Jump to content

What's there to like about Robert really?


Valens

Recommended Posts

I know I'm opening a can of worms here but...if you look at it objectively, Robert really doesn't have too many good sides. He is too brash, too hotheaded and too violent, doesn't listen to advice (as the Jon Arryn example tells us), is sex-crazy and promiscuous, plus he hated Rhaegar so much for nothing really. Well, not nothing but he didn't even respect him after he was dead, I bet. And him thinking that it was alright to kill his children was what really placed Robert in the neutral-cathegory. He's neither bad nor good. I think his only redeeming quality is that he is more cheerful and friendly than Stannis and well...more manly than Renly, heh. Somebody called him the greatest commander in Westeros, I believe that is far from the truth. He may have been a capable commander, but far from the most talented in Westeros. He was more a of a great warrior, fighter, than a great commander. Anyway, being successful at war when you have a big army of Stormlanders (perhaps most battle-hardened soldiers in Westeros) and Valemen and also some from the Riverlands I believe, it's not TOO hard. He kicked ass, that's all. Stannis proved himself to be a more cunning commander than him and his way of living is more in the line with what a commander should be like: not a man of pleasures but a serious and hard man. Yet just. Robert's treatment of Stannis also doesn't do him justice, as we have discussed already. I think Ned was far more honourable and noble than Robert. But he grew up with Robert and learned to love him, despite his flaws. Had he not been fostered with him, I don't think Ned would think so highly or be so fond of Robert, do you?

Of course, one still must pity Robert. For what his life turned out like after winning the throne-couldn't have been very happy. He had been deprived of his great love of his life (though she most likely didn't feel the same way for him, which is also sad), he had to marry for politics and his only child that he got with Cersei was aborted, on purpose. He had no idea his three children were not really his. And he didn't love his brothers, which is also sad, but another indicator that Robert isn't really a GOOD man. He is good to people he likes, but I think the fact that he liked Ned more than Stannis or Renly is...well, Stannis is not so easy to like, but what about Renly? Why didn't he love HIM? He even looked like Robert and surely felt nothing but love and admiration for his big brother...early on, that is. And, of course...the most obvious thing of all-Robert was a LOUSY king. Just one of the worst kings to sit the Iron Throne yet lucky enough of it not being so obvious becuase he had such good advisors and such a good Hand. He is kind of closest to being another Aegon the Unworthy, he was like his successor in a way. He only cared about women, food and drink and watching a good fight. Now I await your responses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Floki of the Ironborn said:

To be honest, I agree with most of your points. Robert was a very flawed man, even before Lyanna disappeared and before he was sentenced to death for pretty much no reason. If he hadn't been dealt so many tragedies in his life then he'd be much less sympathetic. 

Yep. That's the hard truth. He was just too bigheaded. Too bigheaded to listen to anybody, even his foster-father. And that kinda really says it all, if he refused to listen to a man like Jon Arryn. Both Jon and Ned would be MUCH better kings than he was. Shame Ned didn't take the throne when he could have. But then I think Tywin would be against it, because he knew he could have more influence over someone like Robert, someone less honourable and more prone to spending and living in excess. Ned and Tywin would not have gotten along at all.

Anyway, I am totally with Jon Con, I would feel the same if I had to serve under such a lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert is an extremely flawed character but we know enough about him enough to see that he isn't a "bad" guy. He's in a position where his flaws become crucial weaknesses and then in turn those weaknesses can be exploited by his enemies...I would be very interested to see what Robert's regime looked like minus the Lannisters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Valens said:

Yep. That's the hard truth. He was just too bigheaded. Too bigheaded to listen to anybody, even his foster-father. And that kinda really says it all, if he refused to listen to a man like Jon Arryn. Both Jon and Ned would be MUCH better kings than he was. Shame Ned didn't take the throne when he could have. But then I think Tywin would be against it, because he knew he could have more influence over someone like Robert, someone less honourable and more prone to spending and living in excess. Ned and Tywin would not have gotten along at all.

Anyway, I am totally with Jon Con, I would feel the same if I had to serve under such a lord.

Ned follows the wrong gods for being king of the south. But he would have been a better king had he been the southron one, but still Neds strictness and naivety could also couse problems. Of Jon Arryn, Eddard Stark and Robert baratheon, Jon Arryn would have been the best king exept for his struggle to produce and heir of his loins. I can't imagine sweetrobin having a easy time as king...

Stannis would have been the best possible king after Robert's Rebbelion. He is fair, but strict but still willing to make compromise. And he judges people not only by birth but also merit. A good king for a feudal kingdom.

Viserys would very likely have been vengefull so having him as king is like begging for a new civilwar.

Jaime would most likely be a puppet of Tywin or Cersei but he might have gone so far as to marry Cersei which would have coused a civilwar since noman will accept to be ruled by a abomination. Only the rumors about it hurt Cersei's children alltho it was true.

Tywin has daddy issues which couse him to be the Anti Tytos. Tytos who was forgiving, trusting, kind, mercifull and general a good guy but still a pushover. Tywin would probably make many lords unhappy, and maybe set up the believer of the seven against the old gods to distract from the Targ murders....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Robert gets a bad rap to be honest. He was a bad king not a bad man. He was extremely loyal to his friends, made friends from enemies and fight for a cause he believed in. He kept the realm in peace for the majority of his reign (although he did bankrupt it).The two major flaws with Robert are obviously his whoring and hatred of Targaryens. 

Robert was a whore that's the simple truth of it. But, Lyanna (the only woman he ever loved) dying drove him over the edge. He started drinking a lot more and lost shape. Ned is shocked when he sees how fat Robert had gotten since they smashed Pyke. This is obviously the result of him not wanting to be king, his cold marriage and hedonistic lifestyle.

As for his hatred of the Targaryens, it is very understandable. Robert was a loyal bannerman until Aerys unjustifiably called for his head, as well as his best friend and executed the Starks. He rose up against a mad tyrant for justice not the throne. He only got the throne because his grandmother was a Targaryen, there is no mention of him actually desiring it. But more importantly, Robert believes that Rhaegar raped Lyanna. That's always overlooked because Rhaegar is considered to be a fine man by all others even Ned, but Robert either was never told the truth by Ned or that he refused to believe it. 

He was never close with Stannis or Renly but that is not all his fault. He gave them both very powerful fiefdoms to govern. Yes, he could have made more of an effort to make a bond with them but the none of the brothers ever seemed to make an effort. Stannis was too cold, Robert liked Ned more, and Renly was simply too young to make any bonds with his older brothers. 

Yes Robert was a crass and loud man. But he was not made to be king, didn't want to be king. All he wanted to was to war with his friends by his sides like many other men of the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

I think Robert gets a bad rap to be honest. He was a bad king not a bad man. He was extremely loyal to his friends, made friends from enemies and fight for a cause he believed in. He kept the realm in peace for the majority of his reign (although he did bankrupt it).The two major flaws with Robert are obviously his whoring and hatred of Targaryens. 

Robert was a whore that's the simple truth of it. But, Lyanna (the only woman he ever loved) dying drove him over the edge. He started drinking a lot more and lost shape. Ned is shocked when he sees how fat Robert had gotten since they smashed Pyke. This is obviously the result of him not wanting to be king, his cold marriage and hedonistic lifestyle.

As for his hatred of the Targaryens, it is very understandable. Robert was a loyal bannerman until Aerys unjustifiably called for his head, as well as his best friend and executed the Starks. He rose up against a mad tyrant for justice not the throne. He only got the throne because his grandmother was a Targaryen, there is no mention of him actually desiring it. But more importantly, Robert believes that Rhaegar raped Lyanna. That's always overlooked because Rhaegar is considered to be a fine man by all others even Ned, but Robert either was never told the truth by Ned or that he refused to believe it. 

He was never close with Stannis or Renly but that is not all his fault. He gave them both very powerful fiefdoms to govern. Yes, he could have made more of an effort to make a bond with them but the none of the brothers ever seemed to make an effort. Stannis was too cold, Robert liked Ned more, and Renly was simply too young to make any bonds with his older brothers. 

Yes Robert was a crass and loud man. But he was not made to be king, didn't want to be king. All he wanted to was to war with his friends by his sides like many other men of the time. 

Well, Ned has even more reason to hate the Targs but he didn't. He pitied Elia and her children and he left KL because Robert didn't. It just again shows at that rather big and crucial difference in the personalities of Robert and Eddard. Robert was far more hateful than Eddard. Even though he had reasons to hate Aerys and Rhaegar, he should have known to distinguish between them and the innocent family of Rhaegar's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Valens said:

Well, that gives Ned even more reason to hate the Targs but he didn't. He pitied Elia and her children and he left KL because Robert didn't. It just again shows at that rather big and crucial difference in the personalities of Robert and Eddard. Robert was far more hateful than Eddard. Even though he had reasons to hate Rhaegar, he should have known to distinguish between him and his father and the innocent family of Rhaegar's.

Ah but now it gets more difficult. Is Robert a bad man for being a pragmatist? Put yourself in his shoes. You arrive in KL to the end of the dynasty you were fighting. Yes it was bloody and barbaric but it would have had to have been done regardless. Tywin saved Robert the hardship of starting his rule out with a bloody massacre. Furthermore, Tywin has the full might of the Westerlands behind him, while Robert's forces were bloodied and battered. To execute Tywin for his men's actions would cause a civil war he might not have won, as well as alienating most of his troops (not everyone has the honour of Ned Stark). They were fighting Targs, it would be stupid for Robert to execute Tywin for the sake of honour, we only need to look at the Young Wolf's marriage and death to see what kings acting solely on the basis of honour results in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, theblackdragonI said:

Ah but now it gets more difficult. Is Robert a bad man for being a pragmatist? Put yourself in his shoes. You arrive in KL to the end of the dynasty you were fighting. Yes it was bloody and barbaric but it would have had to have been done regardless. Tywin saved Robert the hardship of starting his rule out with a bloody massacre. Furthermore, Tywin has the full might of the Westerlands behind him, while Robert's forces were bloodied and battered. To execute Tywin for his men's actions would cause a civil war he might not have won, as well as alienating most of his troops (not everyone has the honour of Ned Stark). They were fighting Targs, it would be stupid for Robert to execute Tywin for the sake of honour, we only need to look at the Young Wolf's marriage and death to see what kings acting solely on the basis of honour results in.

Robert's rule was a bloody massacre when the dead bodies of innocents were slaughtered just to get him on a chair he never supposedly wanted. 

It's not about honor its about justice which Robert as a newly made king should have given out to the Martells and KL for what the Lannisters did. 

If Robert had acted as a king should have when he came along that massacre in the Red Keep than TWot5Ks would have never have happened. 

I don't particularly think of Robert as a "bad" person but he's by no means a "good" one either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Wolves said:

Robert's rule was a bloody massacre when the dead bodies of innocents were slaughtered just to get him on a chair he never supposedly wanted. 

It's not about honor its about justice which Robert as a newly made king should have given out to the Martells and KL for what the Lannisters did. 

If Robert had acted as a king should have when he came along that massacre in the Red Keep than TWot5Ks would have never have happened. 

I don't particularly think of Robert as a "bad" person but he's by no means a "good" one either. 

Yea I agree he was not a good person or a bad person isn't that what GRRM says all the time. None of his charaters are black and white they are all somewhere in between capable of good and bad. Sure Robert could have punished the Lannisters but by not doing so and avoiding a war he saved the realm from even more bloodshed. He was a king and kings have to act in the best interests of the majority. Ned Stark was honourable and just and his actions started TWOTFK. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, theblackdragonI said:

Yea I agree he was not a good person or a bad person isn't that what GRRM says all the time. None of his charaters are black and white they are all somewhere in between capable of good and bad. Sure Robert could have punished the Lannisters but by not doing so and avoiding a war he saved the realm from even more bloodshed. He was a king and kings have to act in the best interests of the majority. Ned Stark was honourable and just and his actions started TWOTFK. 

Robert did not save the kingdom from any blood shed when he didn't punish the Lannisters and rewarded them he just held it off for a few years. Westeros was always going to bleed after Robert took that throne. They were going to bleed because they wanted justice for Elia and her children, they were going to bleed because the Lannisters committed atrocities and were rewarded. They were going to bleed because Robert was a worthless piece of shit who should have died on the Trident. Westeros was going to bleed either way. Nor did Robert act in no ones best interest except his own. 

I think punishing Tywin/Jaime/Westerlands would have benefited Robert and his reign much better than aligning with Tywin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Wolves said:

Robert did not save the kingdom from any blood shed when he didn't punish the Lannisters and rewarded them he just held it off for a few years. Westeros was always going to bleed after Robert took that throne. They were going to bleed because they wanted justice for Elia and her children, they were going to bleed because the Lannisters committed atrocities and were rewarded. They were going to bleed because Robert was a worthless piece of shit who should have died on the Trident. Westeros was going to bleed either way. Nor did Robert act in no ones best interest except his own. 

I think punishing Tywin/Jaime/Westerlands would have benefited Robert and his reign much better than aligning with Tywin. 

How was he supposed to know what lay down the road? Nobody could have foresaw that. Cersei even wanted to love him at the start but he couldn't love her so it went tits up. Saying that it he should have punished them because he couldn't avoid war in the future is a bullshit argument. The Lannisters had the largest army in the realm at the time of the Sack, Dorne was still in revolt as was the Reach. How the fuck is him compromising and making peace and marrying someone he didn't want to not acting in the interests of the realm? Yes obviously he was happy the Targaryens were dead. Aerys demanded his head, executed his friends, he lost thousands of men loyal to him in war and the beloved crown prince kidnapped and raped the love of his life, I think he has the right to be pissed off. People get way too uppity over the killing of Rhaegars kids. They would have died regardless of who killed them, Aerys and Rhaegar's acts made sure that no Targaryean would ever sit the throne again and so all that remained was how they would be killed. Westeros didn't bleed after Robert took the throne? The Greyjoy Rebellion was a farce and over before it started, all it did was serve to unify the realm after the bloody period. How would punishing the Lannisters help his reign? Not everybody was as blind as Ned, they could see that the war would have to end with the the end of the Targs and I can't see the tired, battered forces of the allies being united against the Lannisters? They went to war to kill Targs, what would the common soldiers think if they fought those who killed Targs? Furthermore what would the Reach and Dorne do? It would have been a reckless and foolish thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whelp... he's my favourite character, i might be crazy then :D

Seriously, he IS one of the best battlefield commanders in history per book feats... napoleonesque offensive stuff, and he is one of the greatest warriors ever also... Like Achilles, outside the battlefield, few things about him appeal to fans sadly... or not i guess, since some folks take book characters too seriously

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Laughing Storm Reborn said:

Whelp... he's my favourite character, i might be crazy then :D

Seriously, he IS one of the best battlefield commanders in history per book feats... napoleonesque offensive stuff, and he is one of the greatest warriors ever also... Like Achilles, outside the battlefield, few things about him appeal to fans sadly... or not i guess, since some folks take book characters too seriously

He lost the battle of Ashford, allowing the Tyrells to lay siege to Storm's End. Got pinned down at the Bells and was lucky to be rescued by the joint Stark/Arryn army.
His main feat during the war was slaying Rhaegar in combat, but he was no great commander.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gamel said:

He lost the battle of Ashford, allowing the Tyrells to lay siege to Storm's End. Got pinned down at the Bells and was lucky to be rescued by the joint Stark/Arryn army.
His main feat during the war was slaying Rhaegar in combat, but he was no great commander.

He was a great commander, even Stannis admits that. He withdrew from Ashford to prevent getting enveloped by the Tyrells main host and losing everything. And he was facing Randyll Tarly the greatest commander in Westeros. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...