Rhaegar, Lyanna, and the consequences of their actions (assuming it was consensual elopement)

[Wmarshal]

My point is that the war wasn't just and they bear more responsibility for it than Rhaegar and Lyanna.

Bringing about war to save 2 people one a worthless piece of shit is not justifiable I don't care about self defense.

You do realize if he gave them up, his word turns to shit and the North and Stormlands go to war anyway right? How many state leaders need to die so Rhaegar and his dad can feel comfortable?

[The Wolves]

@The Wolves So you're saying that Robb was wrong for rebelling against Joffrey?

Yes and no.

Yes because I think him marching his men into war with winter coming was bad for everyone and he should have sued for peace.

No because Joffery and the whole court and family are filled with monsters and I think Westeros as a whole would be better off if they were disposed of unlike the Targs who I think should have stayed in power.

And I'm not saying that Ned and Robert should have just taken Aerys calling for their head I'm saying that their war was not justified 100% it caused more problems for everybody and to many innocent people suffered for it. And I don't like Robert so I see nothing wrong in Aerys killing him.

[The Wolves]

You do realize if he gave them up, his word turns to shit and the North and Stormlands go to war anyway right? How many state leaders need to die so Rhaegar and his dad can feel comfortable?

Arryn rebelled against his King who he swore an oath to hold the Vale and East in the Targaryns' name his word became shit when he rebelled.

And it would not have been war. Ned could have hoped up in the North with the neck between him and Aerys and Robert could have stayed up in the Eyrie.

[Wmarshal]

Yes and no.

Yes because I think him marching his men into war with winter coming was bad for everyone and he should have sued for peace.

No because Joffery and the whole court and family are filled with monsters and I think Westeros as a whole would be better off if they were disposed of unlike the Targs who I think should have stayed in power.

And I'm not saying that Ned and Robert should have just taken Aerys calling for their head I'm saying that their war was not justified 100% it caused more problems for everybody and to many innocent people suffered for it. And I don't like Robert so I see nothing wrong in Aerys killing him.

Why? Tommen is a good boy as are many Lannister bannermen and kin are generally stable. People suffered because Rhaegar kidnapped a girl and his father killed her father and brother as well as demanded the heads of more.

[Wmarshal]

Arryn rebelled against his King who he swore an oath to hold the Vale and East in the Targaryns' name his word became shit when he rebelled.

And it would not have been war. Ned could have hoped up in the North with the neck between him and Aerys and Robert could have stayed up in the Eyrie.

Aerys killed his heir for no reason at all. His word was kept, Aerys broke his.

And lands invaded by Targ loyalist, made prisoner in their castles while their people were assaulted.

[TallTyrion]

Arryn rebelled against his King who he swore an oath to hold the Vale and East in the Targaryns' name his word became shit when he rebelled.

And it would not have been war. Ned could have hoped up in the North with the neck between him and Aerys and Robert could have stayed up in the Eyrie.

No it didn't. The feudal contract is a two way street the King doesn't get to demand whatever he wants.

Right so Ned can hide in the North while Jon and Robert starve to death besieged in the Eyrie.

[Lee-Sensei]

So the Targs can do whatever they want and everyone just has to accept it? TW, once didn't you say that the Starks owe the Baratheons nothing as they've ruled themselves for thousands of years and have only been ruled by the Baratheons for 15 years? By that logic, why do Robert, Ned and Jon owe the Targaryens loyalty?

[The Wolves]

So the Targs can do whatever they want and everyone just has to accept it? TW, once didn't you say that the Starks owe the Baratheons nothing as they've ruled themselves for thousands of years and have only been ruled by the Baratheons for 15 years? By that logic, why do Robert, Ned and Jon owe the Targaryens loyalty?

Let's not forget that Arryn and Robert were already Lord Paramounts they had already swore their alliances, it was Rickard who swore to Aerys Ned didn't swear anything.

And no the Targs can't do whatever they want I'm not saying that im arguing the idea that Ned, Arryn, and Robert was justified in plunging a country into war because of the call for their heads. I do think they had a right to defend themselves but I'm just not agreeing that going to war is justifiable because Aerys wanted their heads nor is Rhaegar and Lyanna responsible for the war.

My opinions and arguments but I'm not getting anywhere so I'll let it go, I'm getting bored.

[Hardtack]

We don't know that until we get the full story. We do know that Ned was enraged at the murder of Elia and her children. But, suppose the other rebel leaders weren't? Suppose Tywin was not acting on his own, but got the green light from Hoster Tully and Jon Arryn to finish off the Targaryens once and for all?

That's pure speculation, though, whereas we know Ned was surprised and appalled by the murders of Elia Martell and her children, which suggests that extermination House Targaryen was not openly part of the rebellion's goals.

Like I said Aerys was alright being King when he was burning people not related to the great houses but once he started on them and theirs it was time to go to war.

Actually, it appears that a number of people had been scheming to quietly get rid of him for quite a while. Possibly they were being more subtle about it because they didn't want to provoke a civil war and dynastic change.

As to Rhaegar not bearing responsibility:

1) As crown prince, Rhaegar has a great deal of official and de facto authority over the realm (the latter arguably increased by his father's madness), so he holds some active responsibility with respect to the stability of the realm.

2) Rhaegar was aware that his father was dangerously insane and particularly paranoid about treason.

3) Rhaegar knew that abducting Lyanna Stark was very likely to create tension between the throne and the Starks. Rather than be on hand to defuse the tension he helped create, he disappears and leaves the situation in the incapable hands of his paranoid nutjob father. Even after Aerys' incendiary actions, he could have at least tried to de-escalate things before the rebellion really got going, but he is nowhere to be found until things are far too late.

Thus, I think it's fair to attribute significant responsibility to Rhaegar. His actions indirectly precipitated rebellion, and, more importantly, he was utterly negligent in attempting to manage the resulting fallout. He isn't solely responsible, but he's far more so than Ned Stark or Robert Baratheon.

[Toos]

Let's not forget that Arryn and Robert were already Lord Paramounts they had already swore their alliances, it was Rickard who swore to Aerys Ned didn't swear anything.

And no the Targs can't do whatever they want I'm not saying that im arguing the idea that Ned, Arryn, and Robert was justified in plunging a country into war because of the call for their heads. I do think they had a right to defend themselves but I'm just not agreeing that going to war is justifiable because Aerys wanted their heads nor is Rhaegar and Lyanna responsible for the war.

My opinions and arguments but I'm not getting anywhere so I'll let it go, I'm getting bored.

What could they do to defend themselves?

[SeanF]

That's pure speculation, though, whereas we know Ned was surprised and appalled by the murders of Elia Martell and her children, which suggests that extermination House Targaryen was not openly part of the rebellion's goals.

Actually, it appears that a number of people had been scheming to quietly get rid of him for quite a while. Possibly they were being more subtle about it because they didn't want to provoke a civil war and dynastic change.

As to Rhaegar not bearing responsibility:

1) As crown prince, Rhaegar has a great deal of official and de facto authority over the realm (the latter arguably increased by his father's madness), so he holds some active responsibility with respect to the stability of the realm.

2) Rhaegar was aware that his father was dangerously insane and particularly paranoid about treason.

3) Rhaegar knew that abducting Lyanna Stark was very likely to create tension between the throne and the Starks. Rather than be on hand to defuse the tension he helped create, he disappears and leaves the situation in the incapable hands of his paranoid nutjob father. Even after Aerys' incendiary actions, he could have at least tried to de-escalate things before the rebellion really got going, but he is nowhere to be found until things are far too late.

Thus, I think it's fair to attribute significant responsibility to Rhaegar. His actions indirectly precipitated rebellion, and, more importantly, he was utterly negligent in

attempting to manage the resulting fallout. He isn't solely responsible, but he's far more so than Ned Stark or Robert Baratheon.

I think I'd provisionally agree with most of that.

The reason for my speculation is that the author is withholding important information from us (for all I know, it could show the Targaryens in a worse light, rather than the rebels).

[Anath]

Exactly!!!

Lyanna and Rhaegar were irresponsible but their actions shouldn't in no way been a reason to start a war I don't care what happened with Lyonel Baratheon you just don't plunge a realm into war because of some girl getting kidnapped.

Rhaegar clearly didn't care either. "You don't just plunge a realm into war because of some girl getting kidnapped, so I'll kidnap her despite knowing that this might lead to the realm I want to rule being plunged into a war and hide away bravely and if you do plunge it into a war, I'll be sparkly clean because you really shouldn't have. I don't care what history said, I'll have my prophecy and my girl and everyone else will be responsible, starting with my mad father."

I find this way of thinking deeply troubling. His future subjects should have been more to him than pawns on the chessboard of his prophecy and nether parts, and abstract theories of what was hypothetically right.

As to Lyanna, if she indeed died clutching the blue laurel Rhaegar gave her, that would be an interesting end of her arch. Regression. She started off brilliantly, like someone who defended the weak, went through the reasoning of "the heart wants what the heart wants and everyone can go shoot themselves" and ended up the mate part of the pair, unable to feel true regret and caring mostly about the one who impregnated her, family and everyone else be damned, depending on Ned's goodwill.

[SeanF]

Arryn rebelled against his King who he swore an oath to hold the Vale and East in the Targaryns' name his word became shit when he rebelled.

And it would not have been war. Ned could have hoped up in the North with the neck between him and Aerys and Robert could have stayed up in the Eyrie.

Doing nothing, and letting your enemy attack you at will, would be unwise.

Ned, Robert, and Jon Arryn were entiteld to defend themselves. Once Robert claimed the Iron Throne for himself, then the war went beyond legitimate self-defence. Deposing (and probably executing) Aerys was an inevitability. Seizing the Throne, and killing Rhaegar's children wasn't. Had Aegon been made King, the rebels would have served as Regents for years, and Elia and the Dornish would have had a strong vested interest in being loyal to them,

[Chaircat Meow]

Doing nothing, and letting your enemy attack you at will, would be unwise.

Ned, Robert, and Jon Arryn were entiteld to defend themselves. Once Robert claimed the Iron Throne for himself, then the war went beyond legitimate self-defence. Deposing (and probably executing) Aerys was an inevitability. Seizing the Throne, and killing Rhaegar's children wasn't. Had Aegon been made King, the rebels would have served as Regents for years, and Elia and the Dornish would have had a strong vested interest in being loyal to them,

They'd have had to face the music when Aegon grew up and understood that they had killed his father.

[SeanF]

They'd have had to face the music when Aegon grew up and understood that they had killed his father.

He wouldn't remember him. His mother would have no reason to remember Rhaegar kindly. And, he could have been wed to one of their daughters.

[Chaircat Meow]

He wouldn't remember him. His mother would have no reason to remember Rhaegar kindly. And, he could have been wed to one of their daughters.

My impression is that Robert was seen as a potential replacement king right from the start, and that the war was fought in the knowledge he might begin a new dynasty. However, the actual final decision to go with Robert, not Rhaegar or Aegon came, according to GrrM, around the time of the Trident. Ned was presumably behind it, along with Jon, Hoster and so on. Why do you think the rebels made the leap to having Robert as king, and why at the time they did?

[Anath]

My impression is that Robert was seen as a potential replacement king right from the start, and that the war was fought in the knowledge he might begin a new dynasty. However, the actual final decision to go with Robert, not Rhaegar or Aegon came, according to GrrM, around the time of the Trident. Ned was presumably behind it, along with Jon, Hoster and so on. Why do you think the rebels made the leap to having Robert as king, and why at the time they did?

Because Rhaegar whom people had looked up to as their possible salvation from Aerys at the end acted like a true specimen of his dynasty in "the dragon takes what it wants" part, disrespecting them and not being around to explain what the hell had gotten into him, let alone hiding somewhere away and letting everyone else face the music after ascerbating Aerys' paranoia for the last few years, especially at Harrenhall.

By not being there to do something, whatever it was, he lost the status of their future savior and in their eyes, he became the next Duncan the Small + Aerys himself who only cared about their privileges and wants but not their bannermen.

[SeanF]

My impression is that Robert was seen as a potential replacement king right from the start, and that the war was fought in the knowledge he might begin a new dynasty. However, the actual final decision to go with Robert, not Rhaegar or Aegon came, according to GrrM, around the time of the Trident. Ned was presumably behind it, along with Jon, Hoster and so on. Why do you think the rebels made the leap to having Robert as king, and why at the time they did?

Jaime thought that Aegon might be crowned King, after he killed Aerys. But, Jaime was obviously out of the loop.

I can only speculate. There are alternative possible reasons:-

1. Much of the nobility wanted rid of the Targaryens, from the beginning. TWOIAF Spoiler

Aegon V had made himself dangerously unpopular with the nobility, as he sought to restrict their privileges in favour of the Smallfolk.

Aerys II had made himself unpopular for other reasons. They wanted to eradicate the dynasty root and branch because they saw it as a threat (it need not follow that all of the rebels - such as Ned Stark - had this aim).

2. Robert's ambitions grew as the Rebellion gained strength. What started as a campaign of self-defence, turned into a campaign to avenge himself on Rhaegar, and to seize the Iron Throne. This would be similar to the way that Bolingbroke originally intended to reclaim the Duchy of Lancaster, and finished up taking the Throne from Richard II.

3. Robert feared reprisals in the future (as you suggest) if any Targaryens were left in a position of power, and by taking the Iron Throne, he sought to protect himself from reprisals.

One final point. Ned was genuinely enraged by the murder of Rhaegar's children. But, what else could he have expected once Robert made his bid for the Iron Throne? There are alternatives to killing royal children, but TWOIAF shows that the murder of royal children has been distressingly common in Westeros' history. Was he just being naive?

[Wmarshal]

Let's not forget that Arryn and Robert were already Lord Paramounts they had already swore their alliances, it was Rickard who swore to Aerys Ned didn't swear anything.

And no the Targs can't do whatever they want I'm not saying that im arguing the idea that Ned, Arryn, and Robert was justified in plunging a country into war because of the call for their heads. I do think they had a right to defend themselves but I'm just not agreeing that going to war is justifiable because Aerys wanted their heads nor is Rhaegar and Lyanna responsible for the war.

My opinions and arguments but I'm not getting anywhere so I'll let it go, I'm getting bored.

And Aerys murdered his heir and called Robert's head for no reason, why do you keep forgetting this?

So what? They should have starve to death in their castles while Aerys men assaulted their people?