Is Robert Baratheon an Overrated Warrior?

[Chaircat Meow]

The reason, at least for me, to question Robert's command, is that I ask why did he do XYZ, and how did he accomplish XYZ? Summerhall is understandable to get praise, as it's three battles in one day and all, but then he takes his army around the Crownlands to link up with the rest of the rebels. Why? Were the Gold Cloacks a larger force then they were in ACOK? The army sent to the Trident does not exist yet. The Reach's and Dorne's armies are still a long way from there as well. There are smaller battles in the Vale and the Riverlands, but still, I don't see why he would go around KL instead of straight at it.

I always assumed there was a relatively substantial blocking force at King's Landing yes. The Gold Cloaks, the beginnings of the royal army Connington used, and maybe some lords of the crown lands and the narrow sea who arrived to lend protection to the king and the royal family. At the beginning of the war Aerys was hoping Targ loyalists in each of the rebellious regions could defeat their lords paramount and the Tullys had not yet defected (the government was also clearly over optimistic and perhaps incompetent) so such a force might not have been huge but it seems unreasonable to assume it did not exist. Robert, moreover, would still have had to take, or siege King's Landing with what I think was a relatively small force while, for all he knew, the riverlords, loyalist stormlords, and crownlords could cut off his supplies or menace his rear. Depending on the exact lay of the land (which we don't know) this could have been an absurdly risky operation when uniting the rebel armies became a distinct possibility about halfway through the war. Also, of course, I tend to believe Robert lost or dismissed much of the army after Ashford, so that's another reason.

Robert chose to secure the Stormlands by taking Ashford. Why? Is one castle enough that Mace's army can't place a small force to siege it and move on? The Tyrells have four army groups as of ADWD, one under Loras/Redwine in Dragonstone, one under Mace just returned from sieging Storm's End, one under Tarly recently returned from Duskendale to KL, and one under Garlan, being ammased to fight the Ironborn invasion. What makes Robert think that taking this castle would stop the Reach there?

Well, as we know there are different views on this. IMO Robert had little choice but to try and defend the stormlands if he wanted a lot of lords and levies to accompany him in the rest of the war. We've seen how the Tully bannermen react to having their lands ravaged by an invading host: they demand to be led against the foe or disperse to protect their lands. It's a similar situation with Tywin and Robb finding their homeland had been compromised. We don't know the exact topography of land around Ashford, it seems unlikely to have been a major strategic choke point though, I agree. Perhaps holding the land near the fortress with a substantial army would force a battle on ground favourable to Robert, give him a decent retreat if it all went wrong and cause the Tyrells to pause on the stormlands border to reduce Robert's forces, as opposed to penetrating to the interior. Just a thought. We don't really know though.

I don't like saying that someone is XYZ because people in the books say he is XYZ. I judge them based on thier actions. Stannis says that Robert won against worse odds then 5-1 as a reasoning for him being able to win against Bolton, but I think it's more to do with his feelings about Robert, how he feels that Robert was better then him at everyting. Stannis defeated a force 20 times his own size just before stating that, but he doesn't mention that as reasoning for why he can win, as he still thinks that Robert bested him at everything.

I think the rather precise Stannis, who fought in the war and should know the facts, should be trusted on that one.

When Jon Arryn dies, Robert wants to give the Handship to Ned. Stannis is the Master of Ships, but has fled after he thinks that Jon Arryn was murdered and he might be next. Robert handles the realm for months without a Master of ships. When talking about a possible Dothraki invasion, at no time does he ask for the opinion of the Master of ships, out of hate/contempt/spite/wahtever to Stannis. A reasonable course of action when you might face an amphibious invasion in the east, would be to use your fleet. Robert never thinks about that, because that would mean talking to Stannis. Instead he keeps talking about how such a war would only be fought on land, completly ignoring the fact that he owns a war fleet, while the best the Dothraki can get is a bunch of merchant ships, and so decideds to kill Dany. Robert even goes as far as giving Jaime Lannister the title Warden of the East, even though Jaime has very little experiance in command, as can be seen with his handling of his army in AGOT later on. Robert chose Jaime over Stannis, even though Stannis is in a perfect position, commands the Royal Navy, and actually has experiance with command.

Robert's attitude to Stannis was not good, although bear in mind the Dothraki were not making any sign of invading at the time, beyond going through with the marriage. Robert was presumably hoping to nip the threat in the bud via assassination and so prevent the whole situation and raised this issue first. When word arrived that Drogo was on his way west, and that his agents were searching the free cities for ships, Robert might well have begun talking about the fleet.

I of course agree that people do not always live up to their reputation (which can be acquired for various reasons) and that we should question this. On the other hand, if you don't know the relevant facts, and lots of people who are in a position to know them and are trustworthy say one thing, it's reasonable to go with it until you learn more.

[Cravensbayne]

Did Rob use one hand when wielding the hammer? That doesn't seem possible. Ned (in the show for sure, can't remember the book) says how the worst thing about Rob being king is that he will never be able to hit him again. That tells me that Ned would at least spar with him when they were younger. I bet Ned got one or two victories in a hundred vs Robert in the yard, though. What does that tell us, I don't know. Just rambling.

[Nyrhex]

I think the rather precise Stannis, who fought in the war and should know the facts, should be trusted on that one.

Stannis was in Storm's End. He should know the facts, but when he brings a "Robert could do it, why can't I", instead of "I've just won against worse odds", that seems odd to me.

Robert's attitude to Stannis was not good, although bear in mind the Dothraki were not making any sign of invading at the time, beyond going through with the marriage. Robert was presumably hoping to nip the threat in the bud via assassination and so prevent the whole situation and raised this issue first.

Killing Dany isn't the part that bothers me, though it does lead directly to Khal Drogo choosing to attack after the failed murder attempt. If I were to nitpick I would critisize outsourcing a political hit, but I think that would be a bit much. It was pretty reasonable to assume that killing her would end the alliance between Viserys and Drogo, and I don't sea how realistic it is that other then that one guy, no one tried to kill her as well despite a lordship being offered. The Sorrowful man that tried I think was a ploy to get her to trust Barrustan (what would a Sorrowful man do with a lordship im Westeros?) or not related to the Westerosi contract. What is odd is that he doesn't mean to kill Viserys, who can still mary himself, and even if not to someone that will give him an army, he can also have kids that could be used for thier claim. If he wants to kill Dany, why not kill Viserys based on the exact same logic?

When word arrived that Drogo was on his way west, and that his agents were searching the free cities for ships, Robert might well have begun talking about the fleet.

But why not bringing it up at any point? Why give command of the eastern front to a Weterman with little experiance in command? Why not ask your Master of Ships about his plans for such an event? Waiting for the last minute and then say "K Stannis you got this, do your thing and Fair Isle this shit" isn't planning ahead, it's criminal negligence.

[Independent George]

The Sorrowful man that tried I think was a ploy to get her to trust Barrustan (what would a Sorrowful man do with a lordship im Westeros?) or not related to the Westerosi contract.

Wasn't it established in-book that the Sorrowful Man hired by the surviving warlocks of Qarth?

[Ryan Baratheon]

Robert, the greatjon , tormund and myself would have an amazing weekend in vegas. Gods I can picture it now......

[tallTale]

Much like Khal Drogo, Robert would never have end up king if he wasn't a bad ass warrior.

[Chaircat Meow]

But why not bringing it up at any point? Why give command of the eastern front to a Weterman with little experiance in command? Why not ask your Master of Ships about his plans for such an event? Waiting for the last minute and then say "K Stannis you got this, do your thing and Fair Isle this shit" isn't planning ahead, it's criminal negligence.

Well, we can both agree Robert was a negligent monarch by that point in his reign. Reading the scene I'm not sure it's so strange he didn't bring it up though. He's focused on the assassination business and then he and Ned fall out. Not sure where you expected it to be mentioned. I don't credit he just forgot he had a fleet.

I agree he should be depending on Stannis not Jaime. I do not defend his attitude to Stannis.

[WardenOfTheNorth]

He was a badass for sure; a capable commander and fighter. I won't dispute that. But IMO his hype is solely based on him slaying Prince Rhaegar on the Trident (his other notable victories in combat are against Randall Grafton and Lord Fell). Rhaegar was a capable fighter as well but he wasn't exceptionally great. Brandon Stark could very well have been the one to kill him and win all the notoriety.

As for his victories as a commander, Robert had a few notable wins. He won three battles in one day which certainly is impressive. But it was Ned Stark (and co.) that saved his ass at the Battle of the Bells and Ned Stark who lifted the siege at Storm's End (thus saving Stannis---Baratheons are in debt to the Starks---and ending the war).

From a writer's perspective it was fitting to make Robert kill Rhaegar but is that enough to deserve the recognition he gets?

Stark fanatics are unbelievable. I mean, really? Downplaying the Mannis and his older brother, and overrating Ned? Never seen that before.

[Mikkel]

I don't understand why people don't give Robert more credit as a general - he lost very few battles, and those he did were not total losses but well-ordered tactical retreats - maybe they fall into the classic "he was a mighty warrior, ergo he must be stupid" trap?

[Sansa_Stark]

I don't understand why people don't give Robert more credit as a general - he lost very few battles, and those he did were not total losses but well-ordered tactical retreats - maybe they fall into the classic "he was a mighty warrior, ergo he must be stupid" trap?

People generally don't like Robert and don't want to give him any more redeeming qualities than "he had a strong arm!"

[Cat of the Banal]

I think people are too hard on Robert. It is pretty clear that after the war and his taking the Iron Throne that he became deeply depressed. His abuse of alcohol and food, coupled with the fact that he took no interest in meaningful things like his health and his family. He was self medicating. He won the war and lost himself. It is sad that no one cared enough about him to be concerned for his welfare. Ned noticed. If things had gone differently, with Ned's help, Robert may have been able to recover.

[Mikkel]

People generally don't like Robert and don't want to give him any more redeeming qualities than "he had a strong arm!"

Yeah I get that, and he was definitely a sad case of wasted potential (to say the least) in his later years, but IMO that doesn't take away from what he was as a young man - and quite possibly could have been if another war had broken out before his unfortunate date with the boar.

[gibbles545]

As Donaly Noye put it "Robert was the true steel. Stannis is pure iron, black and hard and strong, yes, but brittle, the way iron gets. He'll break before he bends. And Renly, that one, he's copper, bright and shiny, pretty to look at but not worth all that much at the end of the day."

[Mikkel]

As Donaly Noye put it "Robert was the true steel. Stannis is pure iron, black and hard and strong, yes, but brittle, the way iron gets. He'll break before he bends. And Renly, that one, he's copper, bright and shiny, pretty to look at but not worth all that much at the end of the day."

Mmyeah I'm not so sure, Stannis has been bending a helluva lot lately IMO, and unless I'm far wrong Donal Noye hadn't seen any of the brothers since they were teens (?), so I don't blame him if his assesment isn't 100%. It's a bad-ass quote though, so it's no surprise it gets thrown around alot.

[Mastodan]

Robert was a fighter, he truly was. I hate to always do this, but being a commander and fighter are two different thing. The dude fought with a hammer and still one( FIGHTING WITH A HAMMER IS A DISADVANTAGE, LEAVES YOU OPEN FOR SPEARS AND SWORDS.) He was filled with aldrenaline and anger. He was unstoppable. It could have been Gregor or Drogo on that bridge. Robert would still destroy them

Fighting with a hammer is not a disadvantage when your opponent is going to be unfazed by a lot of piercing and slashing weapons, as would have been the case for Robert. For that reason, I think he would have been an extremely tough fight for even fighters like Barristan and Dayne - letting the weapon hit your armour is no longer an option.

[Ponys123]

FIGHTING WITH A HAMMER IS A DISADVANTAGE, LEAVES YOU OPEN FOR SPEARS AND SWORDS

How is a warhammer different from any of the other short polerams used by men-at-arms on foot? It's nearly identical to the common poleaxe in dimensions and use, what differs is the way the energy of the blow is transferred.

It's not that much of a disadvantage compared to the spear-type polearms (half-pikes, boar spears, partisans, glaives, bills, halberds, etc.), either, due to the fact that unlike many of the latter's users, those who use short axe-type polearms are more likely to be fully armored, as such weapons were IRL associated with higher rank. As for swords, swords are PDWs not primary weapons. They are useful in day to day situations, tight places and when engaging in typical cavalry duties such as skirmishing, raiding, scouting, etc, but on foot, given the time to prepare, a polearm is always the better choice.

[TheZone]

How is a warhammer different from any of the other short polerams used by men-at-arms on foot? It's nearly identical to the common poleaxe in dimensions and use, what differs is the way the energy of the blow is transferred.

It's not that much of a disadvantage compared to the spear-type polearms (half-pikes, boar spears, partisans, glaives, bills, halberds, etc.), either, due to the fact that unlike many of the latter's users, those who use short axe-type polearms are more likely to be fully armored, as such weapons were IRL associated with higher rank. As for swords, swords are PDWs not primary weapons. They are useful in day to day situations, tight places and when engaging in typical cavalry duties such as skirmishing, raiding, scouting, etc, but on foot, given the time to prepare, a polearm is always the better choice.

Fighting with a hammer is not a disadvantage when your opponent is going to be unfazed by a lot of piercing and slashing weapons, as would have been the case for Robert. For that reason, I think he would have been an extremely tough fight for even fighters like Barristan and Dayne - letting the weapon hit your armour is no longer an option.

A wepon like that is always a disadvantage, you have to lift the hammer over your head to truly hit someone. That leaves your ribs exposed, your armpits, chest. Depending on what type of armor they have the chest and rib area might be covered. However, your armpits are always exposed. One stab in to a pit and his hammer wielding is done for that battle. Anyone who has good reflexes and speed would be able to hit him. This is why the sword is usually the weapon of choice.

[Mastodan]

That's what the shield is for. It would be much easier with the hammer to knock an opponent off his feet, which is where they're pretty much helpless.

The sword wasn't the weapon of choice at all when dealing with heavily armoured opponents. a lot of knights used them, because they were fighting weaker opponents.

[exiled prince]

He was a badass for sure; a capable commander and fighter. I won't dispute that. But IMO his hype is solely based on him slaying Prince Rhaegar on the Trident (his other notable victories in combat are against Randall Grafton and Lord Fell). Rhaegar was a capable fighter as well but he wasn't exceptionally great. Brandon Stark could very well have been the one to kill him and win all the notoriety.

As for his victories as a commander, Robert had a few notable wins. He won three battles in one day which certainly is impressive. But it was Ned Stark (and co.) that saved his ass at the Battle of the Bells and Ned Stark who lifted the siege at Storm's End (thus saving Stannis---Baratheons are in debt to the Starks---and ending the war).

From a writer's perspective it was fitting to make Robert kill Rhaegar but is that enough to deserve the recognition he gets?

he also almost killed Jon Connington at the battle of the bells

[Rheagar Prime]

i think not. Slaying noted warriors like Myles mooton and rhaegar speak volumes of his skill.

Noone doubted rhaegar's skill and robert did beat him so i think overrated he was not. I would give jamie the overrated tag since he beat noone of note unlike robert. All he has is that he held off the smiling knight