Southron Ambitions

[WeKnowNothing]

3 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

No... it went perfectly as it was expected to.  The whole coalition was meant to protect its component members from unjust persecution by the Crown.  It wasn't meant to encompass every Lord Paramount.  And that is exactly what happened.  Rhaegar abducted Lyanna, and Aerys killed Rickard and Brandon without a real trial, and then called for the heads of the completely uninvolved Robert and Ned.

And as a result, they overthrew an unjust monarchy.  How could the concept have been more validated?  Not only was the scheme strong enough to foment a rebellion, it was strong enough to win.  They didn't need Tywin; the reason Tywin commits at all is because he knows the war is lost for the throne and wants to get in on the winning side.

And no, Brandon and Robert weren't part of it.  It was Rickard, Hoster, and Jon Arryn.  There is some indication that Tywin was meant to be involved (remember, Jaime was supposed to meet and maybe marry Lysa), but Aerys' tyranny forced their hand early, and Hoster, who seems to have been a cunning political operator, demanded an additional concession to join the active rebellion.

It did not go as planned. Jaime was supposed to marry Lysa, but his naming into the kingsguard stopped that - therefore giving Tywin the choice to either stay neutral or be on Aerys's side (if he saw any advantages in whichever one). And they needed Tywin. The Lannisters rule the west, which means that they are neighbours to Hoster in the east - therefore making it easy for Tywin to plunder the Riverlands (as seen in TWOT5K) if he ever decided to take Aerys's side. Plus the fact that Tywin was probably richer than all of them in gold, and can also field upto 30,000 men or so. Technically having Tywin on your side in a war is way better than having him on the opposing one. 

What I meant to say that the 'Sothron ambitions' was never strong to win before the war. If the lords decided to go against Aerys before Robert's rebellion, they would have failed. Before the war, they only had the Starks, the Arryns, the Tully's and the Baratheons taking part. That is like 4 houses against how many with the crown? The Targearyens would have the Martells, all the houses of the reach, half the Stormlands, the crownlands, and the Lannisters (if Tywin decided to side with him) fighting for them. They can approximately field up to 45,000-50,000 men altogether with is way more than what the rebelling houses had (around 30/35,000). It's because Tywin never sided with Aerys during Robert's rebellion that made Aerys loose badly, Tywin would have defeated the rebels very early on. 

To your last point - Robert and Brandon not being part of it is just what i said. And it is implied in Jaime's POV's Tywin was supposed to be part of it but he couldn't since Jaime becoming a kingsguard made him unable to marry Lysa - therefore giving Tywin reason to stay out. Tywin only sacked Kings Lanidng as he knew Robert was winning (well, some would say it was because Tywin wanted revenge - but you can choose what you want to believe), and Tywin wanted to show him Robert his loyalty.

[cpg2016]

7 minutes ago, WeKnowNothing said:

It did not go as planned. Jaime was supposed to marry Lysa, but his naming into the kingsguard stopped that - therefore giving Tywin the choice to either stay neutral or be on Aerys's side (if he saw any advantages in whichever one). And they needed Tywin. The Lannisters rule the west, which means that they are neighbours to Hoster in the east - therefore making it easy for Tywin to plunder the Riverlands (as seen in TWOT5K) if he ever decided to take Aerys's side. Plus the fact that Tywin was probably richer than all of them in gold, and can also field upto 30,000 men or so. Technically having Tywin on your side in a war is way better than having him on the opposing one. 

They obviously did not need Tywin, since they didn't actually have Tywin, and still won the war.

Obviously it is better to have Tywin in the fold than not.  But the purpose of the Southron Ambitions plot was not to bring every lord into the realm into a web of alliances for shits and giggles.  It was for a purpose, which if you're being charitable was to protect each other against royal overreach, and if not, to be ready to make a power play if and when Rhaegar moves to call a council to curb his father's power.

But since those Lords managed to rebel and win, they by definition got exactly what they wanted from the alliance; the power to assert themselves against the throne, of Aerys II ever turned his insanity on them.

Quote

What I meant to say that the 'Sothron ambitions' was never strong to win before the war. If the lords decided to go against Aerys before Robert's rebellion, they would have failed. Before the war, they only had the Starks, the Arryns, the Tully's and the Baratheons taking part. That is like 4 houses against how many with the crown? The Targearyens would have the Martells, all the houses of the reach, half the Stormlands, the crownlands, and the Lannisters (if Tywin decided to side with him) fighting for them.

And during the rebellion.... it was only the Starks, the Arryns, the Tullys and the Baratheons.  All the houses of the Reach, many in the Stormlands and the Vale, and the Martells fought against Aerys/Rhaegar.

So what, exactly, is the difference?  Tywin is the swing player there, but they KNOW he's pissed at Aerys and unlikely to help the man who snubbed him, and might see more gain in throwing his weight behind a winning coalition.

Long story short, the Southron Ambitions bloc had enough power to depose the monarchy as long as Tywin remained neutral, because that is exactly what happened.

Quote

To your last point - Robert and Brandon not being part of it is just what i said. And it is implied in Jaime's POV's Tywin was supposed to be part of it but he couldn't since Jaime becoming a kingsguard made him unable to marry Lysa - therefore giving Tywin reason to stay out. Tywin only sacked Kings Lanidng as he knew Robert was winning (well, some would say it was because Tywin wanted revenge - but you can choose what you want to believe), and Tywin wanted to show him Robert his loyalty.

Well, it is also implied that Jaime didn't care for Lysa and only wanted Cersei, so whether it would have worked out is anyone's guess.

But again... take your scenario.  Tywin stays out of the war as IOTL, because he has no reason to support the rebels and has been snubbed too many times by Aerys to fight for him.  We KNOW what happens in this situation, because this is what happened!  Robert and the rebels win!  So who cares if Tywin wasn't part of the coalition to begin with?  The coalition doesn't exist to entice Tywin to join, it exists to make sure its members are protected against royal overreach.  And it served that purpose to a T.  You have no argument here; you're whole point is proven false by the actual events of the novel.

[WSmith84]

6 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Here is something you may find interesting.  It comes from "A Storm of Swords" from a Jaime chapter in which he remembers the day he murdered King Aerys II and his father's men found him in the throne room.  Pages 156-160.

"Shall I proclaim a new king as well?" Crakehall asked, and Jaime read the question plain:  Shall it be your father, or Robert Baratheon, or do you mean to try to make a new dragonking? He thought for a moment of the boy Viserys, fled to dragonstone, and Rhaegar's infant son Aegon, still in Maegor's with his mother.  A new Targaryen king, and my father as Hand.  How the wolves will howl, and the storm lord choke with rage.

If we take this passage on its own in isolation, it may not mean much other than the Starks and the Baratheons hating the Targaryens.  However, when put together with those clues you provided, it does point a finger to the Starks and the Baratheons already plotting to replace the Targaryens with Robert even long before Lyanna was napped.

I believe there was a conspiracy so I don't blame Aerys for executing Brandon and Rickard.  If those men were plotting to remove the Targaryens then they got off easier than what they deserved. 

Nope. Robert declared his intention to take the Throne after the Trident. The Storm Lord would 'choke with rage' and the 'wolves will howl' because Robert had already declared his intent to take the throne. It indicates nothing of the Baratheons or Starks' feelings toward the Targaryens before the Rebellion.

20 hours ago, Lame Lothar Frey said:

If we're very generous and give Rickard the benefit of the doubt, we can say he was disloyal to his king and the ruling family.  A good subordinate lord doesn't put himself in a position where he can be strong enough to usurp his king.  Rickard was disloyal and the king would be correct to remove him from power.  I would counsel for Rickard's death but I would advice a silent execution.  Send a faceless man to kill Rickard, Robert, Jon Arryn, Lyanna, and Eddard.

Abject nonsense. Dealing with your subordinates becoming more powerful (and therefore a threat) is part of a ruler's job. It's the Game. Aerys should have dealt with it like a proper ruler; minimise the threat whilst antagonising as few people as possible. Like, for example, marrying his son Viserys to Lysa Tully/Cersei Lannister. Or inviting Hoster to foster his son in KL, perhaps as squire to his son Rhaegar. Just a couple of possibilities. Aerys can no more kill Rickard for making alliances than Rickard could kill Roose Bolton for doing the same. Hell, if that counts as disloyalty, Hoster Tully should have executed Walder Frey considering he married his family into basically every House that would have him, including the Lannisters.

[cpg2016]

2 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

Abject nonsense. Dealing with your subordinates becoming more powerful (and therefore a threat) is part of a ruler's job. It's the Game. Aerys should have dealt with it like a proper ruler; minimise the threat whilst antagonising as few people as possible. Like, for example, marrying his son Viserys to Lysa Tully/Cersei Lannister. Or inviting Hoster to foster his son in KL, perhaps as squire to his son Rhaegar. Just a couple of possibilities. Aerys can no more kill Rickard for making alliances than Rickard could kill Roose Bolton for doing the same. Hell, if that counts as disloyalty, Hoster Tully should have executed Walder Frey considering he married his family into basically every House that would have him, including the Lannisters.

Amen. This is literally the definition of feudal politics, which Lame Lothar Frey doesn't understand.  You win loyalty by handing out lands and honors and marriages.  The whole game a feudal lord plays is balancing his vassals against one another.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

This is the silliest thread I have seen in the last year. Congratulations!

Another Stark hate thread. How original *yawing*. 

I love how the op claims that the Starks were those who were conspiring against Aerys when what we know for sure is that Rhaegar was the one who was conspiring to over thrown Aerys.

 

22 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

Abject nonsense. Dealing with your subordinates becoming more powerful (and therefore a threat) is part of a ruler's job. It's the Game. Aerys should have dealt with it like a proper ruler; minimise the threat whilst antagonising as few people as possible. Like, for example, marrying his son Viserys to Lysa Tully/Cersei Lannister. Or inviting Hoster to foster his son in KL, perhaps as squire to his son Rhaegar. Just a couple of possibilities. Aerys can no more kill Rickard for making alliances than Rickard could kill Roose Bolton for doing the same. Hell, if that counts as disloyalty, Hoster Tully should have executed Walder Frey considering he married his family into basically every House that would have him, including the Lannisters.

Agree with everything. Just to mention something about the bolded part. If the alliances worked like to OP *thinks* then all the families should married only members of their family.

 

[kissdbyfire]

These Stark hate threads always bring up "conspiracies" and Rickard's "southron ambitions" - which, in reality, we know nothing about other than what Lady Dustin tells Theon - as if these things could actually justify what Aerys did. 

But not a single one mentions the fact that Aerys II had obligations as king, and he failed miserably at fulfilling them.  

[Jon's Queen Consort]

19 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

These Stark hate threads always bring up "conspiracies" and Rickard's "southron ambitions" - which, in reality, we know nothing about other than what Lady Dustin tells Theon - as if these things could actually justify what Aerys did. 

Also not even Lady Dustin tells us what she means. Other than that, it is simply dumb for someone to believe that a not Stark would had known about the alleged conspiracy.

19 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

But not a single one mentions the fact that Aerys II had obligations as king, and he failed miserably at fulfilling them.  

The Targs were never wrong. Ned and Robert should had committed suicide after killing their families just to please Aerys.

[kissdbyfire]

8 minutes ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

Also not even Lady Dustin tells us what she means. Other than that, it simple dumb for someone to believe that a not Stark would had known about the alleged conspiracy.

 

Exactly that. But hey, any excuse is a good excuse, right? Right?

 

8 minutes ago, The Doctor's Consort said:

The Targs were never wrong. Ned and Robert should had committed suicide after killing their families just to please Aerys.