Aragorn replaces Robert Baratheon at the end of the Robert's Rebellion. He marries Cersei. How good of a king would he make?

Callouts:

Apologies if you're not interested.

Not at all. He's not nearly cunning enough. George R.R. Martin has actually said as much I believe.

He would at least make a vastly superior husband for Cersie. He'd be faithful and wouldn't sink into drunken debauchery. Which would also make him better able to manage the political aspect of being a king. Pretty much everything is better in every possible way. Robert was a great warrior, but a trash king

I think Aragorn is a good king flat out. He's compassionate, headstrong, both a good leader and warrior.

I think he'd struggle in 'the game of thrones' because as Lubub said, he doesn't seem as cunning as Cersei and the others. That said, that's why he has a Hand and board of advisers.

He'd be a damn sight better than Robert that's for sure, and maybe Cersei wouldn't of went all psycho if things never happened as they did with Robert.

As Tywin said, a good king listens to his advisor. Aragorn is wise, compassionate leader with both bravery and brain. He wouldn't be a good player but he isn't stupid either and the books often described his royal aura whenever he dropped the strider persona. He might not be perfect but for once there I cannot agree with Martin. He seemed to be judging some exaggerated caricature of Aragorn.

He wouldnt be ideal but he would be good.

@lubub55: Martin's idea of what Aragorn can and can not do means precisely less than nothing to be honest.

Aragorn is perfectly capable of managing the political aspect of ruling

@paragonnate: Why do you think so? Martin said something like "good intentions don't make a good king." And then spoke about how you need to be good politically. As far as I can remember, Aragorn hasn't shown that.

As others have said, he's not the best for the treacherous game of thrones, but he'd be better than Robert.

I don't believe anyone could actually control the Seven Kingdoms and be a good king at the same time...

I think he would be a great king but he won't be a surviving one that's for sure. There's a reason why Ned, Robb & even Jon Snow died and any one of them would have made an honourable king.

Imagine the loyalty Rhagear inspired in his men x 100.

Literally the Game no longer exists with someone like Aragorn in charge. What Martin would write Aragorn as (some kind of honorable simpleton) has absolutely no bearing on who Aragorn actually was written by Tolkien/Jackson.

Thing is Aragorn isn't Martin's character, and his statement as an author, about work that isn't his. Is just as invalid as my own about his work, or if Tolkien were alive today and he made a statement that Frodo could beat Jaime in a sword fight while blindfolded that would also be invalid, because Jaime isn't his character to make absolute statements about. Also, based off that quote, Martin is all kinds of ignorant about what Aragorn is capable of. Aragorn had iwayi more going for him than good intentions and morals, a great deal more.

Although I will concede that it's different depending on whether or not we are talking about Movie Aragorn or Book Aragorn. We don't know a ton about Movie Aragorn's early life, or what happened after he became king, as far as I'm aware, but Book Aragorn has tons of showings and evidence outside of the core material. Some of it is rather broad and general statements but they still give us some idea of what he achieved as a ruler. He expanded his realm north and remade the old kingdom of his ancestors. He did something like triple the size of his holdings while he ruled, and given the fact that the majority of that land had been without and sort of real central government for literal millennia he'd of had to set all of that up from scratch. Appoint governors and administrators, manage the unenviable task of creating and then enforcing a wholly new system of taxes that the people would be unfamiliar with, manage the local leadership and rulers well enough to integrate them into his kingdom, and manage his own nobility and administration in Gondor on top of that. Oh! and he was noted as leading a number of successful military campaigns at least into the far east against the easterlings and then again into the south against the men of Harad. Plus there's the stuff he pulled when he was younger that also showcases his intellect, political, and military capabilities. He actually traveled far and wide in his youth, largely out far east or into the far south but he also hung around Gondor and Rohan for a good long while, under the assumed name Thorongil. Largely to observe Gondor and how it's society and so on operated and the political climate there. He actually rose to the rank of Captain in Gondor's military and lead a crippling assault on the Corsairs of Umbar and burned their fleet, he's actually the reason they don't have the strength to go up against Gondor until much later. Hell, he actually acted as advisor to Ecthellion, Denethor's father, for a bit, and his advise was almost always heeded because it was pretty much always good.

In short. Martin is wrong, or at least simply knowledgeable on the subject of Aragorn's capabilities.

For reference here's the reunited kingdom Aragorn established, by the time of his death.

Well GRRM likes making honorable, fair characters into oblivious suckers just asking to get tricked. I don't think Aragorn is like that.

@paragonnate: Nice post, I’ll respond tomorrow.

@lubub55: poke

Aragorn wipes King's Landing clean of the filth, installing a new Small Council with people like Ned Stark, Brynden Tully, Jon Arryn etc. He'd recognise Cersei's attempts to cuckold him very quickly (if she even would, she may not be stupid enough to try it) because he's not a disinterested drunk. He'd have Jaime executed or indefinitely imprsoned as a hostage. Cersei would likely be forced to become a septa in the faith for her crimes, in the sept of Baelor where she would essentially be a hostage against Tywin. As a lesser lord, Aragorn would do poorly, but the King doesn't need to play the game like the other pieces.

The reasoning for Aragorn being so well suited for being a King are pretty well outlined in the appendices, his toiling with the troops for decades, his great knowledge and understanding of many languages, peoples and places, afforded both by extensive travel and the wisdom of the Elves etc. His backstory is basically the same as Jon's. What Varys lays out as his vision of the perfect King, in ADWD is everything Aragorn basically is. Tolkien just wasn't interested in detailing the actual machinations of politics.

@paragonnate: Oh my, I forgot about this.

I'm pretty sure he'd make an excellent king. But the problem is that in GoT simply being that isn't enough to keep all the greedy minor lords from wanting to stab him in the back so they can be king. Because thats the difference between Gondor and GoT land, in Gondor the King (not the Steward) is a near-mythic being that assures Gondor is great, in GoT land the King is just the latest winner of a long round of scheming and backstabbing.

But as Rogueshadow points out, one of Aragorns advantages is that he has the right friends, and he has them pretty much everywhere whenever they are elves, dwarves or men and whenever they are high or low. So if he was to take the Iron Throne the same way he took Gondor, I'd imagine he'd be pretty secure.

@lubub55: :(

@paragonnate: Okay, I'm here now. I always forgot or got notified at inopportune times, but I can respond now!

I think the reason Martin said that is because the political climates in Westeros and Middle-Earth are vastly different. Aragorn is a great king of Gondor because in LOTR humans are a lot more honourable and less scheming. In Westeros things are a lot more grey, and Aragorn will have to deal with all sorts of people he isn't experienced with. Aragorn is a great warrior and general, but put him in Robb's place. In his universe humans are mostly good, and he wouldn't expect something like the Red Wedding. In past times in Westeros I'm sure he'd make a good king, but at the time the events take place where there is a lot more deception going on I'm not sure he has what it takes to do well. Or rather he could do very well, but not for long. He would be uncompromising and that would likely turn the other players against him.

I don’t see why not. The others have been pretty terrible. The way I see it the only standard for being a good ruler in Westeros is to not be a monster. Aragorn seems compassionate enough to be a good king in my opinion.

Far better king than Robert that's for sure. He has dealt with supernatural beings so he would give importance to the Night's Watch and their mission aswell.

People saying "Better than Robert" as if that means anything lol