to the rest of society that rule of succesion amongst younger brothers isn't important under the youngest Barratheon, so expect further rebellions.

>it's a cue to the rest of society that rule of succesion amongst younger brothers isn't important under the youngest Barratheon, so expect further rebellions.

Fucking this, we would have popular and charismatic younger sons rising up all over Westeros because now their claims are just as valid if they can take it by force. The Chads would rule the land.

This.

Plus Renly, outside of being well liked and connected, never really had any case for being an amazing ruler.

Also what was show Dany's whole dothraki kidnapping and liberation scene supposed to teach us about her? It was just fanservice adn a cheap way to get her more reinforcements, there's no growth or great decision making she just bullshits her way into getting the largest cavalry force.

Also how the fuck are lightly armored spearmen and light cavalry going to overrun a Westerosi army? The Tyrell/Dorne shit was just lazy writing, its almost insulting that after Martin's attempts at shades of grey multi-protag series will eventually bubble into good guy team vs zombie team

What we really needed was the charismatic eldest son to take the throne.

Obligatory Blackfyre is the true line, Targs are shit.

>Rob's actual love was true
Not in the book he only married her because he took her virginity and it was the honorable thing to do. And they only had sex because he thought his brothers had been killed and she had pitty sex with him. There was no "true" love in sight.

>Walter Frey holds nothing sacred
He held the only way Rob could get his army south, Rob had a deal and him marrying the other woman rather than have her as a concubine was incredibly stupid on his part.

Well first the dothraki are gonna rape and pillage their way through Westeros, which will piss off people and course infighting. Then she is going to lose half her army to the cold because the once with most winter experience on her side is the fucking Tyrell, and she can't mass produce warm clothing tens of thousands dothraki troops.

>being a showfag
Stannis leads from the rear

The stuff about ice zombies, dragons, and prophesies are the weakest parts of Asoiaf. Why cant we just have a story about a morally grey war in a fantasy realm. Why all this good vs evil chosen one bullshit

>Also how the fuck are lightly armored spearmen and light cavalry going to overrun a Westerosi army?

Dragons.

>she can't mass produce warm clothing tens of thousands dothraki troops

thats where youre wrong kiddo

The one who can subdue the other competitors has the strongest claim, by virtue of "everyone else is dead or supports me". Everything else (legality, morality, beliefs, and preferences) is irrelevant. Considering the ongoing crises, whoever gets out of them on top is worthy to sit on the Iron Throne. There is no point arguing about what you would like because that is irrelevant. It is, however, worth considering that ASOIAF has a tendency to defy expectations, so while you can make educated guesses, you can't be 100% certain about them.

Was taking the bridge by force really not an option at all or did everyone just hope he'd roll with the marriage because it's a trivial sacrifice in comparison?

>MFW Dany dies
>MFW Jon dies
>MFW Cersei and Jamie die
>MFW Littlefinger dies
>MFW that little lord of the vale too
>MFW all the Greyjoys die
>MFW all the Martels die
>MFW all the Tyrells die
>MFW Young Griff/Aegon dies
>MFW Edmure becomes a sadsack sitting in Riverrun till he dies
>MFW still nobody in Westeros respects Tyrion
I can't wait for all the great noble families of Wesetros to be crushed by the time the White Walkers are beat, and replaced by a parliament formed by all the little lords left over.

It would have been a very long, costly, and nigh impossible siege. In order to keep them from getting supplies, he would have had to split is force on either side of the river too, leaving both forces much more vulnerable to attack. It really wasn't an option.

>Dragons.

How the ever living fuck did they exterminate ALL the dragons, adult, controlled and mounted DRAGONS earlier in history?

From what we've seen the dragons seem pretty much impervious to damage from arrows. What else can shoot something bigger at a flying mobile target? Were giants even a thing fighting the dragons back then?

Its implied that they died out due to centuries of inbreeding. Tyrion notes how the Dragon Skulls at the Red Keep get smaller and smaller.

As for how they were controlled and mounted, fucking Valyrian Magic.

The dragons in Old Valyria died during the four simultaneous apocalypses it went through.

The dragons that escaped with some of the nobles to Westeros, aside from three, were little shitters. The final generations of dragons were literally poisoned in infancy.

First Men = Celts

Andals = Saxons

Valyrians = Normans

GRRM is a fat hack.

Didn't the dragon get wounded in the gladiator arena by a bunch of random goldiemasks?

Westeros needs either a traitor to kill them on the ground or a literal apocalypse then?

They did chuck spears that hurt but that was to defend The mother of dragons. As we saw later it didn't bother to land to burn boats and armies alike. Good luck getting anything with enough force straight up in the air.

I guess. Poisoning their meat wouldn't be that hard, but I suppose getting the poison would.

The reason for this is that dragons eat their food VERY burnt, so they'd need a poison that can stand that temperature without evaporating. Also keep in mind that her dragons are still small and shit compared to what conquered Westeros. I can see a ballista or similar heavy artillery as being effective.

Good to know they don't drink any water

>I can see a ballista or similar heavy artillery as being effective.

I mean ya, if it hit them it would probably do damage. Good luck with that.

If the armies they fight knows about incoming dragons I can see them setting up a trap. The dragons won't be careful and probably fly around real arrogant and cocky.

Plant a dozen ballista pointing up behind a makeshift wall or even a castle wall. Make your men retreat towards it and hopefully the dragon will pass over the trap.

The question is, are ballistas even a thing in GoT?

>are ballistas even a thing in GoT?
Yes. That's how a dragon got killed in Dorne

Stannis is Eisenhower. Danny is Obama. So it's hard to say who is "better suited", becuse different leadership styles are called for at different times.

Eisenhower was instrumental in positioning the United States for a prolonged Cold War. But he fucked up in Latin America, toppling Guatemala's democratic president for an "anti-Communist" tyrant.

Obama gave Americans health care, ushered in marriage equality, achieved detente with Iran and Cuba. But he underestimated the shamelessness of Russia and the anti-American right, and now the country will have to suffer until it regains its compass.

Similarly, Dani seems a better leader for Essos and Stannis for the coming winter.

As if the entirety of Westeros looking like Albion and Fatman himself saying that ASOIF was based on it wasn't a big giveaway.

>Political murders are not a crime should go unpunished. Medieval punishments for murder will often take the form of an execution depending on context of the attack. This was a call for mass slaughter of the former slave owners and needed to be stomped before it really starts rolling. Dany freed the slaves from the slavers. She does not give them special treatment beyond that because all citizens are equal under her rule.
It was talking about Mirri Maz Durr you fool.

>As if the entirety of Westeros looking like Albion
Guess again.

Lemme guess, the other parts are scotland and cornwall

Westeros is one of the ugliest continents I've ever seen

Stannis is the rightful king, therefor, Stannis.

This is a Veeky Forums thread.
Move it.

>the rightful king must be the better ruler

Theons first chapter in the Winds of Winter.

Theon spends the entire chapter chained to a wall behind Stannis awaiting execution while Stannis and his men discuss battle tactics against the combined Frey and Manderly army. One soldier asks why they are shoveling snow over the nearby frozen lakes.

Probably a Veeky Forums question but how different are the books to the show?

I'd like to pick them up but I've still got atleast another 30 HH novels to get through.

The show cut out some serious shit, from cool characters like Cold Hands to super spoiler things you shouldn't look into until you get there if you plan on reading like Lady Stoneheart.

At this point very. The first season followed the books relatively closely, but every season gets farther and farther away from them.

Certain events happen or don't happen, or happen in completely different ways. Important characters are left out or completely changed. The last few seasons have hardly resembled the books at all.

Of course with them being so different, its all a matter of option as to which is better, but I can say with confidence that most of Veeky Forums would say the books are.

The books are from the point of view of dozens of characters. They see events and people and sometimes you have to figure out whats happening yourself.

For instance in the first book Arya is sneaking through the Red Keeps basements after chasing after a black cat (that is heavily implied to be the pet cat of Daeynrys' murdered nephew) when she sees two fat men talking in the basement. She doesnt know who they are but knows she shouldnt be seen by them.

In the tv series she sees Varys and Illyrio Mopatis talking.

Your views on politics are childlike and laughable.

I missed Darkstar and his hilariously terrible rebellion in Dorne.

>All her people and the parts of her military that aren't banging her/unsullied defect
>aren't banging her
Negligible losses then?

Much different, much better. First season of the show is probably closest to the books, after that the differences become more pronounced with each season, until at some point show and books move in completely different directions.

The entire Dorne part of the show was incredibly bad.

I gave up after the "20 good men" bullshit. The two Daves have always said they hated Stannis and never understood his character. It shows

I know a guy who unironically defends season 5 dorne. We give him shit for it, but he is the guy who likes Suicide Squad and shits on anyones who criticises adaptations of anything, saying that you "should expect change or you're a baby"
Fucking not all change is good change it still has to make sense within the narrative of the story, characters should still be characters not tools for action.

>sticking to the show past season 2
that's some dedication

Is late-season GoT a better adaptation than the Aeon Flux movie?

The northern part is a smaller version of mainland Britain, The Wall is even in the same place as Hadrian's.

If you like a show that looks cool and has good costuming/set design rather than writing or acting.

I watch it in the vain hope that it Stannis might come back.

I, delusionally, thought it may get better, but no, it didn't. They screwed up Stannis story from the start with Maester Cressen and continued to spiral rapidly downwards.

TV cannot demonstrate a 'tactical genius' or stop to explain strategy. Davos' quest for allies would be seen as irrelevant, but my favourite chapter is Davos being dragged before Lord Godric Borrell in Sisters island chain. Its brilliantly atmospheric having to beg for his life while a storm crashes against the fortress walls outside.

Why did they hate stannis so much?

What, it looks they are setting her up as a mad targaryen, she just randomly kills people and makes retarded decisions all the time. She is arrogant and angry

Lord Daavos runs off to the watch to avoid the battle of winterfell tho

Honestly, because they are stupid. They very clearly just dont get the character at all. His Honor and Duty medieval mindset is hard for a lot of modern normies to empathize with.

They like their Strong, Independent Kelly C fighting for Freedumbs.

Are you actually retarded
Albion is a French name for England

And Britain fits in far more with that variety of climates

Neither.

Daenerys had everything given to her. Her birth, her dragons, her armies and her victories. She has never fought for anything, combat or effort. And she has made many mistakes and terrible decisions which ultimately means nothing because she can get away with anything. She consumes and then moves on to her next target.

Stannis is hard steel. More prone to breaking than bending. He isn't a ruler nor king, he's a military commander. Diplomacy isn't in his vocabulary. Aside from that, he commited fratricide with the use of dark magic to grab power.

I would've rather had Robb or Renly.

Come to /hhg/ and we'll tell you which ones you need to read

At least the show gave birth to this kind of shit.

youtu.be/eFDB3cRtklY

Because it's easier to just abandon complex character motives and go for the 'chosen one' Jon and Dany, rather than a tragic guy trying to live up to the role because he's been told he has to save the world. Oh no no, Stannis is in it for POWER you see, he's not the ignored middle brother of charismatic warriors who just wants to do his duty as rightful heir.

It's a shame the show killed of the only guy that recognised that to win the throne you have to protect the people.
It just regurgitated his actual plot twice for season 6.