Mal Malenkirk Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 The thought occured to me that the rebels didn't really have a plan for taking King's Landing or at least they don't talk about it at all. So say Tywin wasn't a backtstabber but decided he owed Aerys nothing and continued to remain nuetral in the war. What were the Rebels going to do when Ned took KL? They would have besieged King's Landing with but a fractions of their force and then would have done the round, collecting surrender and allegiance for Robert Baratheon while it lasted. Mace Tyrell would have surrendered to Ned just as readily, I'm sure. Perhaps Aerys would have ultimately burned down the city but I like to think Jaime would still have killed him in that scenario and then might have been in position to surrender the city. In other words, things might have turned out much worse (the city burns) or much better (A clean surrender without sack). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sword of the Morgan Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Trial and execution for Aerys, Aegon goes to the Wall, Elia and Rhaenys become Silent Sisters. This sounds plausible. I'm not sure if Robert would have killed them if it hadn't been done for him already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 This sounds plausible. I'm not sure if Robert would have killed them if it hadn't been done for him already. As long as Ned Stark and Jon Arryn were standing next to him? No way in hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion of the West Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 If Jaime didn't kill Aerys and his Pyromancers then when the rebels came storming over the walls they would've been toasted in green fire along with the entire city. After that it was just the matter of capturing Dragonstone and killing Viserys and Daenerys, or marry her to Robert's firstborn. No way in hell that they would allow House Targaryen to survive to act in the same way for the Baratheons that the Blackfyres acted for the Targaryens. And yes, Eddard and Jon might have bitched, but if they did its rather remarkable that the good Jon Arryn was so eager to tie the horrble Tywin to Robert and didn't raise any trouble for Tywin, Gregor or Amory afterwards. And if they did make noise Robert could just kill the Targs when the other two had returned home. Sorry folks, but both Robert and Jon knew that House Targaryen had to be wiped off the face of the earth for the Baratheons to rule safely. Eddard might absolutely have been both dull enough to not see that and with the honorable disposition that the death of thousands of innocents are worth it if you can keep your own hand clean from dirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 And yes, Eddard and Jon might have bitched, but if they did its rather remarkable that the good Jon Arryn was so eager to tie the horrble Tywin to Robert and didn't raise any trouble for Tywin, Gregor or Amory afterwards. And if they did make noise Robert could just kill the Targs when the other two had returned home. Sorry folks, but both Robert and Jon knew that House Targaryen had to be wiped off the face of the earth for the Baratheons to rule safely. Eddard might absolutely have been both dull enough to not see that and with the honorable disposition that the death of thousands of innocents are worth it if you can keep your own hand clean from dirt.Wall/Silent Sisters would accomplish exactly the same and spare you the bad PR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In A Coat of Gold Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Ned and Jon Arryn convince him to ransom Elia and the children to Dorne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Ned and Jon Arryn convince him to ransom Elia and the children to Dorne. Not that would indeed be extremely dumb. Elia, maybe. The children? No way in hell!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In A Coat of Gold Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Not that would indeed be extremely dumb. Elia, maybe. The children? No way in hell!. Then Dorne declares independence and the Iron Islands soon after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Then Dorne declares independence and the Iron Islands soon after. Like Dorne did when the children were actually slaughtered? While they are hostages? And the IT got 370,000 swords? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avalatis Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 I think some posters are missing the point of the thread. Ned was absolutely appalled by the slaughter of Elia and her Children and the sack of King's Landing. Which leads me to believe they either a.) didn't have a plan b.) had something else in mind c.) Jon and Robert decided to keep the hard truth from poor Ned. Ned and Jon Arryn convince him to ransom Elia and the children to Dorne. Maybe Elia, not the children. The Children have a claim to the throne and you have just legally given them safe harbor in a area that has an army. Either the wall/silent sisters for the children or Robert might have decided not to take the throne. I almost think that Robert hadn't planned on sitting on the throne by the end of the war (assuming they won). Which means he might have ruled a Regent. Haven't there been times in English history where the Barons rebelled against the king and essentially made a puppet king after they won? The Magna Carta I believe was drafted because of one of these conflicts. Just becuase a faction rebels against the throne doesn't mean they plan on sitting a new King on the throne or changing the Dynasty (though that does happen). I think Tywin's action forced the rebels hands on this matter. That is why I'm interesting in what people think they might have attempted to do once they had King's Landing secure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valyrian Lance Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I think some posters are missing the point of the thread. Ned was absolutely appalled by the slaughter of Elia and her Children and the sack of King's Landing. Which leads me to believe they either a.) didn't have a plan b.) had something else in mind c.) Jon and Robert decided to keep the hard truth from poor Ned. Maybe Elia, not the children. The Children have a claim to the throne and you have just legally given them safe harbor in a area that has an army. Either the wall/silent sisters for the children or Robert might have decided not to take the throne. I almost think that Robert hadn't planned on sitting on the throne by the end of the war (assuming they won). Which means he might have ruled a Regent. Haven't there been times in English history where the Barons rebelled against the king and essentially made a puppet king after they won? The Magna Carta I believe was drafted because of one of these conflicts. Just becuase a faction rebels against the throne doesn't mean they plan on sitting a new King on the throne or changing the Dynasty (though that does happen). I think Tywin's action forced the rebels hands on this matter. That is why I'm interesting in what people think they might have attempted to do once they had King's Landing secure. Could be as simple as why plan for something that isn't necessarily a foregone conclusion. They had no idea if they would be able to take any of them alive. There is no reason to plan for something like that. Take the city, see where you lie, and then make decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Blue Eyes Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Maybe Elia, not the children. The Children have a claim to the throne and you have just legally given them safe harbor in a area that has an army. Either the wall/silent sisters for the children or Robert might have decided not to take the throne. I almost think that Robert hadn't planned on sitting on the throne by the end of the war (assuming they won). Which means he might have ruled a Regent. Haven't there been times in English history where the Barons rebelled against the king and essentially made a puppet king after they won? The Magna Carta I believe was drafted because of one of these conflicts. Just becuase a faction rebels against the throne doesn't mean they plan on sitting a new King on the throne or changing the Dynasty (though that does happen). I think Tywin's action forced the rebels hands on this matter. That is why I'm interesting in what people think they might have attempted to do once they had King's Landing secure.The rebels decided on King Robert at the Trident. No regency or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Wolf Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Aegon would be raised at WF as Ned's ward and take the black when he came of age Elia would be made to become a septa, be sent home to Sunspear, or kept at court as a hostage. Rhaenys could be made a septa, silent sister, or married to Robert's heir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avalatis Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 The rebels decided on King Robert at the Trident. No regency or anything. I wasn't aware of this.Was this stated in the books? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion of the West Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Wall/Silent Sisters would accomplish exactly the same and spare you the bad PR. As long as they are alive they can be rescued or "rescued" by Targaryen supporters. Not to mention that with Aegon at the Wall any man can a generation or so later claim to be his bastard son, and so press a claim. Initial bad PR is rather unavoidable when you establish a new dynasty on the Iron Throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lannister Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Aegon would be raised at WF as Ned's ward and take the black when he came of age Elia would be made to become a septa, be sent home to Sunspear, or kept at court as a hostage. Rhaenys could be made a septa, silent sister, or married to Robert's heir I definitely could see Ned insisting Aegon being allowed to live and taking care of him as a ward until he came of age. Making him take the Black would be interesting and I suppose it's very questionable if Aegon would serve honorably or be an embittered at his lot. Elia, I could see being released to Dorne in exchange for their loyalty to Robert with Rhaenys as a hostage at court. I doubt very much Robert would marry Rhaegar's daughter to his son under any circumstances though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 I generally agree with the idea that Aerys would have been killed, Elia probably sent back to Dorne and the kids shipped off to a religious order or, for Aegon, the Wall. I'm not sure they'd even risk political marriages for either of them, because down the line that's just another source of support. Rhaenys, maybe. Aegon, no. As for the Tyrells, I think the entire point of Mace sieging Storm's End was so that he could sit on his ass and look like he was "helping" without actually getting too involved or putting himself at risk. If it came down to actually having to fight to save King's Landing, I think Mace would sooner just give in to Robert. The Tyrells are risk-averse opportunists at heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pod The Impaler Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Aerys probably burns the city to ashes when Robert's army arrives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 There's a blog called Lady Despenser's Scribery, which I'd recommend to anyone interested in Edward II and III. The author argues that when Isabella and Mortimer executed Hugh De Spenser, they dealt with his family very harshly by forcing three of his daughters to become nuns. By ASOIAF standards, that's gentle indeed.The complete extermination of a defeated royal family is unusual by European standards. Kings have been deposed and quietly murdered (the likeliest fate for Aerys in this scenario) but their wives, daughters-in-law, infant children and grand-children were generally considered off-limits. I think we should view the murder of Elia and her children (and the likely murder of Rhaella, Viserys, and Daenerys had they been caught) as not just shocking by our standards, but also shocking by the standards of Westeros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithras Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 As for the Tyrells, I think the entire point of Mace sieging Storm's End was so that he could sit on his ass and look like he was "helping" without actually getting too involved or putting himself at risk. If it came down to actually having to fight to save King's Landing, I think Mace would sooner just give in to Robert. The Tyrells are risk-averse opportunists at heart. Mace's parents were spurned by the Targaryens. That is why this makes so much sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.