In defense of the King.

[frenin]

21 minutes ago, FictionIsntReal said:

The Ironborn aren't children, they're adult pirates. They rebelled not because Aerys or Robert was "oppressing" them but because the former was a weak king (who did indeed do nothing about Dagon attacking the realm) and the latter was mistakenly believed not to have a firm grip on power. They don't merely want independence, like Robb or the Dornish. They want to raid the coast. Every attempt to make a deal with them has failed because they don't believe in making deals. It's unrealistic of them to be that obstinate despite being militarily weaker than the larger kingdoms, but that's how GRRM wrote them.

Same concept imo, they rebel when they feel they have a chance simply because they don't want to be under the Iron Throne nor the Iron Throne means anything to them.

Precisely any caring ruler would see to try and erase the old ways once and for all. The old ways are only going to be stronger and stronger if you just let the situation fester.  After Robert visited  the Iron Islands, the septs were torched in revenge.

[Wall Flower]

21 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

 

It's Tywin's fault Dorne wanted to rebel in the first place. Jon Arryn had to clean up his mess. Dorne was publicly trying to support Viserys after Robert claimed the throne but Jon went there in person and somehow talked them down. Whether it was because Dorne saw wisdom in waiting for vengeance, or something else, it's still a credit to his resume because Dorne did not rebel during his tenure. And let me repeat: Jon BROKERED A PEACE, something Tywin can't claim for all of his years of service. Even the alliance with the Tyrell's was Littlefinger's idea. Tywin would prefer to just wipe entire families off the map (soon to be his own, in a roundabout way). Also, Jon Arryn was the only one to push back against Aerys and resist him when it mattered, and if he hadn't acted, Aerys would still be on the throne today. Tywin meanwhile, is known for defending Aerys at Duskendale. If he hadn't been fired, he would probably still be working for Aerys like a schmuck. 

 

Yes, he's an effective ruler in his early years when he got along with Aerys. Jon Arryn had to serve as Hand during a time of turmoil under a completely new dynasty though. There's also the issue of Tywin stacking the entire government with his family. If the Lannisters go down, or go crazy, then the entire government falls apart. His pride consistently gets in the way of his governance. 

I don't disagree about Tywin - although he resigned when Jaime joined the Kingsguard rather than being fired.

However, Jon Arryn's peace with Dorne was never going to be worth much when he and Robert were happy to look the other way at the murder of Elia and her children and when he counselled Robert to marry Cersei, effectively giving Tywin what he'd always wanted. Jon Arryn chose naked political pragmatism over any semblance honour and justice and made a mockery of whatever principles the rebellion had supposedly been fought for. Also, if you lie down with lions, you shouldn't be surprised when they eat you.

[Lord Varys]

On 4/23/2020 at 5:37 AM, Rose of Red Lake said:

It's Tywin's fault Dorne wanted to rebel in the first place. Jon Arryn had to clean up his mess. Dorne was publicly trying to support Viserys after Robert claimed the throne but Jon went there in person and somehow talked them down. Whether it was because Dorne saw wisdom in waiting for vengeance, or something else, it's still a credit to his resume because Dorne did not rebel during his tenure. And let me repeat: Jon BROKERED A PEACE, something Tywin can't claim for all of his years of service. Even the alliance with the Tyrell's was Littlefinger's idea. Tywin would prefer to just wipe entire families off the map (soon to be his own, in a roundabout way). Also, Jon Arryn was the only one to push back against Aerys and resist him when it mattered, and if he hadn't acted, Aerys would still be on the throne today. Tywin meanwhile, is known for defending Aerys at Duskendale. If he hadn't been fired, he would probably still be working for Aerys like a schmuck.

 

Yes, he's an effective ruler in his early years when he got along with Aerys. Jon Arryn had to serve as Hand during a time of turmoil under a completely new dynasty though. There's also the issue of Tywin stacking the entire government with his family. If the Lannisters go down, or go crazy, then the entire government falls apart. His pride consistently gets in the way of his governance. 

This goes all back to Robert. If Robert had executed Tywin and Jaime and their men for their betrayal of King Aerys II, the Sack of King's Landing, and the murders of the royal family, Doran Martell would have never plotted revenge for that. Robert would have won an honorable victory and the Realm would have lost its mad monarch in a way that could be acceptable even to the Targaryen loyalists and the Martells, the Targaryen in-laws.

[Lord Varys]

11 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

However, Jon Arryn's peace with Dorne was never going to be worth much when he and Robert were happy to look the other way at the murder of Elia and her children and when he counselled Robert to marry Cersei, effectively giving Tywin what he'd always wanted. Jon Arryn chose naked political pragmatism over any semblance honour and justice and made a mockery of whatever principles the rebellion had supposedly been fought for. Also, if you lie down with lions, you shouldn't be surprised when they eat you.

Exactly, this whole thing was a charade. Most people don't realize this because our only glimpses on Robert the Moron and Jon the Fool come from their buddy Ned - if Doran Martell were to ever discuss 'King Robert' and his government we would likely get a much more accurate picture.

And in the end it seems clear that this rebellion wasn't fought over any principles. It was about the lives of Robert and Ned - two young men. Who is to say that it wouldn't have been better for the Realm if they had died at the Mad King's command? One could imagine that all the people who lost friends and family thanks to the war Jon Arryn started would have preferred it if he had killed the two young men. Because it simply isn't the case that Aerys II terrorized the broader population in such a way that Jon, Robert, and Ned were somehow the sparks that ignited a popular movement.

Especially if one considers the fact that this war is really the root of all evil insofar as the series is concerned - it made Robert the Drunkard king, one of the weakest and most corrupt kings Westeros ever had, who laid the groundwork for the most devastating civil war of all time, doing his best to help the Others when they come in and clean up the mess.

The Mad King had to be done away with, but there were a number of other ways to do that. Smarter ways. And Rhaegar should have succeeded his father as king, not Robert.

[SeanF]

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

This goes all back to Robert. If Robert had executed Tywin and Jaime and their men for their betrayal of King Aerys II, the Sack of King's Landing, and the murders of the royal family, Doran Martell would have never plotted revenge for that. Robert would have won an honorable victory and the Realm would have lost its mad monarch in a way that could be acceptable even to the Targaryen loyalists and the Martells, the Targaryen in-laws.

Unless Tywin had got the green light from someone in the rebel camp to murder Elia and her children, and sack Kings Landing, he would have been very vulnerable had Robert expressed himself shocked and outraged by such things, and punished them accordingly.  Macchiavelli pointed to Cesare Borgia doing something similar in the Romagna, pinning all the blame on brutal underlings, who he sacrificed to public opinion.

[Lord Varys]

29 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Unless Tywin had got the green light from someone in the rebel camp to murder Elia and her children, and sack Kings Landing, he would have been very vulnerable had Robert expressed himself shocked and outraged by such things, and punished them accordingly.  Macchiavelli pointed to Cesare Borgia doing something similar in the Romagna, pinning all the blame on brutal underlings, who he sacrificed to public opinion.

Exactly. And historically this is how the more exemplatory rulers dealt with such things - the best example would be Jaehaerys I's approach to Maegor's Kingsguard, but Cregan Stark's desire to punish the murderers of Aegon II also springs to mind (as does Eddard Stark's desire to punish Jaime and Tywin).

The picture there is clear. By Westerosi standards not punishing and instead rewarding the Lannisters for their betrayal is just wrong. It is the principal flaw in Robert's approach to ruling and justice - he understands neither, has no principles of any sort. And in light of his strong trait to befriend and forgive everyone it is rather striking that the came to blows with Ned over the Targaryens two times one cannot but wonder whether Tywin and Jaime did not indeed do for him (with or without him knowing in advance) what he would have done himself if he had been the one to get there first.

Robert had thugs of his own (Richard Horpe springs to mind immediately) and one certainly can see him issue similar commands as Tywin did if Robert had been forced to storm King's Landing.

Regardless how Robert felt about things, by pardoning Jaime, Tywin, and their men and by then even marrying Tywin's daughter Robert showed to all the world that he approved of what they did - that he even honored them for their atrocities. And this is how the world saw it. There is a reason why the Targaryens refer to Robert's buddies as the Usurper's Dogs.

Remember that Cregan Stark feared that Aegon III's reign would be forever marred by the fact that he came into his throne as a result of betrayal and murder. If such things can mar the image of a boy king who had no direct hand in any of the atrocities (and no legal power to punish the men who did it immediately afterwards) then it is quite clear how most of Westeros would see Robert's rise to the throne - and we see that even in Ned.

[Wall Flower]

46 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Unless Tywin had got the green light from someone in the rebel camp to murder Elia and her children, and sack Kings Landing, he would have been very vulnerable had Robert expressed himself shocked and outraged by such things, and punished them accordingly.  Macchiavelli pointed to Cesare Borgia doing something similar in the Romagna, pinning all the blame on brutal underlings, who he sacrificed to public opinion.

The new regime didn't even require Tywin to sacrifice his brutal underlings, which at the very least might have signalled to Tywin a need for caution and restraint. Instead,  Amory and Gregor remained his go-to guys for terrorising people for the rest of Robert's reign and beyond.

[frenin]

3 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

The new regime didn't even require Tywin to sacrifice his brutal underlings, which at the very least might have signalled to Tywin a need for caution and restraint. Instead,  Amory and Gregor remained his go-to guys for terrorising people for the rest of Robert's reign and beyond.

I agree here, not punishing Lorch and Clegane was certainly stupid, i don't know how he could have dealt with Tywion tho, Robert needed Tywin's army and even when he was strong to enough to overcome him, he certainly wasn't to overcome him and the rest of the loyalist still in the field. So, old Jon came up with a bad compromise that imploded with the incest. Without Tywin's head any peace with Dorne would be sham, Tywin and Tyrion later tried w¡it with similar results (especially because Tywin believed himself too smart for this world and half of the other by refusing them Gregor's head) and none of them were in position to kill Tywin, nor i assume they could know if those efforts would serve for anything, since there was no guarantee that those lords would not remain loyalists anyway, so instead of gaining allies, they would only lose them.

Marrying Cersei to Robert was a short sighted view tho, Tywin's position after the Sack would be very weak... and suddenly he found himself with the full back of the new regime, keeping Tywin in dire need of your back and as a loose end you can cut when you're stronger is by far a better apprach than being bedding him.

 

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Exactly, this whole thing was a charade. Most people don't realize this because our only glimpses on Robert the Moron and Jon the Fool come from their buddy Ned - if Doran Martell were to ever discuss 'King Robert' and his government we would likely get a much more accurate picture.

It's difficult to understand it?? The Dornish arc makes it clear.

 

 

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And in the end it seems clear that this rebellion wasn't fought over any principles. It was about the lives of Robert and Ned - two young men. Who is to say that it wouldn't have been better for the Realm if they had died at the Mad King's command?

Ah, you have come around. I knew that sooner or later you would start to advocate for the "two men against the realm" false dichotomy. You're almost there tho, you only have to say that Aerys did nothing wrong by killing the Starks and ordering the deaths of Robert and Ned to go full "Aerys the gentle."

 

 

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

One could imagine that all the people who lost friends and family thanks to the war Jon Arryn started would have preferred it if he had killed the two young men. Because it simply isn't the case that Aerys II terrorized the broader population in such a way that Jon, Robert, and Ned were somehow the sparks that ignited a popular movement.

Aerys certainly terrorized people in such a way that half the kingdom were against them, and i'm certainly surprised about how the other half remained, i doubt that all the people who lost friends thanks to Jon Arryn war would blame Jon Arryn, Aerys is a much understandable target. Btw, how would people be happy with the violation of guest right??

 

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Especially if one considers the fact that this war is really the root of all evil insofar as the series is concerned - it made Robert the Drunkard king, one of the weakest and most corrupt kings Westeros ever had, who laid the groundwork for the most devastating civil war of all time, doing his best to help the Others when they come in and clean up the mess.

Yep, certainly, you have come around.

 

 

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Mad King had to be done away with, but there were a number of other ways to do that. Smarter ways. And Rhaegar should have succeeded his father as king, not Robert.

He should not have dissapeared with Lyanna nor lead an army against the rebels then. I'm assuming the rebels would have a hard time picturing as their future king when he was getting to ready to end them instead of dealing with daddy.

 

 

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Unless Tywin had got the green light from someone in the rebel camp to murder Elia and her children, and sack Kings Landing, he would have been very vulnerable had Robert expressed himself shocked and outraged by such things, and punished them accordingly.  Macchiavelli pointed to Cesare Borgia doing something similar in the Romagna, pinning all the blame on brutal underlings, who he sacrificed to public opinion.

Tywin has always been proner to make calculated risks, he became more arrogant and reckless in his old days but still.

He gambled in the Reyne Tarbeck rebellion (what Tywin was doing there was alegal at best)

He gambled in the Sack of KL (ditto)

He gambled heavily during the dawn of the War of the 5 Kings, Robb would be an easy picking noob, attacking Beric, the North and Freys would not involved themselves in the war, attacking the Riverlands, not submitting when he was surrounded by enemies after his head, going after Robb in the Westerlands etc.

Ofc, Robert may have been shocked or outraged for Elia's and her children's murder, curious enough people don't mention the Sack too much and the only pet peeve Ned had about it was the treachery involved not the butchery, or he could given in to the most decent people on his army... or he could just congratulate him for doing the work Tywin knew he needed done and perhaps who knows... if the mood was good, he could even see reason and ditch that annoying Stark girl to reward him for his services. Tywin is a foil to Doran, while the first is on the approach of "play to win", the second firmly believes in "win to play".

 

 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The picture there is clear. By Westerosi standards not punishing and instead rewarding the Lannisters for their betrayal is just wrong. It is the principal flaw in Robert's approach to ruling and justice - he understands neither, has no principles of any sort. And in light of his strong trait to befriend and forgive everyone it is rather striking that the came to blows with Ned over the Targaryens two times one cannot but wonder whether Tywin and Jaime did not indeed do for him (with or without him knowing in advance) what he would have done himself if he had been the one to get there first.

I don't know about the westerosi standards, Jaeharys pardoned a lot of people and only Cregan wanted to deal with Aegon's murderers. Robert has no principles of any sort huh??

 

Tywin it's pretty much unlikely since as he put it, Robert believed himself the hero of the story and it's always easier look the other way than doing the deed, Jaime however it's clear, Robert states that had Jaime not killed Aerys, the task would have gone to him or Ned.

 

 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Robert had thugs of his own (Richard Horpe springs to mind immediately) and one certainly can see him issue similar commands as Tywin did if Robert had been forced to storm King's Landing.

How one can certainly see him issuing a similar command?? When has Robert killed children before?? Btw, when has Richard Horpe been ready to slaughter babes and toddlers?? Do you even know how old was Horpe during the Robellion?? 

 

 

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Regardless how Robert felt about things, by pardoning Jaime, Tywin, and their men and by then even marrying Tywin's daughter Robert showed to all the world that he approved of what they did - that he even honored them for their atrocities. And this is how the world saw it. There is a reason why the Targaryens refer to Robert's buddies as the Usurper's Dogs.

Completely agree here. 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Wall Flower said:

The new regime didn't even require Tywin to sacrifice his brutal underlings, which at the very least might have signalled to Tywin a need for caution and restraint. Instead,  Amory and Gregor remained his go-to guys for terrorising people for the rest of Robert's reign and beyond.

Yeah, you see the justice and competence of 'King Robert' in action when the man raping and murdering a princess and a prince ended up getting away with trying to murder Loras Tyrell, the favorite son of the Lord of Highgarden and the lover/friend of his own brother. There is no justice just like the justice of Bobby B.

[FictionIsntReal]

On 4/23/2020 at 6:23 PM, frenin said:

Same concept imo, they rebel when they feel they have a chance simply because they don't want to be under the Iron Throne nor the Iron Throne means anything to them.

Precisely any caring ruler would see to try and erase the old ways once and for all. The old ways are only going to be stronger and stronger if you just let the situation fester.  After Robert visited  the Iron Islands, the septs were torched in revenge.

They rebel because they want to raid Westeros, and that's not permitted. I think the only way to "erase the old ways once and for all" is to destroy the Ironborn culture.

On 4/23/2020 at 8:29 PM, Wall Flower said:

However, Jon Arryn's peace with Dorne was never going to be worth much when he and Robert were happy to look the other way at the murder of Elia and her children and when he counselled Robert to marry Cersei, effectively giving Tywin what he'd always wanted. Jon Arryn chose naked political pragmatism over any semblance honour and justice and made a mockery of whatever principles the rebellion had supposedly been fought for.

There was peace during Robert's reign. Dorne didn't have enough strength to actually restore the Targaryens and Jon stopped Oberyn from causing trouble. That's not a matter of principle, but that happens sometimes in politics. Conflict with Tywin would have been riskier.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This goes all back to Robert. If Robert had executed Tywin and Jaime and their men for their betrayal of King Aerys II, the Sack of King's Landing, and the murders of the royal family, Doran Martell would have never plotted revenge for that. Robert would have won an honorable victory and the Realm would have lost its mad monarch in a way that could be acceptable even to the Targaryen loyalists and the Martells, the Targaryen in-laws.

There was peace during Robert's reign. Dorne didn't have enough strength to actually restore the Targaryens and Jon stopped Oberyn from causing trouble. That's not a matter of principle, but that happens sometimes in politics. Conflict with Tywin would have been riskier.

Quote

Also, if you lie down with lions, you shouldn't be surprised when they eat you.

Tywin wasn't "eating" the new regime, he was supporting it from afar. It's really the unexpected factor of twincest that caused everything to fall apart.

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This goes all back to Robert. If Robert had executed Tywin and Jaime and their men for their betrayal of King Aerys II, the Sack of King's Landing, and the murders of the royal family, Doran Martell would have never plotted revenge for that. Robert would have won an honorable victory and the Realm would have lost its mad monarch in a way that could be acceptable even to the Targaryen loyalists and the Martells, the Targaryen in-laws.

I think executing both of them would carry serious risks. The Targaryen exiles could more easily ally with Kevan Lannister without Tywin & Jaime around to serve as impediments, and it's not like Kevan would have some principled opposition to them either.

Quote

Most people don't realize this because our only glimpses on Robert the Moron and Jon the Fool come from their buddy Ned

Stannis also talks about them, and he wasn't "buddies" with anyone.

Quote

It was about the lives of Robert and Ned - two young men.

Not just them. Brandon Stark and all but one of his companions (one of whom was Jon Arryn's heir), plus all their fathers were killed. Aerys had already killed all the Hollards (except for Dontos, at Barristan's request) and the family of a mistress he blamed for an infant son dying. Robert and Ned were completely blameless when Aerys demanded their heads, so nobody could have any confidence that innocence/loyalty was any protection from the king's insanity. He essentially thought he could kill anyone anywhere for any reason without a trial. We also know from Jaime that he couldn't sexually perform unless he burned someone and was planning on burning the whole city. Aerys has been written to be as obvious as possible a king made illegitimate by his actions.

Quote

Who is to say that it wouldn't have been better for the Realm if they had died at the Mad King's command?

Evidently you, a couple paragaphs below when you said "he Mad King had to be done away with" since they were the ones who were going to do away with him, which Benjen and Stannis would have a more difficult time doing especially if they couldn't rely on the support of Jon Arryn.

Quote

One could imagine that all the people who lost friends and family thanks to the war Jon Arryn started would have preferred it if he had killed the two young men.

Jon, Robert and Ned all lost friends during the war. But they don't share your attitude (Robert regrets that he got roped into being king, but not that he fought the war).

Quote

there were a number of other ways to do that. Smarter ways.

You haven't mentioned any.

Quote

And Rhaegar should have succeeded his father as king, not Robert.

Rhaegar's idiotic actions helped to spark the war, and by fighting on behalf of his father he told everyone that the Targaryens could do whatever they wanted without consequences. There was really no reason for anyone to fight on their behalf at that point, although the Dornish were coerced into doing so with Elia and the children as hostages.

Quote

And in light of his strong trait to befriend and forgive everyone it is rather striking that the came to blows with Ned over the Targaryens two times

Robert can heatedly disagree with his friends, but still forgive them and even admit they're right later on. Stannis doing that with Davos is one his qualifying aspects for being king.

Quote

one cannot but wonder whether Tywin and Jaime did not indeed do for him (with or without him knowing in advance) what he would have done himself if he had been the one to get there first

I think Tywin had a better understanding of Robert, but then my first inclination is to rely on the text if there's nothing undercutting it.

Quote

Robert had thugs of his own (Richard Horpe springs to mind immediately)

What thuggish things did he do?

Quote

Remember that Cregan Stark feared that Aegon III's reign would be forever marred by the fact that he came into his throne as a result of betrayal and murder. If such things can mar the image of a boy king who had no direct hand in any of the atrocities (and no legal power to punish the men who did it immediately afterwards) then it is quite clear how most of Westeros would see Robert's rise to the throne - and we see that even in Ned.

Robert came to the throne at the head of a successful rebellion. He was not placed there as a child puppet of conspirators, like Joffrey and Tommen.

12 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

The new regime didn't even require Tywin to sacrifice his brutal underlings, which at the very least might have signalled to Tywin a need for caution and restraint. Instead,  Amory and Gregor remained his go-to guys for terrorising people for the rest of Robert's reign and beyond.

The people responsible were not known, which is why Yandel can spin Elia herself as a possible perpetrator. Jaime and his actions were known (although not his reasons), which is why permitting him to stay on the KG was a controversy at the time.

11 hours ago, frenin said:

I agree here, not punishing Lorch and Clegane was certainly stupid

As noted, they hadn't actually been identified as the perpetrators. The people who knew about their responsibility for a fact were unlikely to tell. And ordering executions without trials is what got the rebellion started in the first place.

Quote

Tywin's position after the Sack would be very weak

He was Lord Paramount of one of the wealthiest kingdoms, his army hadn't been weakened by serious fighting, he had long been a respected Hand and even had people like Pycelle hoping he'd take power.

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

getting away with trying to murder Loras Tyrell, the favorite son of the Lord of Highgarden and the lover/friend of his own brother

He escalated a lost joust to a fight, but no blood was actually shed, and it's not like Loras is royalty that people are prohibited from threatening.

[frenin]

8 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

They rebel because they want to raid Westeros, and that's not permitted. I think the only way to "erase the old ways once and for all" is to destroy the Ironborn culture.

Because it's the only life they know and they are not incentived to change, they let the resentment fester until it explodes. 

 

8 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

What thuggish things did he do?

Nothing at all, Stannis says that he is fond of killing, he is th one to suggest marching to the Dreadfort to the bitter end and Varys  draw from that that a men whose age during the Robellion is unclear had no problems killing babies.

 

9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

As noted, they hadn't actually been identified as the perpetrators. The people who knew about their responsibility for a fact were unlikely to tell. And ordering executions without trials is what got the rebellion started in the first place.

Come on now, they could've known if they ever cared to do it, the could have actually held trials if they ever cared, Cregan Stark didn't go on a killing rampage, he actually prosecuted those he deemed responsible of Aegon's murder. The rebels just swept the incident under the rug.

 

 

9 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said:

He was Lord Paramount of one of the wealthiest kingdoms, his army hadn't been weakened by serious fighting, he had long been a respected Hand and even had people like Pycelle hoping he'd take power.

And he had sacked KL and butchered children, effectively gaining the animosity of a good deal of the kingdom,either rebel or loyalist, had it not been for the crown's support he would be very isolated.

 

[FictionIsntReal]

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Because it's the only life they know and they are not incentived to change, they let the resentment fester until it explodes.

The Old Way has been banned for centuries, so they must live some other life in between rebellions. But they keep rebelling anyways.

Quote

Come on now, they could've known if they ever cared to do it, the could have actually held trials if they ever cared, Cregan Stark didn't go on a killing rampage, he actually prosecuted those he deemed responsible of Aegon's murder. The rebels just swept the incident under the rug.

It's true that Robert didn't care and didn't bother to do anything. But the situation with Cregan Stark was quite different. Aegon II had multiple KG around who were sworn to protect him specifically. Aerys II just had Jaime, and it's known that he was with Aerys rather than Elia. Aegon II was poisoned and had a taster who was supposed to protect him from that. although that taster was murdered. This was not a sack in which an entire city was being raided by an invading army, but instead people already inside the city specifically targetting a small set of people to capture and kill. A lot of people died in the sack of KL, with Jaime's murders of the three alchemists never being traced back to him (because they weren't the king, although one was the Hand). The one person that can be held responsible is Jaime, for Aerys, and there Robert is unusual in letting him stay on.

[Rosetta Stone]

On 4/22/2020 at 2:23 AM, Rose of Red Lake said:

Robert was a figurehead, while Jon Arryn ruled. Jon is the man responsible for the peace after the Rebellion and who deserves credit for bringing Dorne back into the realm. I dont think Tywin is a very good hand in comparison. Jon was able to bring a kingdom back into the fold simply through good diplomacy without terrorizing smallfolk. 

Jon Arryn had good qualities; however, he allowed Robert to bankrupt the kingdom.  And it is true what he did to bring Dorne back into line, but they were not really "in the fold".  You have to ask if Dorne was really in the fold.  I do not believe so.  The Martells and the Sand Snakes were quickly plotting to kick Robert off the throne in favor of Prince Viserys.  The Martells were never loyal to Robert.  They only pretended.

[Tyrion1991]

On 4/10/2020 at 3:01 AM, Helman Corbray said:

Let's defend King Robert, the First of his name.

Well, I think it's clearly obvious why many people hate him... But there are instances in the books when he remembers the youth in the Vale who truly makes me feel bad for his current state as a sad guy who never wanted a crown or a family, and drinks to forget about It. 

Robert seems to be that big funny loudy friend you is aways visiting, to eat and drink and tell jokes all night long. 

He is also the old chap who will aways stand by your side no matter what, and from time to time would need a hand at thinking a little bit more.

The King also seemed to demonstrate affection towards Mya Stone and some other of his bastards.

Of course there is the cruel hatred by the Targaryens... But idk maybe fighting your way thrown a war and facing near death changes a man's head.. 

He seems to care about his kingdom as well, as he told Ned the only reason not to abdicate, was because Joffrey and Cersei would be awful rulers.

That being said, i think King Robert, while having issues as a father (And in dire need of a psicologist) is a nice guy, who ended up getting a hard job and couldn't menage to deal with It.

I mean, there is plenty of people who lose Control of their life because of stress nowdays... Imagine being head of state of a whole continent and hating It every single day.

So, feel free to agree and disagree.

 

 

Because the author writes him as a satire of a fantasy archetype. You’re being asked to dislike him through the vehicle of Ned Stark becoming disillusioned with his former friend.

You can’t really defend him if the authors intent is that way. At that point you’re disagreeing with the premise of George’s satire.