Game of Thrones [Potential Book Spoilers]

Okay, is the comparison with Louis XI from GRRM himself? Because if it is the case, then I'm sorry to say that it is a rather glaring case of Critical Research Failure.

I don't think there is a single character in the show that is more of a polar opposite to Louis XI than Stannis. The sole thing they have in common is that they are unpopular (which has so many possible causes it shouldn't even count).

Louis XI:

• ...lacked anything vaguely resembling a sense of honor, and considering when he reigned it is highly possible he gave some ideas to Machiavelli. Stannis is defined by being a principles zealot.
• ...tried to usurp his father (which got him exiled), so legitimacy wasn't exactly very high on his priority list. Stannis puts legitimacy above everything else.
• ...never fought a war, preferring truces and peace treaties. Stannis travels all over Westeros leading his army.
• ...was a sincerely religious man. Stannis doesn't even believe in the religion he is spreading. Incidentally, it probably means he wasn't that hated by the people: his peers and historians painted him as a devil for centuries, but the small folk likely preferred him to, for example, Henri IV, who is the most sympathetic king of you read history books but spent his entire life fighting civil wars (which the smallfolk tends to dislike) while being catholic In Name Only.
• ...spent/wasted a truckload of money to avoid fighting wars - so France was pretty much at peace under his reign. Let's just say it's highly doubtful it would be the case were Stannis in charge and leave it at that.

If anyone was to be compared to Louis XI in ASOIAF or GOT, it would definitely be Tywin, not Stannis. The "unity" mentioned in the aforementioned quote was brought without the French army fighting a single battle. Very unstannislike.

There are many more differences than righteousness between Louis XI and Stannis. That's like comparing him to Henry VIII and saying "unlike him, Stannis isn't a womanizer".

So I stand by the fact that if GRRM did compare Louis with Stannis it's a big Critical Research Failure, which is strange because it's an American historian (Paul Murray Kendall) who was the first to create the "modern" image of Louis as an unpopular but incredibly efficient ruler.

I can't speak of the other two though, since I haven't read their biographies.

edited 30th Dec '15 4:09:06 PM by Julep

Thanks for the synopsis. From what little I knew of the guy (which was mostly from a couple of works of fiction) my impression was of a non-murderous Tywin.

Not sure if it's "strange" though, since Martin is American, maybe that's who he's basing it on?

Not all that versed about Henry VII, but again I'd see him as more Tywinish (although he has some Baratheon parallels- but more Robert than Stannis)- From what I know of him, he was known for being rather humorless and miserly and for murdering rival claimants to the throne. His son, Henry VIII, lost all of the money he had saved (but continued the whole "murdering people thing").

edited 30th Dec '15 4:10:02 PM by Hodor2

Yep, that was GRRM saying it.

Here's the full quote:

I don't know enough about French monarchs to have an opinion.

Early history books did paint Louis XI as a man strikingly similar to Tywin: the one thing they could not deny is that his reign, overall, made France much stronger than it was before, so they made him an ugly, superstitious, petty backstabber. Almost a textbook example of Historical Villain Upgrade.

Nowadays, most historians agree that while he probably wasn't the most pleasant or the most charismatic French king (unlike Henri IV, Philippe II or Francois I), he was one of the greatest rulers the country had (...unlike Francois I), and an extremely savvy one at that. Some even say that he might have been Tywin-like in his early years (while plotting against his father), but that failing and living in exile made him wiser. "Learning from your own mistakes" is something neither Tywin nor Stannis display in the books.

So it is a Critical Research Failure. Or at least, it is a good reason to consider having a critical opinion of whatever GRRM says (which incidentally is often extremely smart, if his blog is to be believed), and not to consider anything he says as gospel truth.

edited 30th Dec '15 4:21:05 PM by Julep

Oh, by the way, someone on Martin's livejournal asked in a thoughtful way about (lack of) updates on TWOW and got a response hinting at some upcoming details.

I'm glad they posted this and glad Martin responded. I kind of go back and forth-I do find the delay highly frustrating (and sort of think that the World Of Ice and Fire and related stuff hints that Martin likes "playing" in his setting but has difficulty writing novels set in it). But at the same time, things like that Gawker article and a lot of fan comments can be pretty hostile toward Martin.

Edit- On the historical issue, I wonder if Martin is familiar with If I were King or one of the adaptations. The basic plot is about criminal/poet Francis Villon coming to the attention of Louis IX and Louis granting him a high position (since Francis asserts he could do a better job as ruler) but also (planning on) punishing him for his crimes. It sort of vaguely sounds like the Davos and Stannis relationship, but as you'll see from the link, Louis is not really just in his actions toward Villon and only grudgingly lets him live at the end.

edited 30th Dec '15 4:27:28 PM by Hodor2

As far as he might mess up on his history stuff but not on whatever his intentions for the characters are.

We can only guess why he's comparing them to Stannis. He doesn't really elaborate.

@Hodor He says it's not writer's block anymore that's slowing his pace down but the constant interviews, trips, awards ceremony etc. he has to go to/or wants to go to and that he's actually hired people to stop people from getting into contact with him because he needs time to write.

Well he does love history fiction. He's based characters on historical people, history fiction based versions of people, fantasy characters and plain fiction characters(Gatsby).

edited 30th Dec '15 4:30:13 PM by MadSkillz

I think the historical citation is related to his statements on the characters.

Because he's comparing Stannis with three (arguably) evil people and saying that Stannis differs from them because he's righteous (which is kind of an equivocal term because as I understand it, it can carry an implication of zealotry).

Granted, all three do have a rep for being "humorless and unpopular but efficient", which does make sense to say that Stannis is comparable to them but differs in having good motives.

I'm just a bit hesitant about taking the quote as evidence that Martin is endorsing a "Stannis Stan" view of the character- since again, he's comparing him with three evil guys.

edited 30th Dec '15 4:34:48 PM by Hodor2

But the main issue is - if you make any of those three rulers righteous, they are completely different characters. Louis was defined by not being righteous, if he had been, then he would have fought (and probably lost) wars, and would have left the country in a terrible state. If Tiberius was righteous, chances are he would have been assassinated, and it's doubtful Henri VIII would have inherited such a great country had his father been honest.

GRRM's quote really does not make much sense here. I can't think of anyone describing Stannis as a plotting bastard, especially since his sole "treacherous" act - assassinating Renly - ended in an Epic Fail. Stannis being politically savvy on a single topic (the real threat behind the wall) is not enough ground to compare him to history's greatest Magnificent Bastards.

If anything, the French king Stannis should be compared to is Jean II, the one who died in England because his son escaped earlier.

I think the comparison kind of works- like in-universe you could compare say Ned, Randyl, Tywin, and Stannis as all being "grim and relatively humorless men who made for very effective leaders" (which is kind of what the historical people all had in common) but of course, there's lots of differences between all of those characters.

I would say that all of them are humorless and grim, but aside from that, the one thing you can say is that each of them is apt at doing something a lord has to do (fighting or ruling) but that none is good at doing both. Well, maybe Tarly but nothing is said about the way he rules his lands. Meanwhile, Tywin's military record is pretty terrible when he isn't backstabbing someone or using overwhelming force.

So the comparison works but is, I think, extremely superficial, and quite meaningless. And there were so many grim and humorless rulers in history that I'm sure you could find some that were closer to Stannis that the three picked here.

I dunno about that. GRRM modeled Stannis on I, Claudius' Tiberius just like he modeled Littlefinger on Gatsby.

edited 1st Jan '16 4:05:11 PM by MadSkillz

That actually kind of supports Julep's point.

I've commented on Tiberius in the past and yeah, I think Martin is obviously thinking of the Tiberius from that book.

But like with the Gatsby comparison, I definitely see it (and it's interesting how the show has a scene that sort of seems like the Vale lords invoking anti-semitic prejudicies- which is interesting because Gatsby is often seen as Ambiguously Jewish and the idea of him not fitting in with WASPS is definitely a factor in the book).

On the other hand though, unlike Littlefinger, Gatsby isn't insanely evil.

So like it's a good example of how a person/character can be an inspiration even though Martin's character may be very different from them in a lot of ways.

Someone email GRRM to clarify.

Tywin Lannister's military history is quite good. He did defend the Westerlands from rebellion, quite successfully.

He's just not very good at dealing with professional northern cavalry with conscripted peasant infantry.

Sure he did when he outnumbered them by quite a bit.

Well to be fair, that's exactly what you use conscripts for.

To outnumber the enemy.

Civil War and an all-out battle against a foreign force are two different things. Tywin is famed for turning his "dealing with the rebellion" moment into a Disproportionate Retribution so that no one would dare to complain again. Which is very wise for a politician, but does not require you to be an incredible general. I don't know how the forces were when he dealt with the Reynes, but I doubt a vassal of his House could have a larger army than him, no matter how powerful. There usually is a significant gap between any Great House and the most powerful of their bannermen, if only because there is an official bond between a bannerman and his great house which has no real equivalent between other houses.

I imagine the Starks could easily have exterminated the Boltons if they wanted to at the beginning of the books/series. It would have been a political catastrophe and completely against their principles, but it would have been possible nonetheless.

According to the Lore and Histories, (which may just be Tywin puffing out his chest) the Lannisters were losing that one till Tywin took over

Tywin was puffing his chest or it's been changed for show lore.

In AWOIAF events go like this:

Tywin sneakily demands that Roger and Reynard Reyne and the Lord and Lady of Tarbeck Hall present themselves for their crimes. They refused and rose in open revolt like Tywin expected they would.

Tywin's host gathered so fast that Tarbeck's forces didn't have time to gather and foolishly Lord Tarbeck rode to meet them with only his household knights. They were brutally massacred. Lord Tarbeck and his son, together with his nephew and cousins, his daugher's husbands and any other man that boasted of Tarbeck blood or put their crest on their chest were beheaded.

Then they readied the siege engines and brought down Tarbeck Hall's keep relatively quickly with a fortunate stone with Lady Tarbeck and her son in it. The gates were then thrown open and Tywin torched Tarbeck Hall.

Roger Reyne came in time to see the flames with 2,000 men. Tywin had 3 times his number and some accounts insist that Tywin actually had 5 times his number. Roger Reyne tried to surprise attack them but after the first shock the Reynes had to flee.

They rode to Castamere. The Lannisters caught up with them 3 days later. Castamere is a castle around a mine so 90% of it is underground. The Reynes retreated underground because they didn't have the men to defend the surface. Tywin decided to seal the mines they retreated under so that there was no way in and out. He then diverted a small stream into the mine and drowned them all and left the mines closed up ever since then.

edited 5th Jan '16 1:38:00 PM by MadSkillz

The show's lore was, I believe, published before The World of Ice & Fire came out, which told the story above, so the showrunners probably didn't know the exact details and made up their own version.

edited 5th Jan '16 3:38:37 PM by TheWanderer

I don't think Tywin overplaying his merits would be really out-of-character. On the opposite. Claiming to be a great military leader is a smart political move, because when you also are the richest man alive, no one will even try to defy you.

Teasers are out for Stark, Lannister and Targaryen.

Dat Ramsay King in da Norfing it

Okay that line in the Targaryen teaser was good

edited 22nd Jan '16 2:47:58 PM by MadSkillz

Stannis "Siege of Storm's End" Baratheon would never do that. For your false analogy to be sensible, Stannis would have to present himself at Court and declare his rights hoping that The Kingdom he intends to topple will give him a fair trial.

BINGO...the characters are all Composite Character and Decomposite Character of various historical figures from different eras. In other words, you are supposed to see aspects of historical figures (like Early Tiberius and especially the Historical Richard III) in Stannis but there is not a total one-to-one comparison.

Considering that Tywin is a total liar first and foremost, that would go without saying I should think.

In a feudal monarchy like the 7 Kingdoms, money isn't power. Tywin is powerful because he leverages his capital into titles and position that makes that money powerful. Like taking on the King's debts, grandfathering the heir and so on.

Tywin is basically a Jack of All Trades Lucky Bastard, incapable of military victory without advantages, unable to do anything genius like Stannis' Siege, Tyrion's Wildfire defense and Robb Stark's campaign, but a man who is very lucky at being at the right place to steal all the credit. Don't forget the Greyjoy Rebellion where the Ironborn, the Butt-Monkey of Westeros humiliate him and destroy his ships at Lannisport, leading Stannis to come and bail out the Westerlands.

edited 26th Jan '16 8:18:59 AM by JulianLapostat

So this happened:

-crais-

My issue was with Louis XI, who has nothing in common with Stannis except for that superficial thing of being humorless. And it is not a famous aspect of him either, he was first and foremost known for being cunning, the "grim and cruel" part mostly came out from historians who couldn't stand to see such a guy actually being the most successful ruler in his dynasty, instead of flashier guys like François I.

As for Jean II, he went to England because it was the most honorable thing to do in his mind but definitely not the smartest in retrospect, which might sum up quite a few of Stannis' decisions over the series. Like murdering Renly who was a traitor, it was an absolute political catastrophe, and he went with it anyway. Or treating Robb like another traitor despite the pragmatic opportunities that would an alliance have offered and the fact that out of the kings, Robb was by and large the one whose cause was the most sympathetic - his father got executed and Stannis actually got the letter that proved it was an unlawful execution.

So putting principles over savviness - that's a very Jean II thing, and also a Stannis one. He is as much Jean II as he is Tiberius, and he is much more these than he is Louis XI anyway.

edited 4th Feb '16 2:11:57 PM by Julep