nicephorus_phocas Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 If the Southern conspiracy is true, would the Targaryens have been overthrown anyway even if Aerys were not mad? Were the conspirators planning to turn Rhaegar into their puppet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolves Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf's Bane Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 No. The Seven kingdoms prospered under his reign, despite his madness. The small folk were happy. Most of the nobles were happy. It's just those two malcontents, Rickard Stark and Robert Baratheon that would have caused problems. A healthy Aerys could have arranged to entrap them for treason and execute them. I wish he had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bent branch Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 I think that was what some people wanted, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Southern Conspiracy? Rickard Stark was the centerpiece and he was anything but a Southerner. Anyway, Aerys being mad was the root of the entire alliance-building between the Lords Paramount. If he hadn't spent twenty years making people nervous about his insane actions, there would be no need for a conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good Guy Garlan Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Yes, but his madness made his downfall easier. And I don't think the Citadel would've been okay with Rhaegar ruling, considering his interest in prophecies and magic stuff like that. And seeing that his belief in prophecies likely caused a civil war, it's hard to blame them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicephorus_phocas Posted May 31, 2016 Author Share Posted May 31, 2016 So what was Rheagar thinking when he absconded with Lyanna? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good Guy Garlan Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 49 minutes ago, nicephorus_phocas said: So what was Rheagar thinking when he absconded with Lyanna? That he was fulfilling a world-saving prophecy. That's my guess, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 5 hours ago, nicephorus_phocas said: So what was Rheagar thinking when he absconded with Lyanna? "ProphecyprophecyprophecyprophecyI'msoexcitedforprophecy" "Thinking" is the wrong word anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady_of_the_black Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 No way. Nobody wants war. If the king is just, then all is well in the realm. The kings craziness sparked the rebellion for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jen'ari Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 5 minutes ago, Lady_of_the_black said: No way. Nobody wants war. If the king is just, then all is well in the realm. The kings craziness sparked the rebellion for sure. What she said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Wait, what? "Nobody wants war?" About 100 out of 110 billion humans historically alive disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ McLannister Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 On 5/31/2016 at 0:26 AM, nicephorus_phocas said: So what was Rheagar thinking when he absconded with Lyanna? I want to plow that girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady_of_the_black Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 40 minutes ago, Bright Blue Eyes said: Wait, what? "Nobody wants war?" About 100 out of 110 billion humans historically alive disagree. Well, in westeros, peace is better for everybody. The Starks don't want to get involved in war. My point is, war doesn't usually start for no freakin reason. And where do you get those numbers? If I went and asked 100 people if they wanted to go to war, wtf do you think they would say? The people who have to fight typically don't want to.. little finger is all about war and chaos, but he is craven. He is never fighting! And he is one in a thousand. The majority of the army is made up of fighters, so I totally disagree with you. Maybe screwed up dudes with fat wallets want war, for their benefit. But the majority disagrees. Unless it's for freedom, but even then, nobody wants to match to their eminent deaths! A man like rickard doesn't want to send so many of his men to war.. Unless there is a very good reason, like an insane king. Those men are valuable. Want to vs have to.. there's a pretty big difference there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Raventree Hall Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Well, King Aerys, not mad, wouldn't have burned any Starks to death, and probably would have demanded his son return Lyanna...so there wouldn't have been anyone angry in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 5 hours ago, Lady_of_the_black said: Well, in westeros, peace is better for everybody. The Starks don't want to get involved in war. My point is, war doesn't usually start for no freakin reason. And where do you get those numbers? If I went and asked 100 people if they wanted to go to war, wtf do you think they would say? The people who have to fight typically don't want to.. little finger is all about war and chaos, but he is craven. He is never fighting! And he is one in a thousand. The majority of the army is made up of fighters, so I totally disagree with you. Maybe screwed up dudes with fat wallets want war, for their benefit. But the majority disagrees. Unless it's for freedom, but even then, nobody wants to match to their eminent deaths! A man like rickard doesn't want to send so many of his men to war.. Unless there is a very good reason, like an insane king. Those men are valuable. Want to vs have to.. there's a pretty big difference there. That line of thought is barely 70 years old and restricted to the richer countries. Westeros did not experience two world wars, nor is it as rich as current Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tianzi Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 If Aerys wasn't mad, there would be no casus belli, no real support for the potential rebels, war would be handled better, oh, and he wouldn't get rid of Tywin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 Or he'd gotten rid of Tywin fifteen years earlier. Tywin's tenure as Hand is way overrated. He inherited the office in the best shape in three centuries, the last problems being solved about a year earlier, and left it in the worst position since the Dance of Dragons (debatably worse), just a year before the shit hit the fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boarsbane Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 14 minutes ago, Bright Blue Eyes said: Or he'd gotten rid of Tywin fifteen years earlier. Tywin's tenure as Hand is way overrated. He inherited the office in the best shape in three centuries, the last problems being solved about a year earlier, and left it in the worst position since the Dance of Dragons (debatably worse), just a year before the shit hit the fan Tywin paid of the crowns debt from his own pockets, reconciled the crown and the Iron Bank, kept Aerys from draining the treasury and fighting an idiotic war, the fact that it is overflowing when Robert inherits probably has a lot to do with the man who supposedly shits gold. Tywin can't cure Aerys insanity so not sure what you think he could of done to prevent the coming events, a man can only take so much shit before he has enough. Maybe the rebellion had more to do with Aerys, Rhaegar, and Brandon being complete morons than the previous Hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonisHenryTudor Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 11 hours ago, Bright Blue Eyes said: Wait, what? "Nobody wants war?" About 100 out of 110 billion humans historically alive disagree. Uh yeah.... 10 hours ago, Lady_of_the_black said: Well, in westeros, peace is better for everybody. The Starks don't want to get involved in war. My point is, war doesn't usually start for no freakin reason. And where do you get those numbers? If I went and asked 100 people if they wanted to go to war, wtf do you think they would say? The people who have to fight typically don't want to.. little finger is all about war and chaos, but he is craven. He is never fighting! And he is one in a thousand. The majority of the army is made up of fighters, so I totally disagree with you. Maybe screwed up dudes with fat wallets want war, for their benefit. But the majority disagrees. Unless it's for freedom, but even then, nobody wants to match to their eminent deaths! A man like rickard doesn't want to send so many of his men to war.. Unless there is a very good reason, like an insane king. Those men are valuable. Want to vs have to.. there's a pretty big difference there. In the 21st century, but that statement does not account for, nor does it reflect, the "warrior cultures" of previous centuries. Even as late as the 19th century, war was a central part of imperial/colonial life. No, it is not simply "men with fat wallets", but the warrior elite of society were highly esteemed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.