Jump to content

Most cowardly deed in ASOIAF.


Jon's Queen Consort

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Tianzi said:

Um, actually:

a. after a wartime the new ruler typically serves justice for what happened during the wartime.

b. Robert was associated with this particular crime (not at the moment it was committed, but by accepting Tywin as his ally for it)

c. well, he didn't fulfill his role during his reign too, anyway.

a. In medieval times?

b. Tywin was the most dangerous of the High Lords and no one except Ned seemed to care. 

c. He did what a medieval King did. He was a warrior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

a. In medieval times?

Yy, yes? Even Robert himself after the Rebellion? You know, deciding tho is pardoned and who gets a ticket to the Wall and stuff?

2 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

b. Tywin was the most dangerous of the High Lords and no one except Ned seemed to care.

OMG, now he is a danger, and 10 minutes ago he was just desperately saving his neck.

But in either way, Robert took part in a transaction involving dead children as currency. And the moment he took part in that transaction, he became responsible for it too.

4 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

c. He did what a medieval King did. He was a warrior.

Robert was a shit Kings even for the medieval Westeros standard, virtually everyone in the books agrees on that, including Robert himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tianzi said:

Yy, yes? Even Robert himself after the Rebellion? You know, deciding tho is pardoned and who gets a ticket to the Wall and stuff?

Do you remember how kind he was withe everyone? Even with his enemies?

8 minutes ago, Tianzi said:

Robert took part in a transaction involving dead children as currency

No he didn't. The most dangerous and evil Lord of the land killed two children before Robert became the King. Awful yes but not more awful than all the other people that had died because of the war. Why punishing their deaths and not the deaths of the rest?

8 minutes ago, Tianzi said:

Robert was a shit Kings even for the medieval Westeros standard, virtually everyone in the books agrees on that, including Robert himself.

Virtually you are wrong. Not being good and being shit isn't the same. Also  Robert was a good man that is also in the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Do you remember how kind he was withe everyone? Even with his enemies?

Well, kudos for that, but we were discussing if he was the one serving justice for the events of the wartime, and he was. So he was also the one to make a decision about Tywin.

3 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

No he didn't. The most dangerous and evil Lord of the land killed two children before Robert became the King.

Tywin entered 'dead children' credit card ant the ATM Robert accepted it. That's all.

4 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Awful yes but not more awful than all the other people that had died because of the war. Why punishing their deaths and not the deaths of the rest?

Lol, you are really playing your 'medieval' card selectively.

5 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Virtually you are wrong. Not being good and being shit isn't the same.

Sorry, not even stating my own opinion here, but the characters' in the books. Even Robert's own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tianzi said:

Well, kudos for that, but we were discussing if he was the one serving justice for the events of the wartime, and he was. So he was also the one to make a decision about Tywin.

A coward wouldn't had been kind with his enemies. Also I don't think that what you say is very medieval.

3 minutes ago, Tianzi said:

Tywin entered 'dead children' credit card ant the ATM Robert accepted it. That's all.

It has got boring 

4 minutes ago, Tianzi said:

Lol, you are really playing your 'medieval' card selectively.

Or maybe you use your 21st century standards for a medieval fantasy book.

5 minutes ago, Tianzi said:

Sorry, not even stating my own opinion here, but the characters' in the books. Even Robert's own.

Again; not being good and being shit isn't the same and you also forget how in the books it is said that Robert is a good man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

A coward wouldn't had been kind with his enemies. Also I don't think that what you say is very medieval.

It fits the story's setting. Also I never called the deed of pardoning his enemies cowardly, so not the topic.

4 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

It has got boring 

One thing we can agree on.

5 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Or maybe you use your 21st century standards for a medieval fantasy book.

Quite the opposite. I meant that equating high-profile deaths (the little Targs) to the regular victims of the word is quite silly in medieval terms. Oh, and they weren't a by-product of 'chaos of war' but targets of specifically crafted murder, so one reason more why equating this is a nonsense.

7 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Again; not being good and being shit isn't the same and you also forget how in the books it is said that Robert is a good man.

The dude himself compares himself for Aerys. I think it stands fo 'shit'.

As for him being a good man, some characters seem to think that and some don't, while the opinion about the quality of his kingship is the same from every side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

The children were killed by Tywin and Tywin alone, it had nothing to do with Robert.

Did Mycah's death also have 'nothing to do with Robert'?  

Regarding the Targaryens, Robert directly benefited from the murder of the children (those pesky 'dragonspawn' heirs who no doubt existed purely to plague him and his inviolate equanimity).

Instead of at a minimum distancing himself from the murderers, Robert swiftly rewarded them (by marrying into their family, pardoning them for their crimes, and promoting them to high positions in his court)!

From this we can conclude that he tacitly approved of their actions and understood that he was indebted to the perpetrators.  Once again, I concur with @Tianzi:

1 hour ago, Tianzi said:

This was a crime done specifically to buy his loyalty, and he let himself be bought by it. So let's stop treat it like he had nothing to do with it.

As Tywin had correctly calculated, Robert received the message loud and clear of how he was indebted to Tywin and his henchmen (never think for a moment Amory Lorch and Gregor Clegane acted without Tywin's explicit orders to kill those children).  Thus, we conclude the lamentable account of how Tywin deftly made Robert -- the coward -- his 'bitch'; and how thereafter Bobby fell in line with the Lannister agenda, and thenceforth like a good little boy took care never ever to contradict anyone with the name of 'Lannister.'

31 minutes ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:
37 minutes ago, Tianzi said:

Tywin entered 'dead children' credit card ant the ATM Robert accepted it. That's all.

It has got boring 

Boring?  I thought that ATM comment by Tianzi, to demonstrate the blood currency transaction in which Robert was implicated, was the most entertaining, not to mention spot-on, of the bunch!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Boarsbane said:

I don't see how Robert not punishing Tywin is cowardly, he's not afraid of going go war with him, he simply doesn't value the Targaryens lives enough to punish Tywin for having them killed, which as already stated was a favor for Robert. 

To me it's not this fact in itself that's cowardly (it only makes him a horrible person), but the implication that since 'he saw himself as a hero, and heroes do not kill children' he'd be afraid to walk the walk himself and gladly hid behind Tywin's villainy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tianzi said:

Quite the opposite. I meant that equating high-profile deaths (the little Targs) to the regular victims of the word is quite silly in medieval terms. Oh, and they weren't a by-product of 'chaos of war' but targets of specifically crafted murder, so one reason more why equating this is a nonsense.

Sorry but saying that anyone would care for war crimes at medievall times at least sounds silly. 

Saying Robert is a coward reeks of hate. A coward person wouldn’t had been too kind even to his enemies which maybe was one of Robert main character flaws. The only time when someone can claim that Robert wasn’t kind was when he didn’t punished Tywin for something he did before he became the King.  Which may be bad because of whom the victims were but he had no reasons to sense the deaths happened before Robert became the King, to his enemies, no one really cared and the readers only care because of their surname.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Do you remember how kind he was withe everyone? Even with his enemies?

No he didn't. The most dangerous and evil Lord of the land killed two children before Robert became the King. Awful yes but not more awful than all the other people that had died because of the war. Why punishing their deaths and not the deaths of the rest?

Virtually you are wrong. Not being good and being shit isn't the same. Also  Robert was a good man that is also in the books.

Robert had been proclaimed king at the Trident before the sack of King's Landing and the murder of Elia Martell and her children. He had his arse on the Iron throne when he was presented with the bodies wrapped in Lannister cloaks and Ned specifically refers to Robert as a 'new made king". So even if you don't accept that Robert directly benefited from the murders (as outlined by other posters), I'm not sure how you can argue that he had no responsibility to administer justice as the new king. Many smallfolk were also brutalised or had family members slaughtered during the sack of KL and they didn't receive any justice from their new king either. Apparently, Robert felt empowered to pardon (Barristan and Jaime) but not to punish.

Even if it wasn't politic to move against Tywin, who probably had plausible deniability, the new regime should have demanded that his men face trial for murder and shown Tywin that such extreme measures wouldn't be tolerated in the future. If Gregor Clegane and Amory Lorch had faced justice straight after the rebellion, two Lady Cleganes and any number of smallfolk would not have died (or been tortured) during Robert's reign.

Robert has physical courage but almost totally lacks moral courage. By the way, I don't just blame Robert. Jon Arryn's realpolitik leaves a bad taste too - his idealism only extended as far as his own honour and the lives of his foster-sons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wall Flower said:

snip

From all we know there was no corononation so he wasn’t the King yet.

Brarristan was “arrested” after the Trident and Jaime was a KG that killed the King.

The rebels were taken their decisions together and it seems that no one except Ned cared. If at least Jon did there would had been no wedding.

Attacking Tywin’s men isn’t attacking him right. But you fail to answer me why bother? Because of justice or because of their surname? Because if you want justice you need a system of justice but you don’t seem to care about other children that were killed for no reason throughout the series so it doesn’t have to do with justice but who the victims were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

From all we know there was no corononation so he wasn’t the King yet.

 

Brarristan was “arrested” after the Trident and Jaime was a KG that killed the King.

 

The rebels were taken their decisions together and it seems that no one except Ned cared. If at least Jon did there would had been no wedding.

 

Attacking Tywin’s men isn’t attacking him right. But you fail to answer me why bother? Because of justice or because of their surname? Because if you want justice you need a system of justice but you don’t seem to care about other children that were killed for no reason throughout the series so it doesn’t have to do with justice but who the victims were.

 

I don't think Robert can worm his way out of responsibility on a technically - to me that's the definition of moral cowardice. What kind of man does nothing when he is literally presented with the dead bodies of an innocent woman and her two small babies? What kind of man looks at slaughtered babies and says 'I see no babes, only dragon spawn'? Not a good man. Ned cared because he was the only one of the rebel trio worth a damn and he actually believed that the rebellion was about more than personal vengeance or saving his own skin.

Justice is done in the king's name, the buck/gold dragon stops with him. Robert's first act as king was to turn away from justice, to condone evil, and it was all downhill from there. It's poetic justice that it was the Lannisters who brought him down.

I've already said that many other children were killed in the sack of KL, who didn't get justice either - not to mention those who died because Tywin was effectively given the green light to continue using monsters like Gregor and Lorch to do his dirty work.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

I don't think Robert can worm his way out of responsibility on a technically - to me that's the definition of moral cowardice.

Well, Robert didn't even try to worm his way out of responsibility. He doesn't deny responsibility because in fact he embraces the killing of any Targaryen, even if they're babies. You can call that many things, but it's hardly cowardice.

2 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

What kind of man does nothing when he is literally presented with the dead bodies of an innocent woman and her two small babies? What kind of man looks at slaughtered babies and says 'I see no babes, only dragon spawn'? Not a good man.

Furious man maybe? Vengeful man? Enraged man? Bitter man?

I'm not saying Robert was angel, but you all make it sound as if he was murdering babies for hobby which is absurd.

2 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

Ned cared because he was the only one of the rebel trio worth a damn and he actually believed that the rebellion was about more than personal vengeance or saving his own skin.

Ned's stance is as admirable as any, but it's not a practical one. You all forget that there are very practical reasons to absolve Tywin for his crime. Yes it was undoubtedly a gruesome crime, but do you really think that the best way to start your rule is to execute one of the most powerful people in the realm immediately after a devastating civil war? And yes, Ned would probably do that, and maybe that would indeed be a good decision (it'd certainly be a moral one), but you're forgetting that there are many practical reasons not to do that. You can say it is a bad decision, but to call it cowardice is really stretching.

2 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

Justice is done in the king's name, the buck/gold dragon stops with him. Robert's first act as king was to turn away from justice, to condone evil, and it was all downhill from there. It's poetic justice that it was the Lannisters who brought him down.

But was it really all downhill from there? Robert was pardoning people left and right after the war, and he even pardoned Balon Greyjoy after his rebellion. It looks like he only had a terrible hate for Targaryens, which is not admirable, but on the other hand Aerys' crimes didn't make Targaryens easy to love. Robert wasn't a successful ruler and he evidently disappointed good men and friends like Ned, but he wasn't a terrible ruler either.

2 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

I've already said that many other children were killed in the sack of KL, who didn't get justice either - not to mention those who died because Tywin was effectively given the green light to continue using monsters like Gregor and Lorch to do his dirty work.

The sack of KL is really a cowardly crime of epic proportions (I even posted it as my pick for the most cowardly act in Westeros), and I personally side with Ned on that issue, but I have to repeat that practical politics would have Tyrion pardoned for that crime. I'll say it again: it was wrong decision, at least in my eyes, but it definitely wasn't cowardice.

And yes, maybe punishing Tywin would set a great example for the entire realm, but sadly the history is full of rulers using services of gruesome people they otherwise despised, so in that regard Robert is really not an exception and definitely not a coward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

I've already said that many other children were killed in the sack of KL, who didn't get justice either - not to mention those who died because Tywin was effectively given the green light to continue using monsters like Gregor and Lorch to do his dirty work.

Not during the Sack, during the books. Like those children Dany killed. Why you are not *protesting* about how much of a bad person Dany is. Let me guess because those children's surname are not Targaryen and the *evil* one isn't Robert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jon's Queen Consort said:

Not during the Sack, during the books. Like those children Dany killed. Why you are not *protesting* about how much of a bad person Dany is. Let me guess because those children's surname are not Targaryen and the *evil* one isn't Robert.

Well I don't think Robert is evil, just a moral coward, which is the subject of the thread. I also disagree with Dany's actions at Astapor and Mereen, which were more about anger and vengeance than justice. I do give her credit for the fact that her anger was roused by the slavers' brutality towards children - the crucified slave children, the mutilation of the young unsullied and the murder of babies that constituted part of the unsullied training. I also give her some credit for agonising over the possibility that Drogon might have eaten a child and for her reluctance to contemplate harming her child hostages.

Re the sack, Jorah says 'I saw King's Landing after the Sack. Babes were butchered that day as well, and old men, and children at play. More women were raped that you can count'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that Robert retreating to drink shows emotional and mental cowardice. He fails to come to terms with Lyanna's rejection. (Wow get over it) He womanizes, using his position and wealth, instead of looking after his responsibilities. He fails to look after his bastards and the children he believes are his. He fails to deal with Cersei in any mature way. He lets Littlefinger bankrupt the kingdom. His retreat over the Lady situation is just one more example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HoodedCrow said:

I would say that Robert retreating to drink shows emotional and mental cowardice. He fails to come to terms with Lyanna's rejection. (Wow get over it) He womanizes, using his position and wealth, instead of looking after his responsibilities. He fails to look after his bastards and the children he believes are his. He fails to deal with Cersei in any mature way. He lets Littlefinger bankrupt the kingdom. His retreat over the Lady situation is just one more example.

Thank you.  'Out of the mouths of babes...'

Do you know why more people don't 'like' your comment and agree with you --

Because our world is fashioned out of a lot of Bobby Baratheons who are not really evil but willing to go along with it anyway for their own convenience (as we see demonstrated now in the 'real world').  And most surprising of all, the people who defend his despicable cowardice as 'reasonable.'

The truth is:  A psychopath will not change; but a Bobby Baratheon who is not a psychopath has a moral obligation to act differently, before he's bored by a pig and enters oblivion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ravenous reader said:

has a moral obligation to act differently,

The only moral obligation someone has is to not be cruel and Robert wasn't cruel. Everything else it's not an obligation.

6 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

Well I don't think Robert is evil, just a moral coward, which is the subject of the thread. I also disagree with Dany's actions at Astapor and Mereen, which were more about anger and vengeance than justice. I do give her credit for the fact that her anger was roused by the slavers' brutality towards children - the crucified slave children, the mutilation of the young unsullied and the murder of babies that constituted part of the unsullied training. I also give her some credit for agonising over the possibility that Drogon might have eaten a child and for her reluctance to contemplate harming her child hostages.

Re the sack, Jorah says 'I saw King's Landing after the Sack. Babes were butchered that day as well, and old men, and children at play. More women were raped that you can count'.

No matter why Dany wasn't angered taking out at children was being evil and a moral coward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...