Discussion in 'A Song of Ice and Fire' started by Liadan, Aug 17, 2006.
K'shar outta cureosity was it the whole post or just the ASOIAF part?
when ned got killed, by his own sword
and when bran got disabled
and one more now-
the red wedding (finally know what that is)
Yiggrit dieing, the forst few chapters with danny where pretty damn depressing, ned dieing and the red wedding all where sad.
When Robert died... that when i knew things are going bad for Starks.... And damn Lannisters win
Well... >.> As an event in and of itself, I can't say that I particularly mourned that drunken sot's death. <.<
Oh Please, maybe the Robert that we were shown dying is not in itself sad. But the downfall of such a great warrior and leader, oh yes he was a great leader, he is just a man not cut out for politics, that is sad.
A man who was also consumed by petty hatred and had little or no self-control? He should've given the throne up, then. He was a great warrior, and a good warleader, but he should have never become king. Tywin Lannister, for all that I personally despise him, would have made a good king. But no, Robert had to take it for himself.
He didn't take it it was given to him by the Congress of Lords because of his Tyg blood, and because he lead the rebellion it made sense. Who other than him could have claimed the throne? He was stuck between a shitty situation and an even shittier situation and did what he thought was right. I'll bet he dident participate in governing the realm because he knew that Jon Arryn would do a better job than he could ever do.
i didn't find it sad at all, he wasn't a very good king, we can say that, can't we?
@ Kakashi17 (Dammit, both of you have the same name ): Robert's claim to the throne was basically non-existent. No one cared about it. About all I can say is that 1) Rhaegar should've been king, and 2) he could've given the throne up to Jon Arryn/Tywin Lannister, preferably the former.
@ Kakashi: I quite agree.
He could not have given in to Tywin beacuse of how little Tywnin did durring the war. And like I said before he dident take it It was given to him because of the lines of succession and being one of the last houses that has Tyg blood. Which is why it could have never gone to Jon. To sum it up I dont think that Robert had any choice in the matter when it came to becoming king.
And outta cureosity what did he do that was so bad? I know he didn't do much, but he appointed the work to men that he knew he could trust to do the right thing.
Once again, the fact that he had Targ blood was pure bull****. No one cared. I think I posted the exact bloodlink in some other thread, but I'm far too lazy to look it up. Another man could've become king had he wanted. Remember, folks, this is Westeros. Legalities are all very nice, but it's swords that win the battle.
And Robert was a terrible king. He spent far too much money. He was an irresponsible drunkard who never did anything for the realm after he became king.
He brought them peace something that the last few kings haven't. What is worse for westrose a poor king or a realm divided amongst itself? Say what you will about anyone else being a better king, he would have helped the Nights Watch in a heartbeat and that is the biggest problem westrose has. Also the only money he pissed away was HIS. I think you are still under the assumption that their taxes go to helping the realm (like today) but really a king is just a warlord and taxes are tribute to him, so in short he can do whatever the **** he wants to do with it and it does not affect how well of a king he is.
Not really, Aerys ruled over a peaceful realm for most of his reign - probably because they were too terrified to rebel , but it was peaceful. About the Night's Watch, are you so sure Robert would have helped them? He might, but he wasn't the best at taking threats seriously, it's possible he would have helped but IMO it isn't as definite as you're suggesting. The Watch was at its strongest under the Targaryens and Robert didn't to anything to stop its decline, after all. As for the taxes...you have a point, but IMO it does suggest that he wasn't the best king. Just because it wasn't usual doesn't mean he couldn't be innovative!
*cough* Incorrect. In GoT, it was stated that Aerys left the REALM (not the king) a treasury overflowing with gold dragons, but fifteen years later, they were 6 million gold crowns in debt to Tywin Lannister and another 4 to Braavos or something. (I THINK - I'm not entirely sure about the figures. I should find my book and look it up later.) If you want to know, it was in the Ned chapter when they're discussing the tourney, and someone says that a few thousand dragons won't put them in debt all that much.
[EDIT: Apologies. I DID have the numbers screwed up.
The crown is more than six million dragons in debt. Three million to the Lannisters is the largest part of it, but the Tyrells, the Iron Bank of Braavos, Tyroshi trading cartels, and the Faith are also involved (I: 163)
Can't find anything on the treasury bit.]
As for the money being his - I'll go look it up on the Westeros site on that. I'm fairly sure that it isn't his.
And he didn't bring them peace. All he did was end a war that he started. In reality, it was Jon Arryn who kept the peace.
Liadan- The best thing he could have done for the realm was to NOT DO ANYTHING. Leave them alone and they will do well on their own. And just because Ned said that one time that it is 'the realm' money, doesn't mean that the treasury belonged to the people. Instead I think that he was refering to the realm as the people who rebelled against him. Rember this is not a democracy a king does not have to do anything but PROTECT his realm from someone else, not to protect the people. I am not saying that he was not in debt there is no argument there, but his debt is his debt. Now I wont rule out the possibility that I am wrong but these book's are so historically accurate and if you look at how midevil europe especially medevil France you will see why I think that is the way it is in ASOIAF.
LyannaWolfBlood- Robert loved nothing more than War, that is about all he does and he is really really good at it. And if Ned would have told him they needed to defend the wall I think that Robert would have been there in a heartbeat (if only to get away from the burocracy). And the wach was the strongest under the First Men & Andals not the Targaryns if anything under the Targaryans the wall declined to what it was. And as for being the best king I am in NO way saying he was the best, there were way better kings durring the Targaryns reign, I am arguing he was not as bad as Liadan thinks. After a rebellion isnt it important to try and mend the realm. Throughout the series both of Robert's brothers comment on his ability to make an enemies into an allies, and not just allies but LOYAL allies who die for him. Half of the realm fought for Aryes so mending the rift and making friends is much more important than his ability to govern. He could have taken wards and executed lords, other rulers would have, but he did not. Thus making Robert a good if not great King.
If you want to look at Medieval France look at Charlemagne. He was regarded as a great king, during and after his reign. Why? Sure, he was a great military leader. But he also changed the way Europeans felt about education and religion.
You can't call a king a good king just because he sits on the throne unopposed.
After checking Westeros I can't get an exact date for when the Night's Watch began to decline (can anyone help???) so I can't really argue that. You may well be right on that, but so might I. It was definitely spoken of being very strong in the time of Good Queen Alysanne, a Targaryen. And Robert did nothing to reverse that decline.
As for Robert being willing to fight the Others, he may have liked war, but he also liked comfort (remember the carriage he brought to Winterfell?). He's also changed a lot since he became king - he seems a stranger to Ned at times and was willing to send knives after Dany, something Ned was positive the old Robert would never have done. Because he loved fighting in his youth doesn't mean he would rush to fight the Others.
Those same brothers who started scrapping over the kingdom practically before Robert had died? It doesn't sound like loyalty to me...that aside you have a point about his early mercy. But I still can't regard Robert as a good king because he was primarily a weak character. He was merciful in those cases, yet he didn't object to the killing of Aegon and Rhaenys because, to paraphrase Tywin, he realised they needed to be killed yet wouldn't do it himself because he saw himself as a hero, so he let them be killed. That is not a sign of a good king, or even a merciful one. It's a sign of a weak person, who didn't have to be king, yet let himself be thrust into job he wasn't fit for. That's my main objection to Robert - I would have more sympathy for him if he was an heir who was obliged to take the job but he wasn't.
You can't blame that on Robert. I vaguely remember him calling it something like 'that damnable wheelhouse'. Cersei wanted it. He said he could have been there days before if not for her insistence.
Not that I'm aruging the point. He did like comfort.
Separate names with a comma.