Lord Warwyck Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 murdering children is an atrocious, belly aching crime i know but they were royal children. If tywin had gone the honorable Ned way and spared them, they would've become the centre piece of generations of civil warfare and anarchy. How many kingdoms have been destroyed because the heir to the last family lived on? Taira kiyomori defeated the minamoto clan but stopped short of killing the last 2 boys, they went on to exterminate the taira clan. The yorks let henry tudor be, tudor later took the crown from richard the 3rd. The english anarchy.... there are many countless more examples. While in plain sight its an evil deed but sparing the royal heirs and inviting generations of civil war and ruining the lives of millions is even more evil. I must support tywin on this act of cruelty. Rhaenys might've been spared and later married to a baratheon prince but there was no way on earth could've robert spared aegon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Snow Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 When it comes to war you have to cement your victory by destroying anything that might stand in your way. it wasn't murder just collateral damage. If i was in a position to rule the world and two children stood in my way... well i think i could get over it.oh yeah i might be a monster but would you even dare do anything about it? i think not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrowsBeforeHoes Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 This is differences in morality. You're supporting the Utilitarian side of it, or the greater good, which usually makes enough sense. But the prevailing modern morality is Kantianism, where one just feels it isn't right. There's also a big emphasis on duty. One's duty to do and enforce what is right.So while it makes sense in raw numbers why the children should be killed, this is easy for someone who is removed from the situation to observe. But if you were the one ordered would you do it? Could you bring yourself to kill a toddler and a baby for what you think is the good of the realm? I couldn't. Which is why I would've left them alive, fostered them, explained what went on when they are old enough to understand, and tried to work out something out. But Robert and Tywin were not thinking this way. Sometimes there is no room for these difficulties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrimeRhaegar Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Depends on the view thats what war is. Some say it was necessary some say it was murder. All i know is 2 children were brutally murdered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tihandra Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Even Tywin was shocked by how brutally these children were killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Thornhart Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 They didn't need to die so brutally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 For children that young, the ideal solution, in my mind, would have been to send Aegon to the Wall or the Citadel or the Faith and Rhaenys to the Silent Sisters. They were young enough, especially Aegon, that they could have been raised in that type of seclusion, cut from the succession entirely, without ever knowing who they really were. In any case, Viserys was just as much the heir in exile as a living Aegon or Rhaenys would've been. Robert's kingdom didn't fall because he let Viserys and Dany live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithras Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Even Tywin was shocked by how brutally these children were killed. Tywin lied about that like he lied about everything else. He was one of the greatest hypocrites in Westeros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sordelor Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 If you let them live, it can always happen they come back to reclaim it, but every living noble person brings the risk of rebelling, so there might have been other solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mountain That Rhymes Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Westeros has mechanisms in place to strip someone of a claim to the throne. Aegon could have been kept in Robert's, Stannis' (or Ned's, preferably) custody until he was old enough to ship of to The Wall. Rhaenys could have married Renly. Tywin wasn't acting to safeguard Robert's new throne, he was trying to save his own ass by currying favour with the winning side. No better way to prove he'd broken with the Targs than murdering the shit out of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jory Cassel Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 murdering children is an atrocious, belly aching crime i know but they were royal children. If tywin had gone the honorable Ned way and spared them, they would've become the centre piece of generations of civil warfare and anarchy. How many kingdoms have been destroyed because the heir to the last family lived on? Taira kiyomori defeated the minamoto clan but stopped short of killing the last 2 boys, they went on to exterminate the taira clan. The yorks let henry tudor be, tudor later took the crown from richard the 3rd. The english anarchy.... there are many countless more examples. While in plain sight its an evil deed but sparing the royal heirs and inviting generations of civil war and ruining the lives of millions is even more evil. I must support tywin on this act of cruelty. Rhaenys might've been spared and later married to a baratheon prince but there was no way on earth could've robert spared aegon. necessary in order to avoid future wars =/= necessary for Tywin to ingratiate himself with Robert At that point, the more reasonable choice would've been to take them as wards/hostages as Viserys and Daenerys were still alive as neither of them could've made a claim with the heirs ahead of the in the line of succession still alive (the same course Bloodraven went). Even Tywin was shocked by how brutally these children were killed. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Muradin the Small Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Iirc during the conquest the first baratheon married the sister of the last stormking. Something similar could've been done to Rhaenys, i.e. ,marrying him off to Robert's son. Before that happened she likely would have been a ward with Ned. Aegon could have been sent to the wall as Martini said...but the watch is griveously understaffed, so a desertion/kidnapping by loyalists is likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mountain That Rhymes Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 For children that young, the ideal solution, in my mind, would have been to send Aegon to the Wall or the Citadel or the Faith and Rhaenys to the Silent Sisters. They were young enough, especially Aegon, that they could have been raised in that type of seclusion, cut from the succession entirely, without ever knowing who they really were. In any case, Viserys was just as much the heir in exile as a living Aegon or Rhaenys would've been. Robert's kingdom didn't fall because he let Viserys and Dany live. Technically, it did. 1. Ned argues with Robert about murderising Dany and Viserys. Quits as HotK. 2. Jaime is now free to attack Ned in the street. Hijinks ensue. 3. Robert buggers off hunting to avoid the fallout. Whilst he's gone Ned pokes about, finds out things he shouldn't. 4. Robert dies on that hunt. A hunt he ultimately only went on because he had a row with Ned about killin' some Targs. Ipso Facto. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolves Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 They didn't need to die so brutally.They didn't need to die at all. Taking the throne was not the goal of the rebellion, Aerys and Rhaegar was dead there was no reason for Rhaegar's children and wife to be murdered. Aegon should have been proclaimed King with the Dornish as his Regent, I doubt anybody would have objected to that. Still tho Tywin and his band of monsters should have paid for that unnecessary brutality to a woman and her babies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 They didn't need to die at all. Taking the throne was not the goal of the rebellion, Aerys and Rhaegar was dead there was no reason for Rhaegar's children and wife to be murdered. Aegon should have been proclaimed King with the Dornish as his Regent, I doubt anybody would have objected to that. Still tho Tywin and his band of monsters should have paid for that unnecessary brutality to a woman and her babies While they shouldn't have been killed of course, it would have been just expecting a disaster to just seat the grandson/son of the men that you just rebelled against and executed back into a position of ultimate authority. Especially, if you are just going to hand over the Regency to one of your former opponents in the War. At best, if they proclaimed Aegon king it should be with Jon Arryn as Regent, Tywin as Hand, and both Aegon and Rhaenys growing up as hostages/wards of the different rebel houses away from their Dornish mother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrax Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Clearly an evil act, IMO. Children posed no threat at the moment they were killed. What might occur in the future is slippery slope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hajk Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 In universe it certainly seems to be considered an evil act, even by some of Robert's most loyal supporters. In the real world it would certainly be considered evil. The only counter-argument seems to be the utilitarian one; and this is exactly where utilitarianism runs into its well known Achilles heel, i.e. a tendency to justify all manner of tyranny and oppression of minorities (e.g. slavery etc.) just so long as the 'majority' benefits from it. This is one of the classical criticisms of the theory and still a major reason that any society with visible minorities is probably better off moderating utilitarianism with rival moral philosophies. As for how much a danger they represented, the Targ children in exile were no danger to Robert's rule. One's in the hands of his own loyal lords would probably not have been much threat either. In fact it could have shown the world how much better and more honorable than the old regime the new regime was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melisandros Megas Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 IMO Tywin is the most evil person in asoiaf, because he does evil acts out of a sense of duty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mountain That Rhymes Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 They didn't need to die at all. Taking the throne was not the goal of the rebellion, Aerys and Rhaegar was dead there was no reason for Rhaegar's children and wife to be murdered. Aegon should have been proclaimed King with the Dornish as his Regent, I doubt anybody would have objected to that. Still tho Tywin and his band of monsters should have paid for that unnecessary brutality to a woman and her babies They did pay, karmically anyway. One of them was murdered by his own son, one was eaten by a bear, and the other died of agonising poison and became a frankenmonster, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Technically, it did. 1. Ned argues with Robert about murderising Dany and Viserys. Quits as HotK. 2. Jaime is now free to attack Ned in the street. Hijinks ensue. 3. Robert buggers off hunting to avoid the fallout. Whilst he's gone Ned pokes about, finds out things he shouldn't. 4. Robert dies on that hunt. A hunt he ultimately only went on because he had a row with Ned about killin' some Targs. Ipso Facto. :laugh:You know what I mean, though. Letting Viserys and Dany escape into exile did not lead to any situation that Robert wasn't ultimately capable of overcoming. He fell victim to rot in his own family and government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.