Was the rape/murder of Elia and Aegon/Rhaenys justified?

[TheFullmetalAlchemist]

I got into a discussion with someone about this, and their argument was that the kids were killed so that no future Targaryens could be rallied around, and Elias rape/murder was simply a part of the spoils of war. A part of me can somewhat agree with the first point(though I think alternatives could have been chosen), but I cant agree at all with the second.

[Basileus777]

Morally? No. In terms of realpolitik, Aegon at least needed to die.

[Skythe1]

Wow... I guess it depends what you mean by justified? We see in the books that reasonable people don't agree that it was necessary to go that far.

[Game Of Thrones]

Aegon needed to die to preserve House Baratheon. Rhaenys-maybe, as women cannot sit on the Iron Throne. Elia? That was just plain brutality, especially as it pissed Doran off.

[Alia Atreides]

I was go into a discussion someone about this, and their argument was that the kids were killed so that no future Targaryens could be rallied around, and Elias rape/murder was simply a part of the spoils of war. A part of me can somewhat agree with the first point(though I think alternatives could have been chosen), but I cant agree at all with the second.

It was only through annihilation of House Targayren that House Bartheon would be able to ascend to the IT without threat, as long as those children were still alive there was always a threat to try and take it back. Its a pragmatic view point and the most rational of choices it still sucked in my opinion.

EDIT: Also to as long as any were alive the son would rise up one day to a man and perhaps seek vengeance upon his Parent's killers as well.

[The Bittersteel]

The rape and murder of Elia was unnecessary in my opinion no matter how ruthless you are, doesn't seem to gain anything for anyone. If House Baratheon was going to rule they needed to die but I've always argued that if the rebellion was truly 'just' then they should have raised Aegon and crowned him instead. He shouldn't have paid for the sins of his mad grandfather.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Elia didn't need to die, Tywin said it himself. Of course, murdering the children was still an insult to Dorne.

[Frey Pentos]

Killing the children can be understood in political terms but the rape of Elia was just plain brutality and has caused ripples which are still being felt in the Kingdom.

[Lion of the West]

Killing Rhaegar's children was necessary unless Robert planned to wed his firstborn with Rhaenys and so gain a better claim, however with Robert's hatred for the Targaryens that option was out of the window. Killing Elia was unnecessary although I still think that Dorne would be in the same general sentiment regardless.

[TheFullmetalAlchemist]

The rape and murder of Elia was unnecessary in my opinion no matter how ruthless you are, doesn't seem to gain anything for anyone. If House Baratheon was going to rule they needed to die but I've always argued that if the rebellion was truly 'just' then they should have raised Aegon and crowned him instead. He shouldn't have paid for the sins of his mad grandfather.

I agree. At the end of the day Robert was an awful king, the again hindsight is 20/20. Aegon could have been raised to be a better king most likely.

Spoilers

This is all disregarding that Aegon might still be alive of course.

[The Bittersteel]

I know the circumstances are different but William I let Edgar the Aetheling live in 1066, so the opposite does sometime happen and successfully I might add.

[bent branch]

I think in order to answer this question we need to ask ourselves who else would have ordered the killing of the children? I think it is clear that neither Jon Arryn nor Ned Stark would have killed the children. I also think that Robert Baratheon would have been talked out of killing the children. Therefore, I think the killing of the children was unnecessary. Westeros had social structures in place to deal with the threat posed by Aegon and Rhaenys without killing them. We see that Viserys and Dany were not hunted down and they posed as great of threat as Aegon would have. I think the killing of the children was more an act of revenge by Tywin on Aerys than any necessity. Obviously, Elia's rape and killing couldn't be justified in any manner if Tywin didn't even try to justify it.

[SeanF]

Despite what Tywin said, if it was necessary to kill the children, it was necessary to kill Elia. The rape was sheer barbarism.

If Elia's children had been murdered, but she'd been left alive, she'd be seeking vengeance, as would the Dornish. She'd be a perpetual embarrassment to the new government.

I'm of the view that the murder of the children (and by extension Elia) was completely unjustified.

[CJ McLannister]

The rape and murder of Elia was odd. The war was started (at least in Robert's mind) because Rhaegar rejected Elia and went off to "rape" Lyanna. Elia was then held hostage in King's Landing. So, she's a victim, and, in some way could be seen as an ally to the cause. But the children had to go. And killing her children in front of her, then shipping her back to Dorne would be problematic as well. She would remain a rallying point for Targaryen loyalists. So, in some way, she had to be dealt with. It just didn't need to be so brutal.

[Bedwyck]

If they really feel the need to murder children in order to feel secure on the throne then they have no business taking the throne in the first place. Aerys was mad and needed to go. His assassination/removal was necessary. The war was overkill.

[kiasyd]

I fail to see justification to any rape or murder.

[WSmith84]

Could Aegon not have been sent to the Wall and raised as a man of the Night's Watch? At least there he would have Maester Aemon as family and he would surely be less of a threat there than if he was simply exiled. Rhaenys would be a bit more tricky to deal with, but she could have been wed to someone who would be loyal to Robert, perhaps Edmure Tully, and she would be a "guest" at Riverrun. I think Edmure would be a bit older than Rhaenys, but not enough to really matter. These measures probably would have been enough to keep the Dornish happy, considering they were on the losing side. I suppose the danger comes from children that Edmure and Rhaenys might have, but I suspect with a little planning of future marriages, disaster could have been avoided. The rape and murder of Elia is indefensible.

Come to think of it, Robert could have made good use of the fact that Tywin killed the children and Elia. Even if Tywin was internally delighted at their deaths, he should have acted outraged. He could have executed Tywin for his crimes, appeasing the Dornish (which could be cemented by offering to marry his own heirs to Martells down the line) and making them less likely to support the remaining Targaryens (after all, if their new King is prepared to execute his own powerful Lords for committing crimes, it makes Robert look just). He could have removed Jaime from the Kingsguard for the justified oathbreaking and made him Lord of Casterly Rock. The Lannisters would probably be pissed at Robert, but I can't see the surviving Targaryens looking to the Lannisters for support and I can't see the Lannisters being that eager to support them.

[ForgottenKnight]

Read The Prince and Other Writings by Niccolo Machiavelli.

[Hodor the Articulate]

Erm...is this person that you were talking to a rapist, by any chance? 'Cuz I don't how war justifies rape and murder.

[Talking Hodor]

None of it was necessary. It was a war crime. Even Aegon and Rhaenys could have been handed over to Robert as wards/hostages and kept on a very short leash. Heck, once all was said and done, Robert technically didn't have any legitimate heirs, Stannis' child ain't going to make it out of childhood, and Renly and Loras most definitely won't be having any kids. The crown could have returned to them after the Baratheon line was extinguished.