Was the destruction of the Targaryen dynasty necessary?

[Cantthinkofa]

I understand that say for instance Robert hated the Targaryens for what happened with Lyanna but seriously, why did the opposing leaders allow it to happen? I think it's a bit extreme killing not only your enemy but also babies and children, it makes me uncomfortable to think that honourable men like Ned kind of just let it happen. I just think it was a bit too far to be honest

[The Wolves]

It wasn't necessary at all. Aerys was the one who killed the lords unjustly, Aerys unfairly demanded the heads of two high lords, Aerys was the sick person who started most of it. Rhaegar did take Lyanna and as far as we know didn't explain himself so yeah he gets some blame.

But killing Elia, Rhaenys, and Aegon than hunting Dany and Viserys is evil and did not need to happen.

I do blame Robert along with the idiots that proclaimed him King for part of their deaths. Robert getting crowned king on the Trident meant the Targs' death and that's why Tywin marched yet the way he was awarded and excused by their deaths makes me hate Tywin, Robert, and Arryn and has me holding ill feelings against Ned for standing by people who would kill innocent babies or stand over their bodies and make them less human or reward their murders.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I've occasionally wondered what would have happened if (for whatever reason) Gregor and Amory weren't around to murder the children, and Jaime had decided to declare King Aegon VI Targaryen on a whim. Does Tywin make the best of a bad situation "oh, sorry for sacking the city... I've got fifteen years as regent to explain to the little King that it was a misunderstanding," or does he go for gold, tell Jaime to shut up, and push Robert regardless?

[Hutch]

From a tactical standpoint it makes sense. You've just ousted a king that has heirs and a long history of ruling the area. Robert would have been foolish to attempt taking the throne with so many legitimate heirs still around.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

I understand that say for instance Robert hated the Targaryens for what happened with Lyanna but seriously, why did the opposing leaders allow it to happen? I think it's a bit extreme killing not only your enemy but also babies and children, it makes me uncomfortable to think that honourable men like Ned kind of just let it happen.

For starters, Ned didn't allow that. Furthermore, no rebel leader allowed that. They weren't in the city when Tywin committed that atrocity, they didn't know of it and could have done nothing to prevent that. Robert allowed that to go unpunished, on the other hand (which almost ended his friendship with Ned). An explanation I subscribe to is "because Robert was a huge asshole".

[BalerionTheCat]

Ned was too late to prevent Aegon, Rhaenys and Elia deaths. But I think he would have opposed it. Tywin said it was his men who did it without orders. But he didn't punish them. Neither Robert, who would, if given the choice, also have killed Viserys and Daenerys. Ned could do nothing more than bring more death, isolate himself and the North. And maybe force Robert to declare war to the North because he could not tolerate a rebel Lord.

I would believe Tywin gave the order. He delayed before supporting Robert. The murders would have been a way for him to show his loyalty to Robert, to cut all bridges with the opposite side, and to marry his daughter. Aerys was a shit, but the Targaryens ruled for very long, with some good and some bad. And if Robert or his sons after him, were to become bad kings, and some good pretender was available in the Targaryen line, then likely the lords would rebel again and return the Targaryen dynasty. Look at the Blackfyres rebellions for what problems a pretender can raise.

So, I would say yes. It was not right, but Robert could not dream of a Baratheon dynasty without getting rid of all the direct Targaryen. Or, someone could have just removed Aerys and crowned Rhaegar. Even if Robert and Brandon disagreed. But someone made it so this was not an option. This one is Varys.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

Ending the dynasty was necessary. Murder wasn't. That's what vows of celibacy are for.

The murder was all on Tywin. Ned wanted him dead or at least at the Wall for it. Robert and Jon Arryn didn't want a second civil war over it and stopped Ned. That almost ended Ned and Robert's friendship for good, only the shared grief for Lyanna kept them from despising each other.

[The Wolves]

From a tactical standpoint it makes sense. You've just ousted a king that has heirs and a long history of ruling the area. Robert would have been foolish to attempt taking the throne with so many legitimate heirs still around.

That's the thing Robert shouldn't have taken the throne.

I know people say the rebels didnt have any obligation to keep a Targ on the throne but Robert never wanted the throne so why take it? Plus the rebellion was never fought for that ugly chair so why not proclaim Aegon King and keep some Targs in custody? Why does innocent babies die for someone who never wanted to be king have to happen?

The rebels should have handled the situation better, made better decisions than the ones they did cause everyone has lead to arguably the worst war Westeros have ever seen.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

That's the thing Robert shouldn't have taken the throne.

I know people say the rebels didnt have any obligation to keep a Targ on the throne but Robert never wanted the throne so why take it? Plus the rebellion was never fought for that ugly chair so why not proclaim Aegon King and keep some Targs in custody? Why does innocent babies die for someone who never wanted to be king have to happen?

The rebels should have handled the situation better, made better decisions than the ones they did cause everyone has lead to arguably the worst war Westeros have ever seen.

Mostly because "I've killed your father and grandfather, no hard feelings, yes?" rarely works.

[RoamingRonin]

Because Tywin wanted it to happen.

I've occasionally wondered what would have happened if (for whatever reason) Gregor and Amory weren't around to murder the children, and Jaime had decided to declare King Aegon VI Targaryen on a whim. Does Tywin make the best of a bad situation "oh, sorry for sacking the city... I've got fifteen years as regent to explain to the little King that it was a misunderstanding," or does he go for gold, tell Jaime to shut up, and push Robert regardless?

Actually, Jaime only considered declaring Aegon king but he changed his mind. He decided to sit and see what the outcome of the battle would be.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

From a tactical standpoint it makes sense. You've just ousted a king that has heirs and a long history of ruling the area. Robert would have been foolish to attempt taking the throne with so many legitimate heirs still around.

While you could try to defend the murders on pragmatic grounds, Bob's infamous "dragonspawn" line said that for him, it was personal. Which pretty much makes good King Robert a stinking piece of shit. His beef was with Mad King Aerys, and with Rhaegar, but he had no personal score to settle with a two-year-old girl and a boy not half that age.

[Hutch]

Mostly because "I've killed your father and grandfather, no hard feelings, yes?" rarely works.

Pretty much this. If you're going to help raise a king that's going to grow up with nothing but animosity towards you, you're going to have a bad time. No regime change is going to be easy, more so when the new king grows to power knowing you've killed their family. I say again, from a tactical standpoint it would have been a foolish way to go about things.

[The Wolves]

Mostly because "I've killed your father and grandfather, no hard feelings, yes?" rarely works.

This argument holds no weight at all.

Why would Aegon start a war for two men he never met? Why would he risk his kingdom and the loyalty of a couple of great houses because if people he never met? Who is going to whisper into his ear the Dornish who was pissed at the way Elia and her kids were treated by Rhaegar and Aerys?

[Fat Mac]

This argument holds no weight at all.

Why would Aegon start a war for two men he never met? Why would he risk his kingdom and the loyalty of a couple of great houses because if people he never met? Who is going to whisper into his ear the Dornish who was pissed at the way Elia and her kids were treated by Rhaegar and Aerys?

Because they are his family, they are where he comes from. That is important to a lot of people, whether or not you meet them. Aegon would very likely grow up building up resentment that these men from all around the country had turned against his family, and almost exterminated them. They denied him a relationship with people who shared the same culture and traits, for their own political gain. Why wouldn't he be angry at that?

[Hutch]

While you could try to defend the murders on pragmatic grounds, Bob's infamous "dragonspawn" line said that for him, it was personal. Which pretty much makes good King Robert a stinking piece of shit. His beef was with Mad King Aerys, and with Rhaegar, but he had no personal score to settle with a two-year-old girl and a boy not half that age.

No arguments that it was a shitty thing to do. But I would say that given the circumstances it was also a logical thing to do. As is often the case, logic and emotion war in this instance.

[Cantthinkofa]

I suppose allowing one of the Targaryen heirs to ascend to power would mean the death of the main rebels now that I think of it, I've always though of Elia's death to be ridiculous as well, kind of a 'I don't need to kill her but I'm lustful and why the hell not?' Kind of death

[Mithras]

Yes. Without a doubt.

[caravaggio]

This argument holds no weight at all.

Why would Aegon start a war for two men he never met? Why would he risk his kingdom and the loyalty of a couple of great houses because if people he never met? Who is going to whisper into his ear the Dornish who was pissed at the way Elia and her kids were treated by Rhaegar and Aerys?

Dany is alive and wants vengeance for people she never met.

I think the Blackfyre stories show us what happens when you leave loose ends.

Was there some alternative? Maybe, but killing them all off is the best way to assure stability within the new regime.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

I suppose allowing one of the Targaryen heirs to ascend to power would mean the death of the main rebels now that I think of it, I've always though of Elia's death to be ridiculous as well, kind of a 'I don't need to kill her but I'm lustful and why the hell not?' Kind of death

More like "how dare that trollop steal Rhaegar (and the crown) from Cersei Lannister! That requires punishment!"

Tywin is an asshole. That's his MO.

[Hutch]

Because they are his family, they are where he comes from. That is important to a lot of people, whether or not you meet them. Aegon would very likely grow up building up resentment that these men from all around the country had turned against his family, and almost exterminated them. They denied him a relationship with people who shared the same culture and traits, for their own political gain. Why wouldn't he be angry at that?

To add a little to this, I would also say that the Targs had been ruling for so long they have an engrained sense of righteousness as evidenced by Danys beliefs, and surely Aegon would have felt the same. Basically a "how dare you challenge such a historic, noble family?" mentality.