Robert's Rebellion Revisionism

[VaderLike]

I never liked King Robert, right from the start.

I just finished A Dance with Dragons, which excites me for numerous reasons, including being caught up, immune to spoilers, and able to participate in ridiculous theory conversations. I apologize before hand for not having every exact quote that I need to begin, and instead will have to use general bullet points. I intend to read the saga again soon, maybe with an additional copy of each book, so that I can have one pristine version, and another that I can take a highlighter marker to for all the different potential intrigues.

King Robert, the valiant, war hammer wielding rebel, who over threw "The Mad King."

I looked for a thread and didn't find one. Apologies again if this is a boring subject to those who were down with A Song of Ice and Fire before it was cool.

King Robert was a drunken degenerate who did nothing but drink, whore, and bankrupt the Realm. Robert the Unworthy. According to Jon Connington's story, he was also a craven who hid in a brothel at Stoney Sept during the Rebellion when Connington was looking for him to defeat in single combat and end the rebellion.

He fathered bastards all over the realm, was so despised by his own wife that she preferred the bed of her brother, and eventually got killed by a pig.

It's not a huge shocker to me that Lyanna Stark wanted nothing to do with him.

When we begin with A Song of Ice and Fire, we're treated to a heavy dose of biased agenda-driven, self-serving revisionist history from Robert concerning his rebellion against "The Mad King" Aerys Targaryen, stories about Rhaegar forcefully taking Lyanna Stark, and then this is soon after bolstered by stories from other characters about Eddard's Father and Brother's fate before the Iron Throne. This is something we see in actual history when awful lies are combined with awful truths (maybe even without context) to create an over all awful perception, more awful than X might possibly deserve.

Robert is obviously lying early on about the nature of Rhaegar and Lyanna's relationship, or at least seeing it how he wants to see it, which isn't the truth.

We also like to think of the Stark's as "honorable," because Eddard was honorable, and because Eddard was honorable, they all must be honorable, too. Even… handsome, arrogant, cruel Uncle Brandon.

None of us have any idea exactly what Brandon Stark said to the King when he entered King's Landing, but by virtually every single first hand account from other characters in Westeros, all through out ASOIAF, Brandon Stark was another Robert Baratheon, and not at all like his soft spoken, level headed, fair-minded, honorable little brother Eddard. Judging by what he did to Peter, long before he became the formidable "Littlefinger," he was probably a bully too.

Maybe, by Westeros standards, Brandon and Rickard Stark got a harsher version of what they both deserved (If you don't hate Stannis for burning people, you can't hate Aerys for burning people who come to his throne with threats and demands). Maybe Rickard was as obnoxious as Brandon was. Maybe, with… southern ambitions… they were both traitors, and at least one of them happened to have a very big mouth on top of it.

It's easy to look at Ned Stark and his children and believe the entire Stark lineage is all butterflies and waterfalls, but in all the times I've seen anyone mention the name Brandon Stark, it wasn't once followed by praise of character, and he's been mentioned well more than once. As far as I can tell, absolutely nobody has anything nice to say about the guy.

Jamie Lannister's stories also reinforce the idea of madness, but that's just it: They're anecdotes that reinforce an idea that's already been planted in the readers head by Robert's lies.

Let's take the idea of consuming wildfire to turn into a dragon as an example. We hear this, already believing he's "The Mad King," and it amplifies and reinforces that pre notion. "Geez, this guy sounds like a serious lunatic!"

We've since seen seen his daughter walk into a funeral pyre, unburnt, and emerge from it the next morning unscathed with three dragons. We've seen men change their faces, leeches potentially play a hand in killing Kings, shadow-baby assassins, White Walkers, Wights, Warlocks, and visions in the flames.

Who is to say with absolute certainty that Aerys Targaryen wouldn't have turned into a dragon had Jamie not slit his throat, "just to be sure"? Perhaps by the end of the story, Daenarys will do a wildfire keg stand and show all of us just how sane her father actually was.

So on one side of the war we have men like Rhaegar Targaryen, "the greatest man I ever knew," a number of Westeros' greatest and most valiant knights in the Kingsguard before the Kingsguard was made corrupt and despicable (under the rule of Robert), Lyanna Stark, noble Dorne, etc etc etc

And on the other side of the war, we have treacherous Tywin Lannister, the Mountain that Rides, Eddard Stark being dragged into the war to defend his brother and father (who may have very well deserved their fate) and King Robert, who, as I believe it was Arianne who said, "stepped over dead children on his way to the Iron Throne"

Cersei tells Joffrey that the world will be as he wants it. He reminds, to paraphrase, that Robert was once just a traitor, and is now the valiant rebel who over threw Mad King Aerys, and that one day it'll be remembered that he didn't cry when the Direwolf bit him, but killed the beast and spared lives for love.

If it isn't already, I suspect that, by the end, a more clear picture will be painted revealing that Robert's Rebellion wasn't some valiant overthrowing of a deranged tyrant, but instead a despicable treason against the Targaryen dynasty and the Realm, which Eddard Stark, ultimately, was conflicted about having been a part of.

TL:DR The Robert's Rebellion narrative is given to us very early on purely from a `the victors write history` perspective, lead by a drunken, craven miscreant, and reinforced further by people completely ignorant to what they're talking about (What does Jamie Lannister know about dragons?) The Crown Loyalists are all shown by word, deed, and reputation to be, even in exile, the greatest men of the Seven Kingdoms, and they were fighting a bunch of scumbags who basically ruined, bled and bankrupted the Realm. This narrative, given to us by Robert, which pollutes our perception of the war from the beginning, unravels and falls to pieces as the story goes on.

I wouldn't even be surprised if we eventually learn that Robert of the House Baratheon killed Rhaegar Targaryen at the Trident in the same way that King Joffrey `killed` Arya's Direwolf. The Prince probably got shot in the back by a crossbow or something before Robert landed the blow with his war hammer.

The only thing that leads us (or maybe even tricks us) into believing that Robert's Rebellion was in any way righteous or valiant was the fact that Eddard Stark, who doesn't even seem particularly proud about it, was on its side. Remove his character from the equation and it's just a bunch of baby-killers, psychopaths, sloths and treachery,

[TheSmallOther]

Who is to say with absolute certainty that Aerys Targaryen wouldn't have turned into a dragon had Jamie not slit his throat, "just to be sure"? Perhaps by the end of the story, Daenarys will do a wildfire keg stand and show all of us just how sane her father actually was.

Well, even Targaryens do not accept this idea of turning from human to dragon. I mean, this just never happened. Somethimes they say "I'm a dragon", but it doesn't seem they think they have dragon flesh.

Regarding Aerys being mad, there seems to be general agreement from all sides, both rebellions and Targ-loyallists. Except, perhaps, Viserys and Dany. Of course, Robert helped spreading this to everyone around, but most likely he was right regarding that part.

If it isn't already, I suspect that, by the end, a more clear picture will be painted revealing that Robert's Rebellion wasn't some valiant overthrowing of a deranged tyrant, but instead a despicable treason against the Targaryen dynasty and the Realm, which Eddard Stark, ultimately, was conflicted about having been a part of.

There are many possible reasons for Rebellion, you are welcome to search forums as it was discussed quite a lot. In general you are right that this is not good against evil.

However, I couldn't say it was treason. At least, by understaning of Middle Ages. Of course, should Robber and friends loose, they are traitors. But they happened to win Rebellion and therefore it's enough for them to have a good reason to start that Rebellion, so there is not much motivation for another rebellion. Which means, they cannot be traitors :) . And frankly, king is supposed to be Protector of the realm, weak, poor, etc. Aerys was exactly opposite. Sure, he is not the first king to treat his people poor. But at the same time he started threating his noble lords, so not much suprise that many people (read forums, it wasn't only Robbert) wanted him dead.

[Knight of the Teabags]

I never liked King Robert, right from the start.

I just finished A Dance with Dragons, which excites me for numerous reasons, including being caught up, immune to spoilers, and able to participate in ridiculous theory conversations. I apologize before hand for not having every exact quote that I need to begin, and instead will have to use general bullet points. I intend to read the saga again soon, maybe with an additional copy of each book, so that I can have one pristine version, and another that I can take a highlighter marker to for all the different potential intrigues.

King Robert, the valiant, war hammer wielding rebel, who over threw "The Mad King."

I looked for a thread and didn't find one. Apologies again if this is a boring subject to those who were down with A Song of Ice and Fire before it was cool.

King Robert was a drunken degenerate who did nothing but drink, whore, and bankrupt the Realm. Robert the Unworthy. According to Jon Connington's story, he was also a craven who hid in a brothel at Stoney Sept during the Rebellion when Connington was looking for him to defeat in single combat and end the rebellion.

He fathered bastards all over the realm, was so despised by his own wife that she preferred the bed of her brother, and eventually got killed by a pig.

Can't Robert be both the valiant warrior of the Trident and the fat drunken whore monger that he turns into in later life? The thing I take massive issue with any assertion that Robert Baratheon was a craven in battle. There are certainly episodes where Robert did behave cowardly like over the murdered Targaryen children and taking Cersai's side over the Lady issue but these are all what we would call moral cowardice than physical cowardice.

You conveniently forgot for instance at the Battle of Bells that you quote where Robert was in a brothel when Jon Connington attacks despite being wounded Robert later joins the battle and comes a hell of a lot closer to killing Jon Connington in close combat than the other way around. As Connington tells us himself

"Bells and battle followed, and Robert emerged from his brothel with blade in hand, and almost slew Jon on the steps of the old sept that gave the town its name."

If Robert had one virtue at all it was in his prime he was everything a first-rate Westerosi warrior ought to be in battle courageous, strong, skilled and fierce.

[WeaselPie]

TL:DR The Robert's Rebellion narrative is given to us very early on purely from a `the victors write history` perspective

And Maester Yandel wrote the book (for Robert), and everyone remembers the "show" Rhaegar put on at the ToH. I can agree with that much.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

True. Until you overshot the target by about 10,000%. Especially the part about JonCon searching Robert for single combat. Which he didn't intend to do. At all.

[VaderLike]

Well, even Targaryens do not accept this idea of turning from human to dragon. I mean, this just never happened. Somethimes they say "I'm a dragon", but it doesn't seem they think they have dragon flesh.

Regarding Aerys being mad, there seems to be general agreement from all sides, both rebellions and Targ-loyallists. Except, perhaps, Viserys and Dany. Of course, Robert helped spreading this to everyone around, but most likely he was right regarding that part.

There are many possible reasons for Rebellion, you are welcome to search forums as it was discussed quite a lot. In general you are right that this is not good against evil.

However, I couldn't say it was treason. At least, by understaning of Middle Ages. Of course, should Robber and friends loose, they are traitors. But they happened to win Rebellion and therefore it's enough for them to have a good reason to start that Rebellion, so there is not much motivation for another rebellion. Which means, they cannot be traitors :) . And frankly, king is supposed to be Protector of the realm, weak, poor, etc. Aerys was exactly opposite. Sure, he is not the first king to treat his people poor. But at the same time he started threating his noble lords, so not much suprise that many people (read forums, it wasn't only Robbert) wanted him dead.

Maybe to the first, but again, everybody probably though Daenarys was mad when she waltz into Drogo's funeral pyre, as well. We're told Aerys believed drinking wildfire would turn him into a dragon, and at the time we hear this, it helps reinforce our conception of him (that he's insane), but it's given to us by people who have no inkling of magic or dragons. Jamie would have no doubt thought Daenarys was insane when she walked into the fires of the pyre too. Is he really a credible judge for things related to Dragons and magic and Targaryens?

As for the second, saying "everybody is in agreement that "Aerys was mad" might be overstating it, or it could be misleading.

What is the evidence supporting that comment? I'll fire off the ones I remember:

1. He gets referred to as "The Mad King" by Robert early on and immediately we have no reason to doubt his word. Later we do.

2. He executes Rickard and Brandon Stark. We hear the story and this reinforces what Robert told us. However, we also don't hear yet that Brandon was arrogant and cruel and likely not just an older version of honorable Eddard. We also hear that Rickard had `southern ambitions`, wanting to join the Starks to the Tully's and the Starks to the Baratheons through marriage. We also don't know how insolent Brandon was when he came to the Iron Throne. With these things in mind, we can possibly dismiss this as an example of "Madness", leaving open the possibility that Brandon and Rickard got what they deserved and that neither reflect the demeanor that we identify with the Starks under Ned.

3. Selmy says something IIRC, but it wasn't very convincing and could have just him been lightly repeating the narrative of X amount of years of Robert's rule. He was also quite burdened by his belief that he failed the Targaryens, and said in ADWD that he would of killed Robert where he stood if he cracked a smile at the sight of the dead Targaryen children.

4. Pycelle says he was mad, but Pycelle is a snake in the grass. Not only is he a loyal stooge to the Lannisters on the surface, (and probably whoever has power), he's also a Maester and probably involved in a conspiracy with the Citadel to drive magic from the world, which would make him a secret enemy of the Targaryens, Dragons, etc.

5. Jamie's story about his Scorched Earth order for Kings Landing also strengthens Robert's early ramblings, but this is well after the Rebellion began, and can't really be used as a defacto justification for Robert's Rebellion. His son was dead, traitors were coming for him everywhere, and IIRC it was after Tywin's treachery, so why shouldn't he engulf his enemies in flames?

So while people are in "agreement," it isn't very compelling in hindsight the further and further we go into the story, and certainly not enough to decree absolutely that the Targaryens deserved to be over thrown by traitors.

[VaderLike]

True. Until you overshot the target by about 10,000%. Especially the part about JonCon searching Robert for single combat. Which he didn't intend to do. At all.

Maybe I remembered this part incorrectly. I thought Jon's intentions were to seek him out and best him one vrs one for glory hound reasons.

Still, Robert was `hiding behind women's skirts in a Brothel` which spits in the face of the image we had of Robert Baratheon, and his thoughts about being told that Tywin would of just burned the whole town down with everyone in it is another example of the Rebel Forces being far more brutal than the Crown Loyalists.

Take the comparisons to Stannis, for example, like when people are saying that if it were Robert in the North, he would just charge Winterfell himself and smash down the gates with a war hammer. This is the perception people have of him, yet we hear from first hand witnesses that he was hiding with women in a brothel.

Sounds similar to the `legacy` of Joffrey, "who broke Stannis on the Blackwater."

[Balerion the kitten]

I don't like Robert either. Simply because he ruined the realm. The targaryens were thought of as the blood of dragons and God's, they made the seven kingdoms and held onto it for nearly 300 years, under every law it was there's. But Robert comes and he completely screws up the succession, if the baratheons can take the throne it kind of leaves an example for all the other houses that "anyone can take the throne". Renly even used RR to justify his claim. Once Robert took the IT everything just got messed up.

[VaderLike]

I also forgot to mention that Robert wanted to kill a child Daenarys and her unborn child, which Eddard considered so vile it forced him to resign as Hand of the King. He pardoned the Mountain after he raped Elia and killed her children.

Is there a single thing we can point to that makes Robert a hero? He's a monster through and through.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Maybe I remembered this part incorrectly. I thought Jon's intentions were to seek him out and best him one vrs one for glory hound reasons.

Still, Robert was `hiding behind women's skirts in a Brothel` which spits in the face of the image we had of Robert Baratheon, and his thoughts about being told that Tywin would of just burned the whole town down with everyone in it is another example of the Rebel Forces being far more brutal than the Crown Loyalists.

Take the comparisons to Stannis, for example, like when people are saying that if it were Robert in the North, he would just charge Winterfell himself and smash down the gates with a war hammer. This is the perception people have of him, yet we hear from first hand witnesses that he was hiding with women in a brothel.

Sounds similar to the `legacy` of Joffrey, "who broke Stannis on the Blackwater."

So, not going up one against 20,000 makes you a Joffrey?

Robert has his problems, but physical cowardice is not one of it.

Furthermore, Tywin wasn't actually part of the Rebel forces and especially Ned wanted him punished for his war crimes.

[VaderLike]

So, not going up one against 20,000 makes you a Joffrey?

Robert has his problems, but physical cowardice is not one of it.

Furthermore, Tywin wasn't actually part of the Rebel forces and especially Ned wanted him punished for his war crimes.

He had 20,000 men with him?

I'm not saying that he is a Joffrey. He was obviously formidable in combat and strong as an ox, but like Cersei tells Prince Joffrey, "the world will be what you make it." Hiding in a brothel behind a bunch of women seems to contradict the image of rebel Robert we're given from the start.

No, Tywin wasn't a part of the rebel forces…. until he sacked Kings Landing, and yes, we know who Eddard Stark is, but Robert didn't punish him, and pardoned his Mad Dog, Gregor Clegane, for a brutal crime, only further making my point.

[Laughing Storm Reborn]

First, it´s understandable your dislike for Robert, in the books he´s on the worst phase of his life, but let me give you my view...

The first thing i want to point out is that Rhaegar fought Robert on horseback (he was a great jouster, bob was more a melee guy), had the best armour (he was the crown prince) and was fresh (Robert was wounded in one of his many battles before the Trident)... and he still LOST, why? not because Robert cheated, but because despite Rhaegar being a good warrior, Robert was a legendary one (have a look at his feats of combat in the books), it´s FAR ABOVE most people, including Rhaegar...

Then think about this, Robert saw his parents die as a kid when they were returning from a voyage to find a bride for Rhaegar as a request from Aerys, nontheless years later at harrenhall Robert is still very much loyal to Aerys, then Rhaegar not content with his marriage screws Robert´s future one, some time later Aerys demands for his head because his sanity went to Essos... here comes the war of the USURPER (word to describe someone who fights to have his head attached), Robert still doesn´t want to be king but is told he has to by his friends, then people who tried to kill him in the war (Martell´s) blame him for a murder he didn´t commit, then Jaime betrays him with his sister when Robert spared him the wall or the spikes (heck, he even let the guy be a KG, his dream job, lucky him), almost forgot to mention he spared Barristan the Roose Bolton´s knife treatment just for the old man later in the books join Dany and having thoughts of killing him if he saw him smile (thanks a lot bob, guess what, you wouldn´t see him smile or not if he let you be Roose´s friend that day on the Trident) ...i´m not getting into the cersei part, it´s too long... and Connington? i might have a nervous meltdown...

The guy (Robert) was called to end and replace a mad king, he never wanted the replacing part, but was told it was for the better... then everyone starts complaining, he should have done this or that... well, he seemed the only guy who wanted EVERYONE to get along... but you can´t have that...

Then, after being betrayed by his wife (3 sons, wow that´s a tough one) it´s not enough, so she organizes his death (with style)... and bashes his name across the next books because it´s never enough...

Don´t get me wrong, you can hate Bob, everyone has their "can´t stand him" character... personally, i am a fan of his and think he should rest in peace (or not, Ned thought he wouldn´t like rest) for having saved a lot of people despite being screwed most of his life for the cruel act of being a happy guy

[The Snowfyre Chorus]

Decent post, and good insight on the "history written by the victor" angle. That seems (to me) an important piece in Martin's mystery-writer tool kit. I caution against going completely anti-Robert, though. He made a terrible king, no doubt. And his version of history - his justification for the war he won - is not accurate, though once he'd killed all the Targs anyway, it was important to maintain that story. But the alternative is not necessarily that his opponents in that war were heroes themselves. And I'm not sure I'd consider Robert a villain, by any stretch of the word. In my view, he was lied to from the very beginning - used and abused by friends who needed his help in the war, but could not bear to tell him the truth once it was won.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

He had 20,000 men with him?

Give or take. Five digits in any case.

[Feverfew]

One of the things I find most interesting in ASoIaF is the fact that most characters are neither all good nor all evil. Or as Knight of the Teabags said:

Can't Robert be both the valiant warrior of the Trident and the fat drunken whore monger that he turns into in later life?

Robert was no doubt not a good king; he even says so himself to Ned. He might not have been a bad one (as in murdering*/plundering/mad king-way) since he at least tried to leave the decision-making to men better equipped to handle that sort of things, but he was an indifferent one; one mainly concerned with his own pleasures and not his people. I don't think that made him evil though. At least not more than most kings in the history of Europe.

* The decision to kill Dany and her unborn child, while not a morally sound one, made a sort of horrible sense when you look to actual history: In the War of the Roses, queen Margaret (married to the might-be-quite-mad Henry VI) fled to France with her son after Henry's death, and that child did threaten Edward IV's (the "usurper") rule.

But Vaderlike is also right in the sense that history is written by the victors. The only problem is this: If you start to doubt the second-hand accounts of our point-of-view characters, how will you know whose to trust? Because everybody in ASoIaF has an agenda; that's the reason I love the series this much. And discarding everything the (for lack of a better term) pro-Robert's Rebellion camp tells us, while beliving everything the pro-Targs says, is just as much of a danger as is the opposite.

If we for instance look at who's talking in these instances:

King Robert was a drunken degenerate who did nothing but drink, whore, and bankrupt the Realm. Robert the Unworthy. According to Jon Connington's story, he was also a craven who hid in a brothel at Stoney Sept during the Rebellion when Connington was looking for him to defeat in single combat and end the rebellion.

[...]

None of us have any idea exactly what Brandon Stark said to the King when he entered King's Landing, but by virtually every single first hand account from other characters in Westeros, all through out ASOIAF, Brandon Stark was another Robert Baratheon, and not at all like his soft spoken, level headed, fair-minded, honorable little brother Eddard. Judging by what he did to Peter, long before he became the formidable "Littlefinger," he was probably a bully too.

[...]

Jamie Lannister's stories also reinforce the idea of madness, but that's just it: They're anecdotes that reinforce an idea that's already been planted in the readers head by Robert's lies.

[...]

[...]King Robert, who, as I believe it was Arianne who said, "stepped over dead children on his way to the Iron Throne"

1) Jon Connington (who I guess was responsible for the quote "the greatest man I ever knew,") was in love with Rhaegar. Love makes us blind; just look at Lysa Tully. Or would you say that her view on Littlefinger was completely unbiased? Obviously Lysa is insane, and JonCon isn't, but we cannot completely disregard the notion that he maybe had rosecoloured glasses on vrt Rhaegar. Barristan offers a much more balanced view on the prince , and Jorah's cynical version is yet another. We have to infer from several sources what Rhaegar was like, because it's all in the past. We can't just take "the greatest man" as fact.

2) We don't know much of Brandon Stark. According to Ned, he had a bit of wolf's blood in him, same as Lyanna, but I've never read Ned's statement to mean that they both were "cruel" and "arrogant". Lord Hoster calls him a "gallant fool", but that too makes him no more than hot-blooded. The duel between Littlefinger and Brandon was unfair regarding age and experience, but it was Petyr who challenged Brandon, and according to medival laws, you couldn't withdraw from a duel without loss of honor.

The only truly negative account of Brandon and Rikard Stark, comes from Lady Dustin, who wanted to marry Brandon but was denied, and later lost her husband in the rebellion, and that is not an unbiased account in my books. (The "southron ambitions" also comes from her, and again I don't know how much of her story is revionist storytelling engulfed in bitterness)

3) Even if you disregard Jamie's story on how Aerys wanted to burn all of King's Landing, you still have to take into account the fact that even Rhaegar thought there were something wrong with his father. And if Rhaegar, who you seem to hold in high regard, wanted to overthrow the "mad king", mightn't there be something to the whole nickname?

4) Again, Arienne is not unbiased. Those dead children were her beloved father's niece and nephew.

To sum up: I'm not saying that Robert was a great king, or that his account of what happened with Rhaegar and Lyanna is correct, but we can't just throw every story that tilts toward the righteousness of the rebellion out, because we'd rather believe the other side.

[VaderLike]

There's a difference between what happens in text during a POV character and what a POV character says.

If Robert is at his throne and a rat runs through the throne room and scurries into a hole in the wall, then that is what happened. If, however, Robert says "A rat ran through my throne room and scurried into a hole in the wall," it doesn't necessarily mean that's what happened.

There's a huge difference between action text and dialogue.

The moment Robert starts talking about his Rebellion, with Rhaegar raping Lyanna, he's lying, right from the beginning.

[VaderLike]

FeverFew:

One of the things I find most interesting in ASoIaF is the fact that most characters are neither all good nor all evil. Or as Knight of the Teabags said:

Robert was no doubt not a good king; he even says so himself to Ned. He might not have been a bad one (as in murdering*/plundering/mad king-way) since he at least tried to leave the decision-making to men better equipped to handle that sort of things, but he was an indifferent one; one mainly concerned with his own pleasures and not his people. I don't think that made him evil though. At least not more than most kings in the history of Europe.

* The decision to kill Dany and her unborn child, while not a morally sound one, made a sort of horrible sense when you look to actual history: In the War of the Roses, queen Margaret (married to the might-be-quite-mad Henry VI) fled to France with her son after Henry's death, and that child did threaten Edward IV's (the "usurper") rule.

But Vaderlike is also right in the sense that history is written by the victors. The only problem is this: If you start to doubt the second-hand accounts of our point-of-view characters, how will you know whose to trust? Because everybody in ASoIaF has an agenda; that's the reason I love the series this much. And discarding everything the (for lack of a better term) pro-Robert's Rebellion camp tells us, while beliving everything the pro-Targs says, is just as much of a danger as is the opposite.

If we for instance look at who's talking in these instances:

1) Jon Connington (who I guess was responsible for the quote "the greatest man I ever knew,") was in love with Rhaegar. Love makes us blind; just look at Lysa Tully. Or would you say that her view on Littlefinger was completely unbiased? Obviously Lysa is insane, and JonCon isn't, but we cannot completely disregard the notion that he maybe had rosecoloured glasses on vrt Rhaegar. Barristan offers a much more balanced view on the prince , and Jorah's cynical version is yet another. We have to infer from several sources what Rhaegar was like, because it's all in the past. We can't just take "the greatest man" as fact.

I believe it was Selmy who told Daenarys this, unless I'm confusing show dialogue from book dialogue. I've only read the books once. Jon Connington's love for the Targaryen's is now well established even without vocal praise. If this is book dialogue, and not just show dialogue, these are two great Knights siding with the Targaryens against the ramblings of King Robert the sloth, which even Ned didn't seem too eager to join in with.

2) We don't know much of Brandon Stark. According to Ned, he had a bit of wolf's blood in him, same as Lyanna, but I've never read Ned's statement to mean that they both were "cruel" and "arrogant". Lord Hoster calls him a "gallant fool", but that too makes him no more than hot-blooded. The duel between Littlefinger and Brandon was unfair regarding age and experience, but it was Petyr who challenged Brandon, and according to medival laws, you couldn't withdraw from a duel without loss of honor.

The only truly negative account of Brandon and Rikard Stark, comes from Lady Dustin, who wanted to marry Brandon but was denied, and later lost her husband in the rebellion, and that is not an unbiased account in my books. (The "southern ambitions" also comes from her, and again I don't know how much of her story is revionist storytelling engulfed in bitterness)

I was referring to Lady Aryn in the Vale talking to Sansa.

3) Even if you disregard Jamie's story on how Aerys wanted to burn all of King's Landing, you still have to take into account the fact that even Rhaegar thought there were something wrong with his father. And if Rhaegar, who you seem to hold in high regard, wanted to overthrow the "mad king", mightn't there be something to the whole nickname?

Very true, but he simply said "When I return, things are going to change," or something to that affect. It might not have involved Rhaegar overthrowing his father through force of arms, but telling him it is time for him to set aside his throne. Never the less, while Aerys may have not been a saint, a lot of the ammunition we use to further the "Mad King" narrative comes mostly in the form of biased heresy and potential ignorance.

In short, as readers our minds condemn Aerys immediately after Robert's narrative, then everything else just reinforces that narrative, true or not, when its a narrative that may be bogus to begin with.

[VaderLike]

I, for one, believe Cersei has more credibility than Robert, because when Cersei lies, she lets us know she's lying, where as when Robert does it, he pretends he's telling the truth.

This all leads me to believe that King Robert is one of the least credible people in the books.

[Modesty Lannister]

There's a difference between what happens in text during a POV character and what a POV character says.

If Robert is at his throne and a rat runs through the throne room and scurries into a hole in the wall, then that is what happened. If, however, Robert says "A rat ran through my throne room and scurried into a hole in the wall," it doesn't necessarily mean that's what happened.

There's a huge difference between action text and dialogue.

The moment Robert starts talking about his Rebellion, with Rhaegar raping Lyanna, he's lying, right from the beginning.

First of all, let me thank you for backing up what I have been saying repeatedly about the POV tunnel vision the author has deliberately set up to cloud our judgement. It cannot be repeated often enough. Secondly, I agree with every word you wrote about "Robert's rebellion". I could add so much more, but you will have enough on your plate without it for a mo. And warmest welcome to the forum on my part.

[cyberdirectorfreedom]

It wasn't Aerys who thought drinking wildfire would turn him into a dragon. It was Aerion Targaryen, who in fact did drink wildfire, and died for his trouble. I think that Jaime speculates that Aerys didn't think he'd die when he set the city alight, but would instead turn into a dragon. But Jaime didn't know for a fact whether or not Aerys believed that.

Other than that, I have a few issues with what you've said, but on the most part I do agree.