What's there to like about Robert really?

[King Ned Stark]

The Wolves, 

i don't entirely disagree, I just think he was a better person than he was a king, but all in all, an average king.  He wasn't serious enough to rule.

Ned has many qualities I admire, but I put some blame on him as well, pushing Robert on the throne because of a technicality.  Ned was serious enough.

Ned didn't want it, even though he should of realized it wasn't in Robert to be king.  I think Ned would've purged KL.. Dismissing Varys (why keep the spymaster from the previous regime?), never accepted LF, dismissed the Kingslayer, never marrying Cersei because of Cat, and arrested Tywin  (along with Gregor and Amory) for war crimes.  That pretty much wraps up everything.

Was it for continuity of government, why have continuity of a corrupt and failed regime?

Ben Stark gets WF, Robert rules the Stormlands, Hoster, Ned's father-in-law rules the riverlands, Jon Arryn the Vale, and Dorne must be somewhat appeased by the justice Ned gives them.  That is a power block, leaving only the west and the Reach out of the loop.  Mace doesn't have the stones to do anything, and by sending Jaime back to the Rock, he'd be too whipped by Cersei to be a nuisance. 

But that's just me.

[DMC]

Tyrion says he rather liked Robert.  That indicates to me he'd be pretty fun to hang out/get drunk with, at least as long as he didn't get angry blackout. 

[Valyrian Blade]

Please keep in mind that the Robert we meet in AGoT is a shadow of his former self before judging this character.

He was a generous person (according to GRRM himself) a charismatic leader and a formidable warrior and commander. After Lyanna's death he becomes deeply depressed because he fought the war for her and won the throne instead with no desire to rule.

Tbh he isn't that bad, but in these forums it seems that anyone who's not a cunning politician or has no desire to rule it's a shitty person.

[Light a wight tonight]

Robert's a fun guy to go drinking with, among other things. Loves a good time. He's a bad husband but he got the wife he deserved (and she deserved him just as much). He wasn't a bad king, other than not being able to control expenditures.  

Why would his whoring and having bastards be a negative? He was a king in a medieval setting, and nothing was thought about that in real history. In fact the bastard son of the King of Spain "Don John of Austria" was a highly regarded historical figure.

After all, Robert was king, not High Septon.

[The Wolves]

55 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

The Wolves, 

i don't entirely disagree, I just think he was a better person than he was a king, but all in all, an average king.  He wasn't serious enough to rule.

Ned has many qualities I admire, but I put some blame on him as well, pushing Robert on the throne because of a technicality.  Ned was serious enough.

Ned didn't want it, even though he should of realized it wasn't in Robert to be king.  I think Ned would've purged KL.. Dismissing Varys (why keep the spymaster from the previous regime?), never accepted LF, dismissed the Kingslayer, never marrying Cersei because of Cat, and arrested Tywin  (along with Gregor and Amory) for war crimes.  That pretty much wraps up everything.

Was it for continuity of government, why have continuity of a corrupt and failed regime?

Ben Stark gets WF, Robert rules the Stormlands, Hoster, Ned's father-in-law rules the riverlands, Jon Arryn the Vale, and Dorne must be somewhat appeased by the justice Ned gives them.  That is a power block, leaving only the west and the Reach out of the loop.  Mace doesn't have the stones to do anything, and by sending Jaime back to the Rock, he'd be too whipped by Cersei to be a nuisance. 

But that's just me.

Ned did not push Robert onto that throne. 

[Good Guy Garlan]

Looks is all he had, but that's all in the past. He was supposed to look like Henry Cavill (and like Henry Cavill he was also dating a teenager)

I don't think he was a fun drunk, if his instances of marital rape are any indication. 

I guess the one good thing I could say about him is that people didn't hate him as they hate Stannis, but even then I could say he was a bit too lenient. Case in point: the Ironborn. 

[Lion of the West]

There seems to be a thing to hate Robert, for while he wasn't a great king, he was an average and was what the realm needed after a major civil war with no Baelor Breakspear around, or lying dead in the Trident's waters.

I find it remarkable that the unity and mending of wounds and rifts that Robert accomplished with his generosity after the war is not given more highlight. After all even Daeron the Good and Bloodraven were unable to prevent the Blackfyre loyalists from scheming and seems to have produced plenty of exiled Westerosi to fight for the Black Dragon but after Robert takes the throne only Dorne is "scheming" while the rest seems happily to go along with the new Baratheon king so that no rebellions to reestablish House Targaryen occurs. When Balon thought the old Targaryen supporters would not rise for Robert, he was proven to be very wrong. This is a feat that I don't think that stern and honorable Eddard or strict and just Stannis could have accomplished. Given Eddard's short intervention into King's Landing, people would run in circle around him andhe would be as uninterested as unable to keep up with the race and if Robb is any indication, Eddard's son would be unready to take the Iron Throne. As for Stannis he's is likely to push people into a "bring back the Targs!" camp and his inability to father children says something that the line of inheritance could be problematic for the future. Meanwhile Jon is to old and could cause a inheritance circus while Hoster does not have the regal background to his family like the others.

So in short Robert was an average king but certainly not a tyrant like Aerys or a murderous madman like Maegor or seems to have practuiced misrule on the scale of the Unworthy. Flawed to be sure and to immature as I see no reason to forget about the fact that his in-laws were able to take over the court and Robert made his mistakes. His biggest mistake as I see it is that he alienated his queen and turned her into his enemy. Without that part House Baratheon would rule with a black-haired son on the Iron Throne by the year of AL 300 with very little dragons short of Balerion the Black Dread could do about it.

[House Cambodia]

As a young man, pre-king, he was clearly very popular - handsome, strong, a great fighter, charismatic, encouraging strong loyalty. He was simply, as he admitted himself, totally unsuited to be king (and husband). He never went to Council meetings, preferring to drink, hunt and whore. He'd have likely been the same if he was a lord married to Lyanna - i.e. a fairly normal if unlikable privileged man.

[erra]

11 hours ago, Valens said:

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. 

It's not that easy to lead.

These men following Robert during the rebellion didn't just say "hey, who should I follow into treason against my king today?"

It takes more of a great commander than to be perfect at battle-planning. 

A good commander can rally the troops behind a cause.

Continue encouraging the troops to keep it up through terrible battles.

Have their voices heard so enough men can hear.

Know the right words to say to keep moral up.

Understand what it means to delegate tasks, use your sub-commanders' strengths.

Quote

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.

I don't think it's a secret that the Robert we get to know in A Game of Thrones is but a shadow of who he was in his prime. There's nothing to indicate that he was particularly violent in his youth (besides of course the war) and being too brash or too hotheaded can also be considered passionate and dedicated. 

He might not have listened to Jon Arryn as Hand of the King, but I doubt he won that war without listening to at least a few people's advice. 

"For nothing?" ... it may not be true but that doesn't change what Robert believed: Raegar Targaryan kidnapped his love, then raped her for almost a year until she died. O, and she's also his bff's sister. O, and his dad's a crazy guy who likes to set people on fire. 

He used to have mostly good qualities: strong, reliable, passionate, encouraging, fun, adventurous, and so on. But all it got him was a sharp ugly chair, a beautiful wife who keeps her legs closed and a whole lot of headaches. 

He grew bitter and all his good qualities he either left behind or they soured. 

 

 

[John Doe]

12 hours ago, Valens said:

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.

First, good and bad are entirely subjective terms. So you can't look objectively and conclude a person doesn't have many good sides. 

Too violent? He liked fighting, but that is expected from a lord. Had he been too violent he would have killed those lords after the Battles at Summerhall, for example lord Cafferen whom he pardoned instead of cutting his head off like Randyll Tarly did. Or he would have killed the captured Barristan Selmy like Roose suggested instead of pardoning him. Those are too violent characters, not Robert. 

He didn't hate Rhaegar for nothing, for all he knew he captured his future wife and raped her repeatedly. You can argue that is wrong, we will definitely find out, but you can't really fault Robert for not guessing that. Martin did make the point that it was pretty much unthinkable for a future lord or lady not to go though witht heir marriage and just run away. I'm pretty sure Robert wasn't the only one who thought so. How is that nothing? How many people respect rapists or kidnappers much after they are dead? Also I'm pretty sure Rhaegar got a funeral, so that at least he didn't disrespect him to a degree where he wouldn't allow him that. 

Sure, he was okay witht the children being killed. But then, so were appearently most lords. Only the most honorable like Eddard or Rhaegar were against it. Also, as Tywin said, Robert probably wouldn't have killed the children himself, so there's at least that.

He won three battles in a day and only lost to a much larger force led by one of the "best soldiers in Westeros", so I'm pretty sure Robert was indeed one of the best commanders of his time, certainly better than Eddard and Jon Arryn. What Stannis and Jon say about him indicates nothing else. 

I think it's the other way around, Eddard knows him best and likes him best, so if anything it tells us that he was probably more likeable as a young man. Most people only see the fat drunk guy. 

I'm not sure about the "one of the worst kings" part. Aenys I., Maegor, Aegon II., Aegon III., Daeron I., Baelor, Aegon IV., Aerys I., and Aerys II. were nothing better, most of them were worse. So you could say the Iron Throne had a lot of lousy kings, but in comparision Robert doesn't look too bad. 

About only caring for hunting whores and bedding boars.. that's partly true, but there's also that quote, which I find a bit redeeming in that regard. 

Quote

"Let me tell you a secret, Ned. More than once, I have dreamed of giving up the crown. Take ship for the Free Cities with my horse and my hammer, spend my time warring and whoring, that's what I was made for. The sellsword king, how the singers would love me. You know what stops me? The thought of Joffrey on the throne, with Cersei standing behind him whispering in his ear. My son. How could I have made a son like that, Ned?"

 

 

 

[Wall Flower]

4 hours ago, Aetta said:

He gives Cersei some sweet backhand when she gets out of line.

Amazingly, some of us don't find wife-beating a likeable trait. To his credit, Ned certainly didn't.

My dislike for Robert starts with him turning away from the bloody bodies of two small slaughtered children with the words 'I see no babes, only Dragonspawn'. A good man (like Ned) just doesn't do that.

To me, Robert was a guy who didn't have the strength of character or temperament to deal with anything that that wasn't fun, that didn't come easily to him or that smacked of hard work and responsibility - whether that was his job as king, difficult relationships or the reversals and tragedies of life. He made a good military leader because that was what he loved doing. However, he did face death bravely and I enjoyed his last wish to have the boar that killed him served at his funeral feast.

I agree with The Wolves, Robert wasn't a villain or bloodthirsty tyrant but he wasn't a good man either.

[Wall Flower]

3 minutes ago, John Doe said:

It depends on the person. Cersei deserved a punch in the face. Robert probably did too. 

He deserves locking up for domestic violence and marital rape but sadly Westeros doesn't have those laws.

[John Doe]

9 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

He deserves locking up for domestic violence and marital rape but sadly Westeros doesn't have those laws.

If by domestic violence you mean that one punch I'm sorry to tell you Cersei did much worse. 

[dariopatke]

24 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

Amazingly, some of us don't find wife-beating a likeable trait. To his credit, Ned certainly didn't.

My dislike for Robert starts with him turning away from the bloody bodies of two small slaughtered children with the words 'I see no babes, only Dragonspawn'. A good man (like Ned) just doesn't do that.

To me, Robert was a guy who didn't have the strength of character or temperament to deal with anything that that wasn't fun, that didn't come easily to him or that smacked of hard work and responsibility - whether that was his job as king, difficult relationships or the reversals and tragedies of life. He made a good military leader because that was what he loved doing. However, he did face death bravely and I enjoyed his last wish to have the boar that killed him served at his funeral feast.

I agree with The Wolves, Robert wasn't a villain or bloodthirsty tyrant but he wasn't a good man either.

In medieval fanstasy people get upset when woman gets slapped when she more than deserved it...

Further, they had to die so thousands can live. Yes, they are babies at that moment but they will grow and lead armies eventually, have you learned nothing from Blackfyres? Do I like it? Of course not, I am not a monster, but I can understand why a man in medival fanstasy novels did it. Problem is we had Ned POV who is really honorable and everything everyone does is bad compared to what would Ned do.

I can ony see that he lost wish for everything after all bad things that happened to him. My guess is that thig that hit him most and changed him as a character was deaths of his parents. He was extrovertal and Stannis was introvertal so they deaked wih that on their own ways,  but it changed them and shaped them to be what they are. Yes, other things (disobediance of his bannermen, Greyjoys, death of Lyanna,...  for Robert and siege of SE, getting Dragonstone, not being respected, having weird family,.... for Stannis) affected them but this was most important thing that made them the way they are.

Oh and if he got someone good as firstborn and not having mad Cersei as a wife he would have abdicated, I can totally see it.

Same as Stannis, Eddard, Tywin, Jaime and Tyrion,  Robert was damaged person.

[John Doe]

24 minutes ago, dariopatke said:

In medieval fanstasy people get upset when woman gets slapped when she more than deserved it...

Further, they had to die so thousands can live. Yes, they are babies at that moment but they will grow and lead armies eventually, have you learned nothing from Blackfyres? Do I like it? Of course not, I am not a monster, but I can understand why a man in medival fanstasy novels did it. Problem is we had Ned POV who is really honorable and everything everyone does is bad compared to what would Ned do.

I can ony see that he lost wish for everything after all bad things that happened to him. My guess is that thig that hit him most and changed him as a character was deaths of his parents. He was extrovertal and Stannis was introvertal so they deaked wih that on their own ways,  but it changed them and shaped them to be what they are. Yes, other things (disobediance of his bannermen, Greyjoys, death of Lyanna,...  for Robert and siege of SE, getting Dragonstone, not being respected, having weird family,.... for Stannis) affected them but this was most important thing that made them the way they are.

Oh and if he got someone good as firstborn and not having mad Cersei as a wife he would have abdicated, I can totally see it.

Same as Stannis, Eddard, Tywin, Jaime and Tyrion,  Robert was damaged person.

Exactly. Plus I find it weird that nobody complains about Jon Arryn even though he was appearently okay with the murder of the Targaryen kids too. 

 

Also, while killing kids is bad, is it really much worse than having thousands of innocent smallfolk die in another war when they are old enough to take vengeance for their family? I don't think there is a good decision in that situation. 

[Paxter Redwyne]

48 minutes ago, John Doe said:

I'm not sure about the "one of the worst kings" part. Aenys I., Maegor, Aegon II., Aegon III., Daeron I., Baelor, Aegon IV., Aerys I., and Aerys II. were nothing better, most of them were worse. So you could say the Iron Throne had a lot of lousy kings, but in comparision Robert doesn't look too bad. 

Aegon II, Aegon III and Daeron I were actually ok tier kings. They had some flaws but they weren't on same league as maegor, aegon unworthy or aerys the booklover who didn't cared about his bannermen being attacked by ironborn.

 

About topic:

Robert was bad husband, bad father and bad king, but he wasn't bad person. For 16 years he still was unable to recover after death of his love, and unlike ned, he didn't found solace in family life. His wife hated him, his heir was evil sadist and his family-in-law was grasping for honors. Not to mention that he was surrounded by plotters and lickspittles.

[John Doe]

6 minutes ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

Aegon II, Aegon III and Daeron I were actually ok tier kings. They had some flaws but they weren't on same league as maegor, aegon unworthy or aerys the booklover who didn't cared about his bannermen being attacked by ironborn.

 

About topic:

Robert was bad husband, bad father and bad king, but he wasn't bad person. For 16 years he still was unable to recover after death of his love, and unlike ned, he didn't found solace in family life. His wife hated him, his heir was evil sadist and his family-in-law was grasping for honors. Not to mention that he was surrounded by plotters and lickspittles.

I think Daeron I. at least was worse than Robert, both were known as good soldiers, but Daeron sacrificed fifty thousand men and who knows how much money for a conquest that lasted what, a week? You can't get much worse than that. 

And while Aegon II. and III. maybe weren't worse than Robert, I don't see what makes them better. All three were pretty neglectful. 

[Wall Flower]

13 minutes ago, dariopatke said:

In medieval fanstasy people get upset when woman gets slapped when she more than deserved it...

Further, they had to die so thousands can live. Yes, they are babies at that moment but they will grow and lead armies eventually, have you learned nothing from Blackfyres? Do I like it? Of course not, I am not a monster, but I can understand why a man in medival fanstasy novels did it. Problem is we had Ned POV who is really honorable and everything everyone does is bad compared to what would Ned do.

I can ony see that he lost wish for everything after all bad things that happened to him. My guess is that thig that hit him most and changed him as a character was deaths of his parents. He was extrovertal and Stannis was introvertal so they deaked wih that on their own ways,  but it changed them and shaped them to be what they are. Yes, other things (disobediance of his bannermen, Greyjoys, death of Lyanna,...  for Robert and siege of SE, getting Dragonstone, not being respected, having weird family,.... for Stannis) affected them but this was most important thing that made them the way they are.

Oh and if he got someone good as firstborn and not having mad Cersei as a wife he would have abdicated, I can totally see it.

Same as Stannis, Eddard, Tywin, Jaime and Tyrion,  Robert was damaged person.

Well domestic violence is a big issue in my country at the moment and I'm beginning to get an idea why attitudes to it might be so hard to change. I feel ok being upset by Robert hitting Cersei (a vicious back hand blow btw rather than a 'slap') because even in universe, Ned was shocked and Robert ashamed (maybe because Ned had witnessed it). Ned was still upset by Robert's action even when he knew the extent of Cersei's crimes, which Robert doesn't have any idea about when he hits her.

Joffrey probably would have turned out bad anyway but aside from knocking his baby teeth out, Robert never did anything to try to make him a better prospective heir or person.

Re the Targaryen children, Robert and Jon Arryn should at least have demanded that Tywin hand over Gregor Clegane and Amory Lorch, which would have saved the lives of a lot of small folk (and two poor Lady Cleganes) in the long run.  If the Lannisters saw the Baratheon regime as weak, it was probably because Tywin and Jaime were rewarded for their actions right from the start.

   

[Paxter Redwyne]

Just now, John Doe said:

I think Daeron I. at least was worse than Robert, both were known as good soldiers, but Daeron sacrificed fifty thousand men and who knows how much money for a conquest that lasted what, a week? You can't get much worse than that. 

And while Aegon II. and III. maybe weren't worse than Robert, I don't see what makes them better. All three were pretty neglectful. 

Daeron was very talented but it's true that conquest of dorne was pretty much caused by his overwhelming desire for glory.  

Aegon II and III were neglectful, but at least they were trying to keep seven kingdoms together, unlike robert who did not gave a shit about murder of elia. 

[King Ned Stark]

6 hours ago, The Wolves said:

Ned did not push Robert onto that throne. 

Admittedly, a poorly chosen word.  However, they obviously discussed the outcome should they win, and I personally feel that Ned and Jon told/offered to Robert before he would ask for the throne.   The reasoning being he had a drop of dragon blood.  My take, and I could be wrong, is the none of the three were real enthusiastic about being king.