Jump to content
Charles Stuart

Robert Baratheon - Not so bad after all

Recommended Posts

People have constantly discussed the 'Renly is a soft hearted fool playing at war' angle. 

Was he a moron stealing his brother's claim, dancing on the string of the all powerful Olenna Tyrell? Yep.

Did Stannis have a spit chance, considering his opposition? Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aldarion said:

Stannis prioritized his life - dead man cannot wield the crown. And do you really think he could have just teleported back to King's Landing? Even on the show, teleportation was not invented until Season 5 or so. Did he have time to return after receiving Ned's message? I don't think so.

Also, you are wrong about Renly:

1:15 "We all know what Stannis is. He inspires no love or loyalty. He is not a king. I am."

You know he never says that "He is not a king. I am", line in the book, right?

In the book Renly was trying to help Ned become regent. Dead man can where no crowns, so that makes him a traitor for abandoning Robert for his own self interests. You make it out that in the time between Robert going to Winterfell, to the end of the book no word of Ned being hand of the king reached Stannis? You are factually wrong about this, because Stannis is fully aware that Ned was made hand of the king, at the start of the second book. Pretty much, a new hand of the king is big news and odds are word reached him, once Robert and Ned were on their way to Kings Landing. Stannis choose to do nothing during this time, despite the fact that his brothers life was in danger. So yea, sorry, but I can't get into the Stannis group, when the guy basically abandoned his post.

Best thing I can say about Stannis is he listens to his advisors, like when he saved the wall; thanks for that one Davos. Another would be when he saved Moat Cailin; thanks for that one Jon. Stannis is a complicated character though and I'm not sure I can view him as good, given his use of shadow demons and all of his actions in the first book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, sifth said:

You know he never says that "He is not a king. I am", line in the book, right?

In the book Renly was trying to help Ned become regent. Dead man can where no crowns, so that makes him a traitor for abandoning Robert for his own self interests. You make it out that in the time between Robert going to Winterfell, to the end of the book no word of Ned being hand of the king reached Stannis? You are factually wrong about this, because Stannis is fully aware that Ned was made hand of the king, at the start of the second book. Pretty much, a new hand of the king is big news and odds are word reached him, once Robert and Ned were on their way to Kings Landing. Stannis choose to do nothing during this time, despite the fact that his brothers life was in danger. So yea, sorry, but I can't get into the Stannis group, when the guy basically abandoned his post.

Best thing I can say about Stannis is he listens to his advisors, like when he saved the wall; thanks for that one Davos. Another would be when he saved Moat Cailin; thanks for that one Jon. Stannis is a complicated character though and I'm not sure I can view him as good, given his use of shadow demons and all of his actions in the first book.

As I said, it's been a while since I've read Game of Thrones book. Now I have another name to add to the "list of characters D&D screwed up". But since this is show discussion, I went searching for clips instead of going back to the book.

Question isn't whether word reached Stannis of Ned being new Hand of the King, question is when did the word reach him. And that would depend on, I imagine, when Robert told everyone else.

Game of Thrones is a game of compromises. If you are either good or evil, you die. You have to be able to do things that do not agree with your basic morality in order to survive. Ned died because he wasn't able to lie and cheat. Robb died because he wasn't able to take a dishonourable course of action. Etc. Having a, by your measures, "good" character on the Iron Throne would be a disaster waiting to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2019 at 3:17 PM, Bernie Mac said:

Robert gave his brothers too much power and in turn they both rebelled against the throne. The guy went hunting instead of dealing with Starks and Lannisters fighting in the streets of Kings Landing and the Riverlands.

The realm is hardly on the up and up, Bran just gave a third of its land away without a fight. Kings who increase the size of the kingdom are lauded, Kings who decrease the size of the kingdom are belittled.

Because he usurped the throne from the rightful heirs to the throne, Viserys and Dany. He's a usurper.

Who are in turn descendents of usurpers of some previous king. It's just a degradatory word spread among the Targaryen loyalist flea of king's landing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Winter prince said:

Your username is awesome. Some Nordic names in ASOIAF would have been badass apparently 

Thank you. :hat: 

They would have been, yes.   :)

Edited by Tywin Tytosson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/22/2019 at 5:47 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Robert gave his brothers too much power and in turn they both rebelled against the throne. The guy went hunting instead of dealing with Starks and Lannisters fighting in the streets of Kings Landing and the Riverlands.

The realm is hardly on the up and up, Bran just gave a third of its land away without a fight. Kings who increase the size of the kingdom are lauded, Kings who decrease the size of the kingdom are belittled.

Giving away land does not mean that the realm is not on the up-and-up.  The realm is going through a reconstruction and rebuilding period following all the war and destruction.  The North would have been de facto independent anyways, as they had been.  And the North would have asked for resources and help for their own reconstruction, if they had been in The Realm.

 

Quote

Because he usurped the throne from the rightful heirs to the throne, Viserys and Dany. He's a usurper.

You mean from Rheagar, don't you?  :)

Technically he usurped the throne from Aerys II, who was King at the time.

'Usurper' would be what Targaryen loyalists would call Robert.

Edited by Tywin Tytosson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tywin Tytosson said:

Giving away land does not mean that the realm is not on the up-and-up.  The realm is going through a reconstruction and rebuilding period following all the war and destruction. 

It actually does. In the middle ages look at each time England gave away pieces of France, look at each time the French conceded parts of their lands.

Historically losing land is not being on the up and up, it means less taxes, less power, less influence. Can you think of many medieval kingdoms who were on the up and up after giving away a third of their land?

1 hour ago, Tywin Tytosson said:

The North would have been de facto independent anyways, as they had been. 

More than possible in the show continuity. Not so much in the books, they might not have been as active as the more central kingdoms in Westeros but they were not independent nor were they more independent than the likes of Dorne and the Iron Islands.

1 hour ago, Tywin Tytosson said:

And the North would have asked for resources and help for their own reconstruction, if they had been in The Realm.

Sure, and they would also have paid taxes, raised armies when needed and not been a potential military threat in the future.

 

1 hour ago, Tywin Tytosson said:

 

You mean from Rheagar, don't you?  :)

No, Rhaegar was dead before Robert was coronated. It was Viserys who he usurped.

1 hour ago, Tywin Tytosson said:

Technically he usurped the throne from Aerys II, who was King at the time.

No, Aerys was dead when Robert put the crown on and was anointed king by the High Septon.

1 hour ago, Tywin Tytosson said:

'Usurper' would be what Targaryen loyalists would call Robert.

Usurper is just what he is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_usurpers#England

Being a usurper does not mean he's not an official King, it just means he got the crown through usurping the Throne.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

 

No, Rhaegar was dead before Robert was coronated. It was Viserys who he usurped.

No, Aerys was dead when Robert put the crown on and was anointed king by the High Septon.

Usurper is just what he is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_usurpers#England

Being a usurper does not mean he's not an official King, it just means he got the crown through usurping the Throne.

 

We were using different points to apply the term.  :)  When Robert's Rebellion started, Aerys was King, so that's what I was using.  You were obviously using the Targaryen heir when Robert was coronated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/22/2019 at 5:31 PM, sifth said:

You can speculate all you want, but you've yet to give me any real flaw that Renly had in being a king, other than "because he's gay". The guy was kind, smart and loved by others. He didn't like hurting people for fun and his wife was equally smart, kind and loved as well.

Who knows that would have happened down the line, but in the story we're given no ones seems to give dam about Stannis, aside from a handful of minor houses and many of them left him as well.

When was Renly kind? He had no problem with the prospect of killing his brother. He had no problem with the prospect of taking his nephews and niece hostage (and ultimately killing them) to stake his claim. He has no problem killing Daenerys. As Robert said, only Ned tells him what the right to do is. Renly LOOKS like kind king, underneath, he's a soulless politician like Littlefinger. 

Stannis does abandon Robert fully knowing what happened to Jon Arryn and why. But he did protect Renly while they were under siege at Storm's End. And Davos saved Renly as much as Stannis during the rebellion. Stannis rewards Davos, Renly vocally looks down on him. He's marching with the army that would have killed him, against the two people that saved him from that fate in the Rebellion and by all appearances he could not be happier. Renly was the Master of Laws and he had absolutely no values.

Edited by Denam_Pavel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert was not an actively bad king because he did not really care for the title. He was not a good king either.

He was deeply dissatisfied with the throne. He was a warrior not a leader of men, he thought his unhappiness was due to losing Lyanna to Rahegar and having to marry Cersei but in truth he was just not cut for the job (Lyanna herself knew this as she told Ned "love is sweet but cannot change a man's nature", she knew that in time Robert would have cheated on her... as he later did with Cersei).

In the end Robert Baratheon, first of his name, was a slothful and wrathful ruler (when it come to Targaryens at least), he let the lords of the 7 kingdoms do as they pleased as long as they did not openly defy him, let the Lannisters grow too much in power and generally let everyone do as they pleased... which led to his court becoming a nest of vipers.

He was not as bad as Geoffrey would have been, or Cersei or Aerys the second was, yet his inaction and absence of rule allowed corruption to engulf the realm and made his own fall and the war that followed possible.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2019 at 2:33 AM, majgat said:

 The comparison between Aegon IV and Robert I is just.........ignorant. Sure Bobby wasn't really great king, and a pleasant person, but he was far from worst. Let's dissect your post.

He let corruption run rampant - did he really? We know he was a warrior king and his qualities was in morale boost of the troops, not statesmanship. This role was delegated to Jon Arryn alone. Jon Arryn is to blame as much as him, and it's a character praised more than anyone in the novels for his political savvy. He had 3 powergrabbing plotters in his own small council (Baelish, Varys and HIS OWN Brother).

The debt - I'm pretty sure Littlefinger embezzeled a LOT of money from the crown. We have couple of clues throughout the books, the biggest one being Tyrion not getting any sense of the books (didn't have enough time to investigate, because of Stannis approaching). 

Joffrey - did he knew his son was cruel? Apart from the cat incident what was other evidence? After the slap/punch he gave Joff, Cersei distanced all of "his" children from him and threatened to MURDED him if he does anything remotely close.

Bobby was absent king in the latter stages of his rule, he was a drunk, whoremonger, and he raped Cersei couple of times so no I do not think of him as a good person. But he was far from worst of the kings. He had very long and prosperous reign with relative peace. The collapse of his reign is on the shoulders of Littlefinger, Varys, Renly and the Lannisters, THEY STARTED THE Wot5K.

Aegon IV started Blackfyre rebellion as a giant fuck you to his own son Dareon II, just because people liked him better. He started this rebelion, which haunted the realm for generations just because he was being petty. He alienated almost every lord of Westeros by his treatment of women and feudal contracts. Wanted to start a war with Dorne, when his own son was already married into the family. I mean, come on.

Bloodraven created a police state when the Great Spring Sickness desolated Westeros. He ignored Ironborn invasion, letting Stark and Lannisters to deal with it on their own, without any official support. And he broke one of the most sacred rules/traditions of guest right, when he had Aenys Blackfyre executed the moment he showed up in KL for Great council, before promising him safe conduct. There was a nation wide paranoia surrounding Blooraven (Lord Bloodraven sees everything with his thoundseyes and one). It was actually Meakar I that had to keep Bloodraven on a leash and to keep the 7K together strong between Blackfyre rebelions.

 There is really no comparison between the two. Bobby had his own faults, but as I mentioned he was far from worst. I actually have to rank above more than half of Targaryen kings (Maegor I, Viserys I, Aegon II, Baelor I, Aegon IV, Aerys I, Aerys II).

 

To answer to this underlying question: Is Robert I Baratheon better than Daenerys? Show? Well, yes. He did not burn half the city to the ground. He did not give the order to murder any children or women, Tywin Lannister did. Was he deliberately ingorant of the fact and is it morally ambiguous? Of course. Books? I personally think Daenarys blows up KL by ACCIDENT, so this is not relevant for me.

He fully intended to murder dany and her unborn child. Also stannis didn't go for the crown until AFTER his brother died and he found out his brother had no heirs. Now yes blood raven had people scared and did bad things but HE kept the kingdom together when the first aerys was in power and was useless. The fact you think blood raven wasn't benefiical to the seven kingdoms speaks volumes.

 

We know jon arryn often went to robert to ask for help and permission but was repeatedly ignored and robert sided with little finger,cersei,and the others.  Now jon arryn wasn't the best choice in my opinion either however you could do far worse. And as for robert ignoring his duties even though he knew stuff was going wrong well he FOUGHT to get the throne and could have said NO I don't want it and given it to stannis or someone else. He took the throne so he has a duty to be a king. He knowingly did a bad job and ignored it because it wasn't fun. Aerys was mad and maegor was too what was roberts excuse for doing so much damage to the kingdoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

When was Renly kind? He had no problem with the prospect of killing his brother. He had no problem with the prospect of taking his nephews and niece hostage (and ultimately killing them) to stake his claim. He has no problem killing Daenerys. As Robert said, only Ned tells him what the right to do is. Renly LOOKS like kind king, underneath, he's a soulless politician like Littlefinger. 

Stannis does abandon Robert fully knowing what happened to Jon Arryn and why. But he did protect Renly while they were under siege at Storm's End. And Davos saved Renly as much as Stannis during the rebellion. Stannis rewards Davos, Renly vocally looks down on him. He's marching with the army that would have killed him, against the two people that saved him from that fate in the Rebellion and by all appearances he could not be happier. Renly was the Master of Laws and he had absolutely no values.

I think renly was arrogant and had some cruelty to him or at least didn't care if people were cruel. I think he enjoyed the idea of being king and would have been a far better king then robert but he was very flaky and would have been a "meh" king more then anything. Or he might have lost to tywin like stannis did. Stannis was too stubborn and would have caused trouble because he had no give to him. Basically none of the baratheons would have been good kings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/24/2019 at 2:12 AM, Bernie Mac said:

It actually does. In the middle ages look at each time England gave away pieces of France, look at each time the French conceded parts of their lands.

Historically losing land is not being on the up and up, it means less taxes, less power, less influence. Can you think of many medieval kingdoms who were on the up and up after giving away a third of their land?

I'll mention the Eastern Roman Empire, after it split from its foundering Western half.

You are correct, of course re. the vast majority of medieval kingdoms giving away land meaning less power and less influence.  But land does get exchanged for peace.  Admittedly, not large portions, but it does.

Perhaps on the up-and-up was wrong.  But I saw the North as costing the Realm more than it could provide.  Especially if there was another war to try to bring it to heel.  A war that has no guarantee of success.  A war that could cause rifts in the 6 kingdoms, such as the Vale and the Riverlands maybe supporting the North or sitting out the whole affair.  The Reach (and the Riverlands) seem to be a mess, now.  The Westerlands strength likely depleted fighting for the Lannisters for years.  The Iron Islands are exhausted and without major fleets.  So it could be a 2-on-2 match.  How willing would the Stormlands (under Gendry) and Dorne be to fight such a war?  Add to this the possibility of the Free Cities becoming involved.

Edit : Plus, where is the money going to come to fight such a war?  The capital and the realms largest port are in ruins, as is the realm's breadbasket.  The Lannister gold mines are dry.  How much does the Iron Bank want repaid from Cersei's debts?

So ... Bran is doing what Dany was unable to do - compromise.  And avoid more unnecessary war and destruction.  Let the North have its Brexit, and get to get the task of rebuilding and stabilizing the 6 Kingdoms.

I like to think that King Brandon would establish official economic and military ties with the newly-independent North.  So nothing really  changes, but a few titles.  Things mostly proceed as before, but instead of being a quasi-independent vassal state that is independent in all but name, the North is now an independent ally.

 

Quote

More than possible in the show continuity. Not so much in the books, they might not have been as active as the more central kingdoms in Westeros but they were not independent nor were they more independent than the likes of Dorne and the Iron Islands.

The North and Dorne were both part of the 7 Kingdoms in name only.  Dorne's attachment was from marriage into the Targaryen family.

 

Quote

Sure, and they would also have paid taxes, raised armies when needed and not been a potential military threat in the future.

I am not sure how much tax revenue any  of the 7 kingdoms contributed to the monarchy.  There was no centralized bureaucracy to handle that.  Do we know what the tax policy was?  How did the monarchy get money?

Armies can be raised by allies.

There is no immediate military threat from the North.  With the proper treaties and whatnot, the North could end up being the 6 Kingdoms 'Canada'.  :)

Quote

No, Rhaegar was dead before Robert was coronated. It was Viserys who he usurped.

No, Aerys was dead when Robert put the crown on and was anointed king by the High Septon.

Usurper is just what he is.

Yes, Robert is a Usurper.  I applied the usurpation to the sitting King when Robert's Rebellion started, and to the Crown Prince at that time.   You applied it to the survivors after the Rebellion won.

 

Quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_usurpers#England

Being a usurper does not mean he's not an official King, it just means he got the crown through usurping the Throne.

 

Absolutely he did.

Edited by Tywin Tytosson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/22/2019 at 4:52 AM, funpig said:

Are you sure?  In the last scene, Bran seemed like a pretty uninterested ruler.  Bran may not be a whoring drunkard like Robert Baratheon, but he is going to be spending most of his time wired into the Weirwood internet (sounds like my kids).  He is leaving the realm in the hands of that small council which is bickering over rebuilding brothels.  And btw, why did Bran ask for a Master of Whisperers and a Master of War? Blessed with foresight, what does Bran see in the future for the realm that would have a need for spies, espionage and war?

Maybe Bran will spend a lot of time wired into Weirwood.net.  Maybe not.  The point of the Small Council is to handle the day-to-day activities of running the realm.  So the King doesn't have to.  The King can deal with the Big Decisions.  Locating the last dragon might just be one of these.  Or it might not.   :)  Bran brings more to the table when he gets involved than Robert.

Why ask for the 3 missing Masters?  So that the Small Council is not too small.  That was one criticism of Cersei - she reduced the Small Council to her loyal sycophants.  And then maybe eliminated it for 'personal rule'.  One person, or even a small group, cannot effectively run the Realm.   Also, let me quote a Roman general, "Let he who would desire peace, prepare for war". 

 

Re. brothels.  That was all 'good fun'.  Another day in the Life of Westeros.   :)

Brothels actually would be a good idea.  A source of income.  A way to boost morale.  Something that can be 'paid' to builders and shipwrights in lieu of actual money.

Edited by Tywin Tytosson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2019 at 12:26 PM, sifth said:

You know he never says that "He is not a king. I am", line in the book, right?

In the book Renly was trying to help Ned become regent. Dead man can where no crowns, so that makes him a traitor for abandoning Robert for his own self interests. You make it out that in the time between Robert going to Winterfell, to the end of the book no word of Ned being hand of the king reached Stannis? You are factually wrong about this, because Stannis is fully aware that Ned was made hand of the king, at the start of the second book. Pretty much, a new hand of the king is big news and odds are word reached him, once Robert and Ned were on their way to Kings Landing. Stannis choose to do nothing during this time, despite the fact that his brothers life was in danger. So yea, sorry, but I can't get into the Stannis group, when the guy basically abandoned his post.

Best thing I can say about Stannis is he listens to his advisors, like when he saved the wall; thanks for that one Davos. Another would be when he saved Moat Cailin; thanks for that one Jon. Stannis is a complicated character though and I'm not sure I can view him as good, given his use of shadow demons and all of his actions in the first book.

What is the term used for Stannis... "Just"?  Not "good".

And also "unforgiving".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tywin Tytosson said:

 

Re. brothels.  That was all 'good fun'.  Another day in the Life of Westeros.   :)

Brothels actually would be a good idea.  A source of income.  A way to boost morale.  Something that can be 'paid' to builders and shipwrights in lieu of actual money.

Yay.

In your face indentured servitude.

Feudal times were such fun.

I think that's one of the reasons so much of the public bought into the portrayed 'liberator', shittily executed 'french revolution' or 'proletariat ftw or whatever', justification for Daenerys' prospective campaign.

The more you think about it, subverting feudalism would be the only valid 'breaking of the wheel'.

 And revolution on that scale could only be carried out with an endless amount of atrocity and violent conflict if done by the force of arms slash threat of force as she is seen planning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, snow is the man said:

I think renly was arrogant and had some cruelty to him or at least didn't care if people were cruel. I think he enjoyed the idea of being king and would have been a far better king then robert but he was very flaky and would have been a "meh" king more then anything. Or he might have lost to tywin like stannis did. Stannis was too stubborn and would have caused trouble because he had no give to him. Basically none of the baratheons would have been good kings

Stannis was all about justice. He would have been a just, hard ruler. He also would not have been cruel or selfish because its not in his nature. He can be utterly without mercy, but not to the innocent. He would have upset the small folk with his intended ban on brothels but he also would have been an excellent administrator much like Emperor Tiberius who he was based on. His sour nature means he would never have been loved, but the realm could have done far worse than Stannis. He would have been infinitely superior to Robert and the walking joke that was Renly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, It_spelt_Magalhaes said:

Yay.

In your face indentured servitude.

Feudal times were such fun.

The scene was all good fun, like many of the scenes with Tyrion and Bronn. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Mudz87 said:

Stannis was all about justice. He would have been a just, hard ruler. He also would not have been cruel or selfish because its not in his nature. He can be utterly without mercy, but not to the innocent. He would have upset the small folk with his intended ban on brothels but he also would have been an excellent administrator much like Emperor Tiberius who he was based on. His sour nature means he would never have been loved, but the realm could have done far worse than Stannis. He would have been infinitely superior to Robert and the walking joke that was Renly.

I thought that Varys very much feared Stannis, and thought that he would be a terrible king.  True, the realm could have done far worse.

Was he based on Tiberius?  Does he have any basis in Phillip II of Spain?

Edited by Tywin Tytosson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Tywin Tytosson said:

I thought that Varys very much feared Stannis, and thought that he would be a terrible king.  True, the realm could have done far worse.

Was he based on Tiberius?  Does he have any basis in Phillip II of Spain?

Ha! I knew there was a reason the portrayal of Stannis as 'the' righteous man had failed to convince me!

Philip II of Spain! That infamous hag!

Our young King Sebastian decided he was going to valorously conquer North Africa and got 'disappeared' in the desert.

Philip, son of a previous portuguese king's eldest daughter, maneuvered himself in the portuguese throne, thereby earning himself a realm so large the 'sun never truly set in its breadth'.

Grrr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×