Am I the only one who thinks it was scummy of the Baratheons to lead a rebellion?

[Mal Malenkirk]

Overthrowing the targaryens no matter what house you are is the most idiotic thing you can do. Targaryens were viewed as rulers that couldn't be over throwed, blood of dragons and God's. They're was stability in their rule (unless they fought each other) because they're power was viewed higher than the other lords. When you break that you're immediately saying "well if we can take the 7 kingdoms, so can you". The supposed power balance is completely destroyed. Succession is screwed up. Even renly used RR as reasoning for his claim. My point is proved since the aftermath of Roberts rule was completely disastrous

By that logic, the Targaryen should rule for all eternity.

A good thing we didn't follow that logic in the real world or we'd all still be under the thumb of monarchs who claimed to rule by divine right. Think about the chaos involved in removing them, it's just not worth it, right?

Sometime, things have to get worse before they get better.

[Ser Patroclo]

Honour is just a polite fiction to keep the wheels turning, when shit needs to get done it gets done regardless.

I agree with the underlined part.

The rebellion was successful because many people were already preparing to use 'brute force', if things would have not become brighter.

Do not forget the 'Southern Ambitions', and the 'strange' alliances that were being consolidated through marriages even before the war started.

I believe that, just like TWo5K, things just accelerated on their own, out the hands of the many people interested into.. ..changing the status quo.

And when the chance appeared, they took it: Aerys took the chance to get rid of some of his enemies, Arryn took the chance to raise up his banners with a 'legitimate' excuse.

Just think how things could have been different if Arryn never ever thought of rebelling before, if he did not alredy know that he could leverage on some alliances made for this exact purpose.. ..would he have risked his own family and dynasty for two kids?

Just think how things could have been different if Aerys never thought to be surrounded by potential rebels, would he have made such heavy demands?

And who was the common denominator of both wars? Varys.

[Dorian Martell]

You need a reread with the following quotes in mind when you do like the one below

Minor slights?

Aerys wanted Robert dead, along with Ned.

Jon Aryn called the banners, not Robert. They just used Robert's Targaryen ancestry as a reason to put him at the fore front for the Throne if they should win

and the next

Right off the bat you're wrong, Jon Arryn was the first to rebel and de facto leader until the trident.

and the next

Wars have been started over less.

I'm not sure Robert (or anyone at this point) was planning to overthrow the entire Targaryen dynasty. Robert was mad that Lyanna was taken, the Starks were mad that Lyanna was taken, and then instead of Aerys being like, 'oh hey I'm sorry about my son kidnapping That girl' he kills Rickard and Brandon. And tells Jon Arryn to turn over Robert and Ned.

What were they supposed to do at that point? 'Sorry boys but the Mad King said I have to surrender you both' doesn't seem very Jon Arryn-esque.

While it may seem like Robert went to war because he was pissed and sulking over Lyanna and Rhaegar, I really don't see how he had any other choice.

and the next

Aerys asked for The heir of Storms Ends head, killed his best friends father & brother for no reason & His prophecy obsessed son kidnapped his betrothed... Good solid reasons for rebellion for me

Yes Jon Arryn calls the banners, but Robert gladly takes up the mantle of the cause.

Well I think it's well established that Robert was out for any Targaryen blood he can get, as witnessed by his being glib about the death of Rhaegar's infant daughter and (what he thinks is) Rhaegar's child son.

Bob fought for his foster dad, the only father figure he had. He loved Jon, and he loved Ned, and half of Ned's family was taken away. Gladly taking up the mantle is a poor rationale for condemning someone that fought a battle of survival. He only hates Rhaegar because the prince was responsible for taking away the woman he loved and was going to marry

[The silver dragon]

rebelling was pretty justified.

overthrowing them was considerable less so.

because when your forced to kill children/condone the killing of children, as a matter of politics.

maybe you should abandon that line of politics? :dunno:

[Lord Ser Septon Maester]

rebelling was pretty justified.

overthrowing them was considerable less so.

because when your forced to kill children/condone the killing of children, as a matter of politics.

maybe you should abandon that line of politics? :dunno:

That's the point I was trying to articulate, I'm not saying they should have all said "Ok Aerys, you're nuts so we'll let you burn us alive" but after Aerys/Rhaegar was dead they could have installed Aegon and maintained the status quo (Jamie says point blank they could have done that)-which more than any other great house, the Baratheons were bound by honor to do.

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

So as we all know "Robert's Rebellion" was led by Robert Baratheon, the Lord of Storm's End, Lord Paramount of the Stormlands joined by the Starks, Tullys, Arryns, and (theoretically) the Lannisters. Now, the Starks, Arryns and Lannisters were all kings of their respective territories before the Targaryen Conquest when they were REDUCED to lordships, so as a matter of course it is understandable that they would eventually rebel, but the Baratheons were bastards RAISED to the lordship of Storm's End, they had NOTHING if not for the Targaryens, which makes it just a little assholey and dishonorable for them to overthrow the Targaryens over minor slights. We aren't used to weighing actions based on what our ancestors were doing three centuries ago but we are talking about a feudal society, ie: no one has anything if not for their ancestors. Now Robert was an idiot who thought with his cock and didn't really care about honor but it seems Stannis, he of the iron will who cannot be reasoned with, should have stayed loyal as a matter of honor (yes he gives Jon a speech about how hard it was for him but at the end of the day he chose treason). Thoughts?

Orys killed the Storm King Argilac and seems to forcibly have married his daughter. So the Baratheons were heirs to the Storm Kings who were dethroned by Orys. Orys was a bastard but Argella was a princess. It was her inheritance. So you know, maybe the Targs had it coming for what they did to Robert's ancestors.

Overthrowing the targaryens no matter what house you are is the most idiotic thing you can do. Targaryens were viewed as rulers that couldn't be over throwed, blood of dragons and God's. They're was stability in their rule (unless they fought each other) because they're power was viewed higher than the other lords. When you break that you're immediately saying "well if we can take the 7 kingdoms, so can you". The supposed power balance is completely destroyed. Succession is screwed up. Even renly used RR as reasoning for his claim. My point is proved since the aftermath of Roberts rule was completely disastrous

That is a hell of a caveat. The Targs oversaw the biggest wars in Westerosi history because they 'fought each other'. If an independant Dorne fights an Independant Reach an Independant Vale or North doesn't care. In the Targ rule everyone had to get involved, everyone suffered. A rebellion was going to happen eventually because Targs weren't special, they weren't different. Robert's rebellion was it. They annoyed the wrong people.

[LordStoneheart]

I agree that Robert was a giant sack of shit, but he is not all of House Baratheon (though the lot of them aren't that great either.)

[Lord Ser Septon Maester]

Orys killed the Storm King Argilac and seems to forcibly have married his daughter. So the Baratheons were heirs to the Storm Kings who were dethroned by Orys. Orys was a bastard but Argella was a princess. It was her inheritance. So you know, maybe the Targs had it coming for what they did to Robert's ancestors.

That is a hell of a caveat. The Targs oversaw the biggest wars in Westerosi history because they 'fought each other'. If an independant Dorne fights an Independant Reach an Independant Vale or North doesn't care. In the Targ rule everyone had to get involved, everyone suffered. A rebellion was going to happen eventually because Targs weren't special, they weren't different. Robert's rebellion was it. They annoyed the wrong people.

But there was a stability there too, a vassal Reach and a vassal Westerlands can't really fight each other.

[Laughing Storm Reborn]

I agree that Robert was a giant sack of shit, but he is not all of House Baratheon (though the lot of them aren't that great either.)

It's a funny world we live in good sir, we are 100% on opposite sides in this matter... I find Bob a good guy in some ways and the Baratheons cool as heck...

[Wolf of The Wall]

But there was a stability there too, a vassal Reach and a vassal Westerlands can't really fight each other.

Targaryens ruled Westeros for 300 years and 3 civil wars occured (Dance of the Dragons, Blackfyre Rebellion and Robert's Rebellion) and most of the realm bleed in that time so it wasn't that peacefull.

[Mithras]

So as we all know "Robert's Rebellion" was led by Robert Baratheon, the Lord of Storm's End, Lord Paramount of the Stormlands joined by the Starks, Tullys, Arryns, and (theoretically) the Lannisters. Now, the Starks, Arryns and Lannisters were all kings of their respective territories before the Targaryen Conquest when they were REDUCED to lordships, so as a matter of course it is understandable that they would eventually rebel, but the Baratheons were bastards RAISED to the lordship of Storm's End, they had NOTHING if not for the Targaryens, which makes it just a little assholey and dishonorable for them to overthrow the Targaryens over minor slights....

I only managed to read up to this point. Minor slights really? Aerys asked the head of Robert although he did absolutely nothing but sure, it is a minor slight.

[Universal Sword Donor]

But there was a stability there too, a vassal Reach and a vassal Westerlands can't really fight each other.

Really? I seem to remember the IB fighting the Westerlands and North several times, even raiding the Reach. The Dance of Dragons was all vassals fighting each other. The Blackfyre rebellion was a similar occurrence. RR was 4 of 7 regions revolting, 5 if you include the Lannisters. The Faith Militant and their allies gave everyone a shit ton of trouble.

[Minsc]

A sentiment Robert no doubt shared but Stannis lives and dies by his honor.

Not really, Stannis is hardly all that honorable.

[Wolf of The Wall]

Really? I seem to remember the IB fighting the Westerlands and North several times, even raiding the Reach. The Dance of Dragons was all vassals fighting each other. The Blackfyre rebellion was a similar occurrence. RR was 4 of 7 regions revolting, 5 if you include the Lannisters. The Faith Militant and their allies gave everyone a shit ton of trouble.

And fighting with the Dornish until Daeron the Good bring them into the fold.

[The Wolves]

That's the point I was trying to articulate, I'm not saying they should have all said "Ok Aerys, you're nuts so we'll let you burn us alive" but after Aerys/Rhaegar was dead they could have installed Aegon and maintained the status quo (Jamie says point blank they could have done that)-which more than any other great house, the Baratheons were bound by honor to do.

I agree that taking the throne was in no way justified and the way it turned out it was a nery bad idea.

[Turinsbane]

A rebellion was going to happen eventually because Targs weren't special, they weren't different. Robert's rebellion was it. They annoyed the wrong people.

Exactly. The Targaryens' days were numbered once the last dragon died. They're what held the realm the realm together, and kept the Targs in power.

That's the point I was trying to articulate, I'm not saying they should have all said "Ok Aerys, you're nuts so we'll let you burn us alive" but after Aerys/Rhaegar was dead they could have installed Aegon and maintained the status quo (Jamie says point blank they could have done that)-which more than any other great house, the Baratheons were bound by honor to do.

Maybe if Ned Stark had betean Tywin's host to King's Landing. Fact of the matter is that the Lannisters got their first, and it was Lannister's who bloodied the Red Keep, not the Baratheons. Jaime killed Aereys, and Gregor Clegane killed Elia and her children on Tywin's orders. Sure, Robert could have shown disgust like Ned did when Tywin threw down Aegon and his sister at his feet, but would that have been wise? "The rebellion's basically over, and you brought a giant army, but screw you, Tywin Lannister! This crime must be avenged!" Instead, Robert brings the Westerlands into the fold, Ned lifts the siege of Storm's End, the Tyrell's surrender, Queen Rhaella dies, Willem Darry takes Viserys and Dany into hiding, Tower of Joy, rebellion over. The moment Aerys opened the gates of King's Landing, the fate of the Targaryens (and the course of history) was sealed. That's the mad king's doing (and the Lannister's) not the Barartheons

[Prince Lou of House Reed]

You're the only one.

[Veloknight]

Well, no, you're never the only one to think anything, really. But snark aside, yeah, I can see your point. I think you're wrong about the details of RR, but I think it probably would have been much better if Jaime Lannister had decided to make a new dragonking, as his men seemed to think he might. Ultimately, I think it's more tragic than truly unjust, and subscribing as I do to the theory that Lyanna and Rhaegar were forced into their flight by circumstance (whether machinations of Aerys or some other) I wish Rhaegar had succeeded his father at the head of a rebellion, instead of Robert.

[Balerion the one eared cat]

Minor slights?

Aerys wanted Robert dead, along with Ned.

Jon Aryn called the banners, not Robert. They just used Robert's Targaryen ancestry as a reason to put him at the fore front for the Throne if they should win

This.

Overthrowing the targaryens no matter what house you are is the most idiotic thing you can do. Targaryens were viewed as rulers that couldn't be over throwed, blood of dragons and God's. They're was stability in their rule (unless they fought each other) because they're power was viewed higher than the other lords. When you break that you're immediately saying "well if we can take the 7 kingdoms, so can you". The supposed power balance is completely destroyed. Succession is screwed up. Even renly used RR as reasoning for his claim. My point is proved since the aftermath of Roberts rule was completely disastrous

But I think the very problem with the Targaryens was that they themselves believed they were more powerful and "godlike" (not literally, but they were the most connected to Old Valyria of all the houses except Velaryon and Celtigar), so the rest of the kingdom didn't matter to half of them. All that mattered was that they were in control, and the rest of the kingdoms, and people in those kingdoms, be damned: Blackfyre rebellions, Great Councils for the line of succession, Dance of the Dragons, helluva lot of alleged murders by brothers/uncles/sons/nephews, many attempts to conquer Dorne (Young Dragon especially) at the cost of lots of people's lives, Aegon the Unworthy, Maegor, even (though I really hate to say it, because I love him!) Egg took down a few people at Summerhall trying to bring back dragons because he thought they'd give him more power. Aerys was crazy, and that made him dangerous to the realm - and a lot of his madness came from (or rather, was worsened by) him believing that he was the most important person in the world: treating Tywin as his "servant" despite him being arguably the most influential man in the kingdom, and then believing himself too kingly and royal to be laid hands on after Duskendale (not really his fault I guess). The fact that the Targaryens thought they had, and deserved, more power, and control, and respect than any other house meant that there was always conflict in their reign - their sense of entitlement caused a lot of problems for the realm.

Also, I'd argue that whilst the aftermath of Robert's rule was imdisputably bad, his actual rule led to 16-ish years of peacetime - and yeah, the crown got into a lot of debt, but LF didn't seem at all concerned about it, implying that he had a plan to rectify the situation if given enough time - and really, what happened after can't necessarily be blamed on Robert: he was a pretty crappy husband, but how could he have known about the twincest/Cersei's murderous tendencies/everyone else's scheming? His reign kind of did what it was supposed to: return the realm to some semblance of order, where no one house is vastly more powerful than another. It makes a fairer kingdom, I feel.

Still, nice to talk to a fellow fan of obstinate one eared cats! :cheers:

But back to the OP, like Viserys IV said: it just so happened that Robert has Targaryen blood a few generations back (putting him somewhere in the line of succession, if you go back far enough - he has a better claim than most non-Targs, at least). A lot of people had a lot of reasons to rebel against Aerys in particular. Robert had the best blood to claim the throne out of all of these, direct personal reasons - Aerys wanted his head, Rhaegar helped himself to his fiancé - and indirect personal reasons - justice/revenge for best friend's brother and father, best friend's sister was a captive, as far as he believed, best friend's head is also desired by Mad King - and had also been raised by Jon Arryn and knighted, so it's pretty safe to assume that at the time he'd be seen as competent enough to lead an army and actually have a chance of overcoming the Targaryens (as we see, he was competent enough to kill Rhaegar, which is also a pretty impressive feat since Rhaegar is crown prince and therefore must be pretty good with a sword). There's a passage in the World book, too, about Robert being "just and honourable" (don't know exact quote) wrt him getting someone to treat Barristan's wounds and sparing his life on the Trident. Now, obviously we can take that with a bit of scepticism since that book was written (in story) to suck up to Robert, but even so, it seems like Robert was a decent and well respected guy, on top of all the stuff above. He seems to be a capable leader (especially since he was LP to the Stormlands before the Rebellion - though he did spend most/all of that time in the Vale, I guess) having been trained by Jon Arryn, has good reasons, and enough of a claim to make him the perfect face of the rebellion. Even though it's called "Robert's Rebellion" he was by no means the only perpetrator: in all likelihood someone would have eventually decided to oppose Aerys anyway (ie. his own son...), it just so happened that when the opportunity arose, he seemed like the right guy to be at the head of it all.

Plus, I don't think you can say that they owe everything to the Targaryens (a lot, sure, but not everything): the Baratheons trace their decent back to the pre-AC Targaryens and to the Storm Kings: that's two lots of royal blood in their veins. House Baratheon was likely the best choice to become LP of the Stormlands after the Durrandons died out: they're related for a start, have proved capable warriors etc, and honoured the Durrandons by taking their words and sigil. The same way the Tyrells were raised up when the last Gardeners died out - they too were the obvious choice. And if you disagree with all that, then, well... I don't think Robert was really one to honour history all that much.

As for Stannis... I guess he chose family loyalty and duty over duty to his king. Or we can call him a filthy traitor, it's up to you ;)

Fun post, OP! :D

[Connor Stone]

Overthrowing the targaryens no matter what house you are is the most idiotic thing you can do. Targaryens were viewed as rulers that couldn't be over throwed, blood of dragons and God's. They're was stability in their rule (unless they fought each other) because they're power was viewed higher than the other lords. When you break that you're immediately saying "well if we can take the 7 kingdoms, so can you". The supposed power balance is completely destroyed. Succession is screwed up. Even renly used RR as reasoning for his claim. My point is proved since the aftermath of Roberts rule was completely disastrous

This is a ridiculous argument. The Targs were viewed as superior because they had military dominance, but by the time of RR, they had lost any claim to superiority. Second, if Cersei had given Robert a true born heir, then no WotFK would occur. How disposing of an insane monarch that calls for you to be executed with no good reason could be called idiotic is beyond me.