a thread has no name (and no spoilers)

[MikeMcMann]

Robert's betrothed was stolen from him and the Mad King wanted him executed even though he did nothing wrong as a vassal. If that's not a casus belli, then I don't know what is. Renly just wanted to be king and that's as far as his casus belli goes.

OK. Not saying I don't agree that it was a f*cked up situation.

But what you are now saying is usurping is ok if Matt4786 agrees with the reason behind and wrong if he does not.

If another poster has a completely different opinion can that count as well or does only your opinion determine if its valid?

 

[CO68]

If things work that way then Robert should have never been King and thus nether Stannis nor Renly had a real claim. So it is a free for all.

You said Stannis' action of killing his brother was low, but it was in response to Renly basically declaring war. Renly isn't comparable to Robert. Robert went to war for legit reasons while Renly declared only because he wanted to be king.

 

[El Chimpo]

renly was all "nooooo fairrrrrr....i wannna be kiiiiiiinnnggggg"


after he took out loras' wang from from his mouth, of course

 

[Matt4786]

OK. Not saying I don't agree that it was a f*cked up situation.

But what you are now saying is usurping is ok if Matt4786 agrees with the reason behind and wrong if he does not.

If another poster has a completely different opinion can that count as well or does only your opinion determine if its valid?

Usurpation is justified when you have a casus belli. Renly had none. Robert did.

 

[Jon Stark]

"The greatest army the north has ever seen, cut to pieces by some southern King."

No one else cared that 100k wildlings were about to invade westeros, so the mannis did his duty and won the battle.

Bah lost 2 of 3 battles. The wildlings basically gave up. Stannis still ended up playing the fool and got killed dead. Rot in hell Stannis.

 

[Jon Stark]

You said Stannis' action of killing his brother was low, but it was in response to Renly basically declaring war. Renly isn't comparable to Robert. Robert went to war for legit reasons while Renly declared only because he wanted to be king.

What do you think the age difference was between the Baretheon boys? I reckon Stannis was 2 years younger than Robert and Renley 10 years younger than Robert.

 

[MikeMcMann]

You said Stannis' action of killing his brother was low, but it was in response to Renly basically declaring war. Renly isn't comparable to Robert. Robert went to war for legit reasons while Renly declared only because he wanted to be king.

Ok two issues here.

First

In terms of this show my view is that nothing matters in terms of who has a right to sit on the throne. Not birth right, not if you were on yesterday. Nothing.

The only criteria that matters is if you can take and defend it. If you can you are then the rightful King.

Second

There is lots of grey in this show with regards to how honourable fighters fight. Of course most of love Bran who has no honour beyond winning. But many of the main characters espouse a certain honour in fighting and expectation within in. that is why the Kingslayer has got such a bad rap over the years and why he did not kill Ned when the other guy stabbed him in the back.

If your view is nothing matters then OK what Stannis did is fine. If your view is that their should be some honour in fighting then Stannis using the Vag Monster was pretty cheap.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Usurpation is justified when you have a casus belli. Renly had none. Robert did.

lol.

And do you decide which cause is justified?

And what if another poster disagrees that he had cause?

Serious question when you put such subject criteria to something that would require 100% of all viewers to agree otherwise with one person saying in their opinion Renly had cause, then suddenly he does. Unless you say their opinions cannot count unless you agree with them.

 

[Matt4786]

lol.

And do you decide which cause is justified?

And what if another poster disagrees that he had cause?

Serious question when you put such subject criteria to something that would require 100% of all viewers to agree otherwise with one person saying in their opinion Renly had cause, then suddenly he does. Unless you say their opinions cannot count unless you agree with them.

I think most of us would agree that having your bitch snatched from under your nose and your life being threatened when you did nothing wrong is a better cause than "I wanna be king because people like me!" This isn't rocket science.

 

[CO68]

What do you think the age difference was between the Baretheon boys? I reckon Stannis was 2 years younger than Robert and Renley 10 years younger than Robert.

Rob was born in 262, Stannis in 264, and Renly in 277

 

[Jon Stark]

Thanks.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I think most of us would agree that having your bitch snatched from under your nose and your life being threatened when you did nothing wrong is a better cause than "I wanna be king because people like me!" This isn't rocket science.

"most agreeing" does not a logic argument make. It is not rocket science but it is debate science.

Your view based on the discussion of this thread can be summed as...

to dismiss Renly - ' You cannot usurp and take the throne legitimately'

Robert can usurp and take the throne legitimately because I and others agree with his reasons.

If you do not see the lack of logic in your argument that is on you.

 

[Matt4786]

"most agreeing" does not a logic argument make. It is not rocket science but it is debate science.

Your view based on the discussion of this thread can be summed as...

to dismiss Renly - ' You cannot usurp and take the throne legitimately'

Robert can usurp and take the throne legitimately because I and others agree with his reasons.

If you do not see the lack of logic in your argument that is on you.

This is basic just-war theory. Robert's cause was just. Renly's wasn't. It's perfectly logical and a lot simpler than you're trying to present it.

Aerys' mistreatment of his vassals superceded the line of succession. Renly's desire to be king did not. Stannis never wronged him therefore he had no casus belli against his liege lord.

 

[MikeMcMann]

This is basic just-war theory. Robert's cause was just. Renly's wasn't. It's perfectly logical and a lot simpler than you're trying to present it.

Aerys' mistreatment of his vassals superceded the line of succession. Renly's desire to be king did not.

You are mistaken if you think we are debating the content of your argument. I am not.

I pointed out that the argument against Renly cannot be he was wrong because he was a usurper.

As if that alone is reason enough.

Then support Stannis claim.

As his claim is only valid if you accept his usurping brother.

That is what is called a logical disconnect.

 

[Daverisimo]

I think most of us would agree that having your bitch snatched from under your nose and your life being threatened when you did nothing wrong is a better cause than "I wanna be king because people like me!" This isn't rocket science.

She didn't get snatched, she left willingly. Rob got cucked and threw a tantrum. Then he got cucked again by his brother in law. King Rob was the GOAT cuck.

 

[Matt4786]

You are mistaken if you think we are debating the content of your argument. I am not.

I pointed out that the argument against Renly cannot be he was wrong because he was a usurper.

As if that alone is reason enough.

Then support Stannis claim.

As his claim is only valid if you accept his usurping brother.

That is what is called a logical disconnect.

Renly was wrong because he was usurping without casus belli and had no claim. Robert had no claim, but casus belli. Stannis had a claim and casus belli. It's perfectly logical. Robert's claim was legitimized when the great lords swore fealty to him.

 

[ralphc1]

Robert's betrothed was stolen from him and the Mad King wanted him executed even though he did nothing wrong as a vassal. If that's not a casus belli, then I don't know what is. Renly just wanted to be king and that's as far as his casus belli goes.

The show hasn't really fleshed out the Robert - Lyanna relationship. In the first season we see Robert and Ned in the crypt as Robert talks about her then we see Robert and Cersei talking about her. We aren't really told if they were betrothed or if it was wishful thinking on Robert's part? If they were betrothed, was it arranged or Robert and Lyanna's choice?

 

[Matt4786]

She didn't get snatched, she left willingly. Rob got cucked and threw a tantrum. Then he got cucked again by his brother in law. King Rob was the GOAT cuck.

That may be what actually happened, but Robert had no way of knowing that. But if that wasn't enough Aerys was going to have him executed. He had 2 options: fight or die.

 

[CO68]

Second

There is lots of grey in this show with regards to how honourable fighters fight. Of course most of love Bran who has no honour beyond winning. But many of the main characters espouse a certain honour in fighting and expectation within in. that is why the Kingslayer has got such a bad rap over the years and why he did not kill Ned when the other guy stabbed him in the back.

Jaime has a bad rep because nobody knows the full story, and he didn't exactly care to explain it. He doesn't let it be known until he told Brienne the story. Also, as he states, they make you swear all these vows, but no matter what you do you'll end up forsaking some of them. It was impossible for him to come away being completely honorable.

If your view is nothing matters then OK what Stannis did is fine. If your view is that their should be some honour in fighting then Stannis using the Vag Monster was pretty cheap.

If you go the honor route, then there was no honor in Renly stealing his bannermen and trying to jump ahead of Stannis. If what Stannis did was low with no honor, then what Renly did was also low with no honor. Stannis gave Renly a chance to back down, and he would allow him to sit on his Small Council. If Renly wasn't willing to 'play by the rules', then why should Stannis?

 

[Matt4786]

The show hasn't really fleshed out the Robert - Lyanna relationship. In the first season we see Robert and Ned in the crypt as Robert talks about her then we see Robert and Cersei talking about her. We aren't really told if they were betrothed or if it was wishful thinking on Robert's part? If they were betrothed, was it arranged or Robert and Lyanna's choice?

They were betrothed. Lyanna probably didn't want it, but we're working within a feudal construct, not modern laws. Within feudal society, Robert got fucked. As we've seen with the Freys, violation of a marriage contract is no laughing matter.