Jump to content

Which Ruler has the Lowest Kill Count?


Corvo the Crow

Recommended Posts

I was going to open it as the highest kill count, but that one is too obvious, as we don't have that many characters massacring entire cities and leaving the survivors to sickness and starvation, so here it goes. Which ruler in the main story so far has the least amount of blood on their hands? Deaths caused due to misrule also adds up to the kill count. My guess is, though we don't know much about his rule, Lord Commander Jeor Mormont. Though it could be argued that he has the bloods of some two hundred of his brothers upon his hands due to the failed great ranging.

I really wished to say Sweet Robyn too but two problems there as well, first is he doesn't rule in his own right and the second is, his(or rather his regents) misrule probably caused hundreds of people to die at the hands of mountain clansmen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Craving Peaches said:

In terms of how many of his own people he killed though Renly must be close to the bottom of the list.

Indeed - he didn't kill anyone in battle of whom we're aware, either opponents or his own troops. There might have been a couple of casualties in his tournaments, I guess, but we don't know of anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

I was going to open it as the highest kill count, but that one is too obvious, as we don't have that many characters massacring entire cities and leaving the survivors to sickness and starvation, so here it goes. Which ruler in the main story so far has the least amount of blood on their hands? Deaths caused due to misrule also adds up to the kill count. My guess is, though we don't know much about his rule, Lord Commander Jeor Mormont. Though it could be argued that he has the bloods of some two hundred of his brothers upon his hands due to the failed great ranging.

I really wished to say Sweet Robyn too but two problems there as well, first is he doesn't rule in his own right and the second is, his(or rather his regents) misrule probably caused hundreds of people to die at the hands of mountain clansmen. 

Lowest kill count does not mean the most beneficial ruler in the long run.  The lowest kill count on the path to the throne is obviously the lazy one who got there based on inheritance rather than having to fight and prove themselves.  Oftentimes a leader like Mance who has had to beat the s8!t out of competition to get to the top is best even though they might not be the most moral of people.  Mance is an evil man but he was a good leader to the Wildlings.  Tommen inherited but he's not going to be a good ruler.  

In my opinion, Roose Bolton has a lot of kills but give him time and he will be better than Rickard, Ned, and Robb.  The Stark's family problems kept getting the north into trouble.  Roose will flay people here and there but his management will never get as bad as getting the north into senseless wars like the Starks have done.  Aerys killed people he suspected, but he built a solid economy for the realm which benefitted small folk and nobles alike.  I don't think anyone but the Targaryen-haters, whose opinions I do not value much, will argue that Robert's rule was much worse for Westeros compared to Aerys'.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, H Wadsworth Longfellow said:

Lowest kill count does not mean the most beneficial ruler in the long run.  The lowest kill count on the path to the throne is obviously the lazy one who got there based on inheritance rather than having to fight and prove themselves.  Oftentimes a leader like Mance who has had to beat the s8!t out of competition to get to the top is best even though they might not be the most moral of people.  Mance is an evil man but he was a good leader to the Wildlings.  Tommen inherited but he's not going to be a good ruler.  

In my opinion, Roose Bolton has a lot of kills but give him time and he will be better than Rickard, Ned, and Robb.  The Stark's family problems kept getting the north into trouble.  Roose will flay people here and there but his management will never get as bad as getting the north into senseless wars like the Starks have done.  Aerys killed people he suspected, but Tywin built a solid economy for the realm which benefitted small folk and nobles alike.  I don't think anyone but the Targaryen-haters, whose opinions I do not value much, will argue that Robert's rule was much worse for Westeros compared to Aerys'.  

Fixed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d say maybe Jaeharys I. One of the few decent Targ rulers. Maybe Aegon III. 
 

Aerys II started the rebellion that ended his family’s tyranny. 
Aegon I, II, & IV all are responsible for thousands upon thousands of deaths.

Robert’s ineptitude mixed with Lannister and Littlefinger greed caused a massive war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, H Wadsworth Longfellow said:

Lowest kill count does not mean the most beneficial ruler in the long run.  The lowest kill count on the path to the throne is obviously the lazy one who got there based on inheritance rather than having to fight and prove themselves.  Oftentimes a leader like Mance who has had to beat the s8!t out of competition to get to the top is best even though they might not be the most moral of people.  Mance is an evil man but he was a good leader to the Wildlings.  Tommen inherited but he's not going to be a good ruler.  

In my opinion, Roose Bolton has a lot of kills but give him time and he will be better than Rickard, Ned, and Robb.  The Stark's family problems kept getting the north into trouble.  Roose will flay people here and there but his management will never get as bad as getting the north into senseless wars like the Starks have done.  Aerys killed people he suspected, but he built a solid economy for the realm which benefitted small folk and nobles alike.  I don't think anyone but the Targaryen-haters, whose opinions I do not value much, will argue that Robert's rule was much worse for Westeros compared to Aerys'.  

Well, one thing Dany enthusiasts cant seem to comprehend is lowest may not make you a good ruler but the highest certainly makes you a terrible ruler who  probably doesn't even have a good mental health to begin with. Killing entire cities worth of people  makes you a terrible one plain and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Gotta be Lord Robert and Lysa/Petyr. They're whole plan as of yet is avoid war 

Their misrule has allowed the mountain clansmen to go rampant. Catelyn with an armed escort of what a dozen? a score? men got attacked and several died. If a woman on her thirties, with little childbearing years left is attacked with that many men you can bet that travellers of smaller groups or who can't afford the kind of armed escort that the daughter of LP of Riverlands can afford will get wiped out and young girls will be targeted especially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tommen has the lowest kill number, but he's been on the throne for like 5 minutes and he's not even ruling. then, technically, Viserys and Renly have a low kill bar, but they never ruled! 

 Doran Martell has a pretty low kill bar and in all seriousness, he's the best ruler of the series with genuine care for his people. (Lysa Arryn also saved the Vale from war but the point is her decision wasn't out of care for her people)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...