Robert was the best king Westeros ever had

[Darken]

28 minutes ago, apovsic said:

Was he really? I thought Renly tried to set up Rob with Marg?

I don't think he would have achieved. Which means Margaery would probably marry Renly. 

[AlesterFlorentReborn]

5 hours ago, Darken said:

Robert never wanted to the king and politics gave him headaches.  However in my opinion he was a decent king

a-    He survived Cersei for many many years. That’s quite significant considering that whoever had contact with Cersei ended up badly. Jamie lost his inheritance, Robert ended up being cuckolded, a decision that lead to the war of 5 kings and her irrational hatred towards Tyrion lead to the loss of two of the most brilliant minds the Lannisters had at its disposal. By the end of the books the relationship between Tyrell and Lannister had been strained, the Faith Militants are on the loose, Lancel had lost his mind while Joffrey and Kevan had lost their lives. Kudos for Bob for being able to contain this force of nature for such a long period of time.

b-    He left a huge amount of debt behind but the man had a plan. With Tywin stripped from his heir, the old lion had little choice but to appoint Tommen BARATHEON as his heir. Surely he couldn’t let Lancel  become Lord of CR. Meanwhile Stannis held Dragonstone, Renly held the Stormlands and was set to marry Margaery Tyrell and Joffrey was soon going to marry Sansa who was Ned’s daughter, Hoster’s granddaughter and Sweet Robin’s cousin. In 1 generation the Baratheons became the ruling family, with one of their brethren set to rule CR and whose family was married off to the majority of all powerful families in Westeros.

Bob’s two biggest mistakes were

a-    Not to micromanage Cersei.
b-    To bring Ned to KL. The guy might have been a loyal friend and decent general but he had absolutely no idea of how politics work
 

Nah, there's no way Tywin would let the Lannister name be deleted.

[Darken]

35 minutes ago, AlesterFlorentReborn said:

Nah, there's no way Tywin would let the Lannister name be deleted.

Tommen would of course have to accept the Lannister surname. However, he would be a Baratheon at heart and Joffrey's brother

[theMADdestScientist_]

On 18/09/2017 at 11:45 AM, Leo of House Cartel said:

Robert's inability to properly raise and discipline the future King of Westeros can perhaps be chalked up to his wifes powerful family, but it is a weak excuse for the man who opposed the Mad King.

When did Robert oppose the Mad King?

 

Aerys killed Rickard and Brandon, and Ned did nothing.

Rhaegar "kidnapped" his "beloved" Lyanna, and Robert did nothing.

 

Aerys demanded Robert and Ned's heads, and it was Jon Arryn who rose in rebellion, Robert and Ned only followed him.

[Wild Bill]

Keynes  or not... the Iron Throne is in trouble. The Iron Bank is looking for alternatives... And unlike the Medici and Fuggers, apparently in GRRM's world they might have some options (though snow-bound in the North atm is a bother...)

[WeKnowNothing]

22 hours ago, Darken said:

Tommen would of course have to accept the Lannister surname. However, he would be a Baratheon at heart and Joffrey's brother

That's not how it works. Naming rules in this series only allows children of nobles to take their father's name, not the mothers. The only exception for this if the father was low born, then the children would take the mothers name as the mother herself would have been more highborn (and therefore having more power/authority) than the father.

but this was not the case for Joff, Myrcella and Tommen - their father is highborn (and King), so laws and society rules meant that they must take their father's name. If Tommen one day decides to take the Lannister name, who's going to stop Joffrey from taking the Lannister name to simply because he prefers it over being Baratheon? Joff could had just used the lame excuse of 'well my brothers doing it isn't he?' and no one would have opposed him as he would have been king. And to everyone else, Cersei's kids taking the Lannister name would actually be more proof that her kids are not Robert's, since it's quite clear that her kids (well atleast Tommen) aren't even Baratheon in name. That just wouldn't do for court and society - the Baratheon's are on the throne and are in power of the seven kingdoms, so all of Robert's 'kids' need to take the Baratheon name as a representation of the house, parentage, the crown, etc.

According to inheritance laws, Tommen as a second son would be getting Dragonstone or Storms End either once he's married, comes of age or has enough power to do so. The same laws also put Tywin's heir as Tyrion, as a second son can also inherit once the first son has reannounced his claim. As of AGOT, Tyrion is the legal heir of Casterly Rock - which would have been clear knowledge to everyone in the realm. This wouldn't have even been a problem for Robert as he had no enemity or prejudice against Tyrion, so he would have been fine with Tyrion becoming Lord of CR after Tywin.

So putting this aside, it means Tommen wasn't getting CR, and would have been staying a Baratheon in any scenario. The only way Tommen can become heir was if Tyrion and all his line were dead - which is very unlikely to happen in any way. If it did, it meant it would have come to Tommen and under house Baratheon, as Tommen would have also been a Baratheon in name...which admit it, you can't see Tywin allowing that.

[Leo of House Cartel]

12 hours ago, theMADdestScientist_ said:

When did Robert oppose the Mad King?

 

Aerys killed Rickard and Brandon, and Ned did nothing.

Rhaegar "kidnapped" his "beloved" Lyanna, and Robert did nothing.

 

Aerys demanded Robert and Ned's heads, and it was Jon Arryn who rose in rebellion, Robert and Ned only followed him.

Come now, he opposed The Mad King when he took part in a war that would come to be known as "Robert's Rebellion", a war in which he would kill The Mad King's son and afterwords would be seated on the Mad King's Throne, spending alot of his time trying to wipe out the Mad King and Rhaegar's bloodline. 

Would the royalist soldiers Robert directly killed in the battles of Summerhall, Gulltown, the Trident and such not count as Robert opposing Aerys? Fair enough Bob's main gripe was with Rhaegar but the armies he was engaging in battle were sworn to Aerys, not the Prince of Dragonstone. Lord Baratheon certainly had reason to personally dislike Aerys; King Scab murdered Ned and Lyanna's father and brother - don't you think the notoriously hot headed Lord Baratheon would have raged at such news? They were all due to become family when Robert married his beloved Lyanna. The man was watching his whole life fall apart, in large part due to the Mad King.

I'm not sure on this, but did Robert not declare his intentions to take Throne at some point during the war? Anyone got a quote?

The Mad King himself apparently tryed to oppose Bob when he instilled the equally young and strong Jon Arryn as Hand, in direct answer to Robert's actions during the war.

In the scenarios you listed, Robert and Ned certainly did something - they grieved the loss of their loved ones. What else would have them do? March into the Red Keep like Brandon and Rickard before them? Jon Arryn, being a famously honourable father figure to the two, would certainly have looked at the murder/abduction of Neds family, as well as Robert's betrothed, as foul play, and their losses would have been a big factor in the Falcon calling his banners. Were Robert and Ned really doing nothing whilst they waited for the more established and influential Lord Jon to assemble a force to do some real damage to the entire Targaryen regime?

 

On 19/09/2017 at 1:18 PM, Walda said:

Legendary

https://imgur.com/dFZ8t5u

I Wonder if The King of Rock N Roll shat gold like Tywin, The Lord of Casterly Rock N Roll...

[falcotron]

5 hours ago, WeKnowNothing said:

That's not how it works. Naming rules in this series only allows children of nobles to take their father's name, not the mothers. The only exception for this if the father was low born

That's simply not true. People regularly take on the name of the house they inherit—far more often than in the real world. Which is exactly why they have all these millennia-old ruling families, while real world dynasties rarely make it beyond a century or two. 

There are multiple maternal heirs in the family trees we've been given, all of whom took on their mother's name when taking over the house. For examples from the main story:

• Harry Hardyng is a highborn noble, and when he takes over the Vale, he will do so as Harold Arryn, despite that being only his maternal grandmother's name.
• Luwin suggested one of Halys's Tallhart nephews take over the Hornwood as a Hornwood, despite that only being their mother's name.
• Alysane and Lyanna Mormont both use their mother's name as Lady of Bear Island.

Meanwhile, can you find a single case we've seen where the house name changed? That only happens when a house is replaced by another house, like Lannister of Darry (and that includes Robert's Rebellion—that was explicitly a rebellion that gave Robert the throne by right of conquest, not a succession war that gave Robert the throne as the rightful heir to Aerys).

5 hours ago, WeKnowNothing said:

According to inheritance laws, Tommen as a second son would be getting Dragonstone or Storms End either once he's married, comes of age or has enough power to do so.

Where do you get these inheritance laws? They aren't stated in the books, don't match the cases we see in the books, and aren't based on any particular medieval country that I can think of.

Obviously Tommen doesn't get Casterly Rock unless Tyrion is disinherited, dead, or attainted. But if Tyrion is out of the picture, Tommen is the best heir by Westerosi tradition. If Tywin left a will naming Tommen, it would probably be uncontested. If there were no will and Cersei pushed Tommen's claim while one of Tywin's nephews pushed their own, it would be up to Robert to decide, but Tommen seems the most likely winner.

 

[velo-knight]

This post reminds me of a book I read in school, The Long Twentieth Century. The author explored the history of precapitalist, protocapitalist, and capitalist development, starting from the 13th century. I think the OP is falling into a common Western trap of assuming that the markets and systems that shape today's world are in some way natural, innate qualities instead of being created by social values, state policy, technological development, and other forces.

To whit: many economies in the Middle Ages did exactly as this thread credits Robert with doing. Champaign (France), Venice, Genoa...all experienced a cycle of continuing investments in productivity which peaked against the limits of available technology, resources, and living standards. When that happened, each and every one - from the turn of their millennium to ours - experienced the same process, as capital, always seeking the highest return on investment, shifted away from productivity and development and into financial instruments, speculation, and loans to outside powers. Each - whether a tiny city-state or the mighty British Empire - experienced a pronounced geopolitical decline as this financially-oriented transition happened.

Do I think that's what Robert Baratheon actually accomplished? No. I don't think that's what Littlefinger accomplished, either - he seems to have skipped more towards the financial or capital accumulation phase - but given that LF's advancement was largely an accident, it's strange to credit the Baratheon dynasty for it. So no...Robert was not a good king, and certainly not the best.