Vic Sage Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I've often wondered about that myself the best conclusion I can come up with is that he thought that The Mad King could still be reasoned with and learned otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marsyao Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I've often wondered about that myself the best conclusion I can come up with is that he thought that The Mad King could still be reasoned with and learned otherwise. Exactly, the situation in front of Rickard was first the crown prince kidnapped his daughter, this was an insult to his house but obviously the crown prince did that without King's leave, so what a loyal subject of the King shall do now was to submit a petition asking for King's justice, otherwise if he immediately called his bannermen, even his own bannermen would think this was a rebellion with no valid causes, On the other hand, his son was arrest for shouting insult in front of King's residence and threating the life of the crown prince, you ought to admit that was a crime, and Rickard could only ask for mercy from his King by telling him the cause of his son's folly. I would think at that time, Rickard think he at least could demand a trial by combat for his son. If the King was reasonable, then it was very much possible that things would be settle peacefully, but what we can say, Mad king is the mad king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barty Posted December 16, 2014 Author Share Posted December 16, 2014 Exactly, the situation in front of Rickard was first the crown prince kidnapped his daughter, this was an insult to his house but obviously the crown prince did that without King's leave, so what a loyal subject of the King shall do now was to submit a petition asking for King's justice, otherwise if he immediately called his bannermen, even his own bannermen would think this was a rebellion with no valid causes, On the other hand, his son was arrest for shouting insult in front of King's residence and threating the life of the crown prince, you ought to admit that was a crime, and Rickard could only ask for mercy from his King by telling him the cause of his son's folly. I would think at that time, Rickard think he at least could demand a trial by combat for his son. If the King was reasonable, then it was very much possible that things would be settle peacefully, but what we can say, Mad king is the mad king. Ned stated in open court that Joffrey was not the rightful King - he was rightfully arrested. Yet when Robb called his banners no one said "wait a second - ned is clearly guilty - we have no valid reason to rebel". Also the last time Rickard and Aerys were together, Aerys walked of building another wall 200 miles north of the present one. Did Rickard really think that this man was sane and could be counted upon for a reasonable solution to the crisis?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterfell is Burning Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Ned stated in open court that Joffrey was not the rightful King - he was rightfully arrested. Yet when Robb called his banners no one said "wait a second - ned is clearly guilty - we have no valid reason to rebel". That's because Robb, and all the other lords, learned from what happen to Rickard. Before this, they had no reason to assume the King would murder a LP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marsyao Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Ned stated in open court that Joffrey was not the rightful King - he was rightfully arrested. Yet when Robb called his banners no one said "wait a second - ned is clearly guilty - we have no valid reason to rebel". This was after what Lannisters did to Bran, and after the death of Robert, the iron thorne was completely under Lannister's control, his father was accursed for treason which carried a death sentence, Robb was confront with option of either completely submit or rebel, so he choose rebel and his bannermen saw this was the only option too. Rickard faced different situation, the conflict here was between house Stark and crown prince, he had nothing against the King directly, and Brandon had not done anything guarantee to be sentence to death yet, of course he ought to try solving it peacefully at first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordBloodraven Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Rickard coming to KL rather than start a war confirms to me that the "Southron Ambitions" thing, or at least the part in which he was trying to overthrow the Targaryens, is 100% bullshit. People put too much faith in the words of a bitter woman, and one that might just been saying what Roose wants to hear. I agree wit this. On topic, perhaps because Rickard in 283 AC was a more experienced man than his grandson Robb in 298 AC. Rickard clearly had right on his side. Why would he gamble it with a war when compromise could be reached? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marsyao Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I agree wit this. On topic, perhaps because Rickard in 283 AC was a more experienced man than his grandson Robb in 298 AC. Rickard clearly had right on his side. Why would he gamble it with a war when compromise could be reached? Exactly, I wonder if Branden was not such a hothead, instead of rushing to Red Keep, he just waited for Rickard, and these two went to the King with hats in their hand, asking for an audience to present their case, then what would happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jet199 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I am a believer in the "Rickard was a knight" theory. I think he bought all the honour BS that goes with knighthood and it killed him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joluoto2 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Exactly, the situation in front of Rickard was first the crown prince kidnapped his daughter, this was an insult to his house but obviously the crown prince did that without King's leave, so what a loyal subject of the King shall do now was to submit a petition asking for King's justice, otherwise if he immediately called his bannermen, even his own bannermen would think this was a rebellion with no valid causes, On the other hand, his son was arrest for shouting insult in front of King's residence and threating the life of the crown prince, you ought to admit that was a crime, and Rickard could only ask for mercy from his King by telling him the cause of his son's folly. I would think at that time, Rickard think he at least could demand a trial by combat for his son. If the King was reasonable, then it was very much possible that things would be settle peacefully, but what we can say, Mad king is the mad king. Yeah, I think Rickard certainly thought the Targaryen family had greatly wronged him, with his daughter "kidnapped" and his son arrested, but a) he knew his children were hostages at this point, calling the banners would cause their deaths b ) he probably thought he could force the king to release his children, after all he was in the right, and his family had been wronged first. c) we know the North call the banners relatively quickly after Rickard's death. He could have instructed Benjen to quietly prepare for the worst by instructing some key bannermen to start gathering their men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.T. Phipps Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 I am a believer in the "Rickard was a knight" theory. I think he bought all the honour BS that goes with knighthood and it killed him. One doesn't even have to think he was a knight to believe a war is a ridiculous escalation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Sage Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 Exactly, I wonder if Branden was not such a hothead, instead of rushing to Red Keep, he just waited for Rickard, and these two went to the King with hats in their hand, asking for an audience to present their case, then what would happen? Same thing that happened in the 1st place burned alive.It didn't matter how good of a case they had.In The Mad King's eyes they were traitors for even demanding that something be done about Rhaegar that sealed their fate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of the Vale Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 He was to honurbal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VVSINGOFTHECROSS Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 He was to honurbal Not necessairly. there was no reason to start a war, discussions could ahve been had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Rickard's Southron ambitions seem to be connected more to the Targaryens and the Small Council, as Rickard seems to have interacted with the Iron Throne much more directly then any Stark Lord since Aegon V (who greatly helped out the Starks during the harsh winter from 130-136 AC). The idea that the man was trying to accomplish something different makes no sense to me. If TWoIaF confirmed anything then that the Starks were pretty much always out of the loop with what was going on in the South. They ruled the North in the name of the Targaryens but remained virtually independent. In return, they effectively no influence or voice at court in the South despite the fact that they were one of the great houses of the Realm (few exceptions like Cregan Stark aside). Rickard Stark attempted to change that with Southron marriage alliances (formerly mostly a no go with the Starks of the last two centuries). He clearly tried to convince the lords in the South (and the Iron Throne) that the Starks were important and that their voice should be heard. And by the way: The Second Wall idea was not in itself bogus. Yandel himself discusses a similar idea in a much less ridiculous fashion, suggesting that something like was seriously discussed in the South as a means to get rid of both the NW and the whole wildlings thing. In fact, if the Others would not exists such a thing could actually work, as the whole trouble with depopulation etc. in the North goes back to the wildling not the Others threat, and the NW was at that time simply not equipped to prevent wildling raidings. As to why he did not rebel: If we combine accounts from the App and TWoIaF then it seems very likely that Rickard simply had neither time nor opportunity to rebel or raise an army. He was already on his way to Riverrun with the major party of the wedding guests, whereas Brandon and his companions raced ahead and heard whatever they heard about Lyanna. Then Brandon did what he did, and Rickard did not have the time to call his banners as he was already in the South. Perhaps he sent ravens to his castellan and loyal lords to prepare for war, but he himself could not go back. Perhaps he also did not go completely voluntarily to KL, as there may have been Targaryen loyalists in the Riverlands he was visiting when the news reached him who were not inclined to let him go back home... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wmarshal Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Because he was out to demand justice as was his right, Aerys may have been insane, but Rickard was still a lord of the North and his son him were in the right of it. Also Aerys and Rhaegar's relationship was so messed up he probably thought he would hand him over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.