was the murder of Aegon and Rhaenys truly an evil deed?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

are you kidding?

In a thread specifically discussing whether the murders of Rhaenys and Aegon were evil, every post is recepted as operating under the premise that exactly this murder the op refers to is discussed.

I meant that just like Rhaenys and Aegon could be send to the Wall, the same applies to Dany and Viserys.

[Tynned Lannistark]

I think the intent of the crime is also very important. I won't give Tywin credit for a potential "good" outcome from killing the kids if his intent was to punish Elia and her children for slights he suffered at the hands of Aerys. If the reasoning behind the act were revenge, it was a crime committed for selfish purposes under the guise of securing Robert's throne. Doesn't that feel somewhat less just, if we're gonna call the necessity of killing children justice? I dunno maybe not to others, that's just how I kind of view it.

You are right. The point eventually is that they were not killed as part of a necessary evil to prevent civil war (which eventually happened anyway).

If you want to give Tywin credit , they were killed to serve his selfish need to get on Robert's side despite not taking any part of the war. If you are more carefully analyzing his actions it is pretty clear he acted out of vengeance.

Killing children is a crime, not matter how you look at it. But the brutality and the intent behind this specific crime is what makes it truly terrible,

So the whole discussion of whether it is necessary or not, is not relevant, They were not killed because of that.

[Light a wight tonight]

Much as I dislike the Tagraryens generally, with notable exceptions, the intent of the Rebellion wasn't to remove them as ruling house but to remove Aerys. Killing the kids didn't protect Robert's reign because it didn't exist. When Ned walked in on Jaime sitting on the Iron Throne Jaime asks if Ned was going to claim it, or something similar.

Aegon could have been raised to take over, as others have mentioned, or even Viserys (he might have turned out different growing up under different circumstances). Arguing that the killings were to protect a non-existent reign is strictly backward reasoning.

On top of that the manner of killing was evil. There's no getting around that fact, whether or not the killings could be justified on other grounds.

[Maester Pedant]

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

I don't think that would have been feasible. A grown-up Aegon would most likely try to avenge his father and grandfather. He would always be a risk for the rebels for as long as he was on the throne.

But I wonder what Ned was planning on doing, in case he had captured King's Landing before Tywin did.

[The Wolves]

I don't think that would have been feasible. A grown-up Aegon would most likely try to avenge his father and grandfather. He would always be a risk for the rebels for as long as he was on the throne.

Why would Aegon put a Kingdom at risk for two men who died when he was a baby? Why would anybody do that? That makes no sense to do.

As long as Aegon had his Kingship/Westeros to rule and his mother, sister, uncle, and aunt alive(who were innocent of any crimes against Baratheon/Starks) than I doubt he would have brought death and destruction to his realm over two men he never knew

[SeanF]

Yes. In medieval Western Europe, (which is what Westeros is loosely based on) the murder of infants would have been considered a grave crime, even if they were a potential threat. The disappearance of the two Princes did huge damage to Richard III's standing.

Going back in history, people like Sulla and Octavian were as ruthless as they came, but they spared their enemies' infant children (sometimes betrothing them to their own relatives).

[John Hulboy]

It was an evil deed the rebellion was won when aerys an rheagar were killed.the children poised no threat theyy found have been spared. I believe Elias an the kids were killed because of the snub tywin felt was done to his house....he planned on cersie being rheagars queen . All things repeat an house lannister will pay dearly for tywiins evil deeds.

[Anath]

Evil act done with evil intentions, plus no actual need to kill them at all... I have to say yes, truly evil in my book.

[Darksnider05]

Evil as you can get there are just to many solutions in Westeros that don't involve death.

[Kurogane]

Realistically all of Aerys' male heirs needed to be killed in order to secure Robert's throne. Even if Aegon had been sent to the NW, he might desert and try to build up an army. Plenty of the NW have broken their vows before. However, Rhaenys did not need to die, the Silent Sisters would have served for her.

[tydides]

Just because it is dangerous for the Lannister to keep the kids alive, doesn't mean it was any less evil. it means that it made sense, and that Tywin isn't really some sort of sociopath (though gregor certainly is) and that he is a harshly rational, survivalist, evil man.

[Anath]

Realistically all of Aerys' male heirs needed to be killed in order to secure Robert's throne. Even if Aegon had been sent to the NW, he might desert and try to build up an army. Plenty of the NW have broken their vows before. However, Rhaenys did not need to die, the Silent Sisters would have served for her.

Tywin had punishment in mind, not securing Robert's throne.

Actually, if Tywin hadn't acted, I can totally see Robert puffing out his chest and calling out in dramatic voice, "Who's gonna rid me of those dragonspawns?" but not actually ordering their deaths. He didn't have it in him. He was not this evil. As we ca see, he regrets ordering Dany's murder, and that's after he became what he became. He might have wanted them death but I doubt he'd have the heart or stomach to actually see to it.

[The Wolves]

^ But Robert wasn't fighting for the throne, the rebels goal was not the throne so therefore Aegon and Rhaenys didn't need to be killed at all

[The Broke Howard Hughes]

So because MAYBE one day they could grow up and attempt to bring their loved ones killers to justice its okay to kill them. Yeah, no. That doesn't work for me.

[The Wolves]

So because MAYBE one day they could grow up and attempt to bring their loved ones killers to justice its okay to kill them. Yeah, no. That doesn't work for me.

But who would grow up to strike vengeance for two men who died while you were a baby?

Aegon would have NO reason to start a war as long as he kept his crown and his family was unharmed

[Fat Mac]

They shouldn't have killed them, nor should they have crowned them.

Raise all four Targaryen children (Viserys, Aegon, Rhaenys and Daenerys) in separate regions, under separate people, marry them to nobles, and breed the line out of existence. Viserys would have been the only one with memories of his Targaryen relatives, so he'd be the most dangerous. But even still, not a threat in the long run.

[sleath56]

The only reason why the kids were killed is because Tywin entered so late in the war, that he'd need to do something extreme to be inthe Rebellion's good light after their inevitable victory.

If Ned had entered the city, the kids would have never died.

Remember, that initially, the Rebellion didn't have the intention of Robert becoming king. They only wanted to depose Aerys and bring back Lyanna.

It's only after that the immense success in the Rebellion (death of Rhaegar at the Trident) and Tywin's killing of the remaining fami

ly, that they thought Robert should become king. They initally had no intention of wiping out the 300 year old dynasty and their eventual extirpation.

The best course of action at the time, if Tywin never did his regicide, was for Aegon to become King with Jon Arryn to become Hand.

This way, Targaryen loyalists are satisfied, no threat to the IT, Dorne is content (Aegon is Doran & Oberyn's nephew) and Jon Arryn could mold Aegon into a great king and sympathetic to the rebels' cause. (instead of the 'Usurper's Dogs')

Basically, Tywin screwed everything up. (The man boasts about legacy, but never thinks of the long term conseuences for his actions)

[Kurogane]

They only wanted to depose Aerys and bring back Lyanna.

It's only after that the immense success in the Rebellion (death of Rhaegar at the Trident) and Tywin's killing of the remaining fami

ly, that they thought Robert should become king. They initally had no intention of wiping out the 300 year old dynasty and their eventual extirpation.

Do we know exactly when Robert and co. decided good ole' Bob should seize the crown? I don't think it's ever made clear.

[sleath56]

Do we know exactly when Robert and co. decided good ole' Bob should seize the crown? I don't think it's ever made clear.

It definitely wasn't the original intent, however. They only wanted justice for Lyanna and to depose Aerys for killing the Starks.

It seems that the idea got moving with the death of Rhaegar at the Trident. They probably wouldn't have let Robert fight in front and be in so much danger as he did (especially his early campaigns alone in the Stormlands), if they wanted him to be the new king.

This takes example from history as well:

The Roman Julio-Claudii dynasty (descendants of Julius Caesar and started with Emperor Augustus) was the first Imperial dynasty and at the time of Nero's death; there was never an intention for the family itself to be deposed. Everyone in Rome lived and died under these divinified Emperors, and people had no intention of having the bloodline changed to some random rebel.

Men were riding to find Nero to put him under the Senate's protection so that they could work out a compromise with the rebels for Nero to be able to at least produce a heir, but a miscommunication by Nero's servants reported to Nero that the men riding were going to give him a public execution. He committed suicide due to this and the Julio-Claudii bloodline died with him.

[CosimaistheHottest]

Tywin had punishment in mind, not securing Robert's throne.

Actually, if Tywin hadn't acted, I can totally see Robert puffing out his chest and calling out in dramatic voice, "Who's gonna rid me of those dragonspawns?" but not actually ordering their deaths. He didn't have it in him. He was not this evil. As we ca see, he regrets ordering Dany's murder, and that's after he became what he became. He might have wanted them death but I doubt he'd have the heart or stomach to actually see to it.

I could totally see Robert mumbling about the dragonspawn and how they should die but not actually killing the kids. Probably even less so if he was actually in the room with them with Elia holding Aerys and Rhaenys clinging to her.