The Gizzard of Oz Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 They had hostage value in case Viserys ever got together a force large enough to challenge the Baratheons. Ned would take them to Winterfell. It's the best place because of how far it is from any Targaryen supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ylath's Snout Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 6 hours ago, The Gizzard of Oz said: They had hostage value in case Viserys ever got together a force large enough to challenge the Baratheons. Well I wouldn't say that Viserys would care about what happens to his nephew and niece that he would be far to young to have any sort of relation with. That said Rhaenys and Aegon would have been great for keeping Dorne in check, Viserys most likely source of Westerosi support. 6 hours ago, The Gizzard of Oz said: Ned would take them to Winterfell. It's the best place because of how far it is from any Targaryen supporters. Yeah I like the idea of Robert going "you care so much for the dragonspawns life you take em with you to Winterfell" after Ned talks him down from child-murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bael's Bastard Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 On 6/22/2018 at 11:29 PM, Lee-Sensei said: What did Eddard want to do with Rhaegar's children? On 6/22/2018 at 11:29 PM, Lee-Sensei said: Did he want to send them to go to Sunspear? What Eddard wanted to do with Rhaegar's children is an interesting question. But I suspect he and the other rebels never worked out what would be done with Rhaegar's children. They might have never expected to come into possession of Rhaegar's children. Especially after the Battle of the Trident, when the capture of King's Landing became just a matter of time, they might have expected Rhaegar's children to have been sent off before they arrived. Had they found Rhaegar's children alive when they captured King's Landing, I could see Ned naively advocated sending Aegon to the Wall or into exile. But so long as Aegon was alive, no oath or exile would have prevented men from trying to convince him to rise and claim the Iron Throne. Perhaps Ned ultimately would have advocated taking Aegon to Winterfell as his hostage/ward, keeping him separate from both those most likely to want to convince him to rise, as well as those most likely to want to kill him. Perhaps he would have wanted to take Rhaenys to Winterfell as well. The obvious choice would have been to keep her safe long enough for Robert to have an heir, and for her to come of age, and wed Robert's heir and Rhaenys. This could have helped bring House Martell over to supporting Robert, as Elia, Aegon, and Rhaenys would all still be alive. Aegon would be a hostage yet unharmed, and Rhaenys would eventually be queen, and her children would be kings. Aegon or his descendants might become an issue down the line, but for the time being, Robert would avoid completely alienating Dorne, and would have the support of all the major regions in Westeros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megorova Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 20 hours ago, The Golden Wolf said: I cannot agree with any of this as even GRRM himself has basically said prophecy is bunk and those who see them coming true basically caused them to come true through their own actions. I see this declarations from GRRM, as just him toying with readers. In ASOIAF books he wrote prophecies, and then made them happen. And not always those events are results of actions, done by people, that heard those prophecies. Examples: - some of events, that happened in Cersei's life, indeed were result of her own actions. Though even if she could influence, how many children will she have - three, as was said to her, but she couldn't have influenced in any way, how many bastard-children will have her husband Robert. 16 children were promised, and 16 children were born. This is not a coincidence, and not a lucky guess. Meggy KNEW what will happen, and it did happened. - in the House of the Undying, Dany saw vision of Red Wedding, months before it happened. In no way was she influencing, what will happen in Westeros, with Robb and those wedding guests. - 5,000 years old prophecy from Asshai, about new Azor Ahai, said, that the dragons will appear again. Dany didn't knew about this prophecy, none from her circle knew about it, nevertheless she did managed to hatch those dragon eggs. Those examples do prove, that GRRM is writing "real" prophecies. Thru this "prophecies" he's making to readers announcements, about what he will write next. 19 hours ago, Pikachu101 said: I'm going to go ahead and say it was neither Lyanna or Brandon's fault, the only person to blame for Robert's Rebellion is Rhaegar. Look at the situation from this angle - Rhaegar knew about the promised Prince prophecy. Most likely, it was one of those, that were made by Daenys the Dreamer. She predicted the Doom of Valyria, and it did happened. Probably in her book of prophecies, there were also others. So Rhaegar, from reading that book, found out about the upcoming Long Night. Other things, written in that book, did happened. So Rhaegar knew, that Long Night will also happen. Because if all other events, predicted in that book, did happened, then why did Long Night should be an exception? Based on signs from that book, Rhaegar thought, that his child will be the promised Prince (one of three). So he thought, that it's necessary for him to have one more child. I'm sure, that there was a reason, why he has chosen Lyanna. Probably there were also some signs, based on which Rhaegar thought, that Lyanna is the woman, that will give birth to that child. Probably Rhaegar has told to Lyanna about the prophecy, so her, going with him, without saying anything to her family, was their common decision. They knew, that her family wouldn't believe in the prophecy. They won't agree to her marriage with Rhaegar, and Robert won't let her go. So they also realised, that if their child won't be born, then years later, when the Others will come, there will be no one able to stop them. So Lyanna, not going with Rhaegar, is equal to The End of The World, and total extinction of life on Planetos. Rhaegar was aware, that because of his actions, many people will die. Though he also realised, that death of many, is still a lesser evil, than death of everyone. Death of all those people, that died during Robert's Rebellion, was partially Rhaegar's fault, though lives of all those people, that will be saved in the future by Rhaegar's son, is also his merit. Rhaegar indirectly caused death of thousands people, but that sacrifice will later save millions. See my point? Rhaegar is a hero, a saviour. No? Also if Jon Arryn agreed to Aerys' demand, and sacrificed Ned and Robert, then no one else would have died. So basically 7K has lost thousands lives, because Jon Arryn wanted to save two, that mattered to him. Jon Arryn is more guilty, than Rhaegar or Lyanna. If we will range, who's more guilty, then it should go like this: 1. Jon Arryn - he's the one, who has started the war. 2. Brandon Stark and his companios - yes, he was worried for his sister, which doesn't excuse what he did. Charging into the castle, to threaten member of royal family, isn't smart, nor safe. If he acted differently, nothing would have happened. 3. Rhaegar and Lyanna - who knows, maybe even if they haven't escaped, without informing their families about what they are going to do, maybe Brandon would have still went after Rhaegar, and threatened him, and after that everything still would have went exactly as it happened in the original script. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel Eyes Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 They could have had one of the younger Targaryens rule, and the Rebels (such as Jon Arryn serve as regent or Hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bael's Bastard Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 25 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said: They could have had one of the younger Targaryens rule, and the Rebels (such as Jon Arryn serve as regent or Hand. Unless GRRM changes his mind (see SSM linked below), Robert proclaimed his intention to take the throne around the time of the Trident, while Aerys and all his male heirs (Rhaegar, Aegon, Viserys) were all still alive. So they had no intention of putting a male line Targaryen descendant of Aerys on the throne (interestingly, if Orys was truly a bastard of Aerion, father of Aegon I, then the Baratheons could conceivable have an unbroken male line descended from a Targaryen lord, though without the name, and through a bastard).http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/US_Signing_Tour_Huntington_Beach_CA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikachu101 Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 6 hours ago, Megorova said: Rhaegar indirectly caused death of thousands people, but that sacrifice will later save millions. Rhaegar was a fool who caused the downfall of his own House, if he was mentally stable he'd understand that a united country is vital in Aegon's war against the White Walkers. 6 hours ago, Megorova said: Also if Jon Arryn agreed to Aerys' demand, and sacrificed Ned and Robert, then no one else would have died Yes because that's what sane person would do right? I've seen a lot of Rhaegar stans do this; they came up with ludicrous justifications and arguments in a terrible attempt to defend on of the stupidest men in asoiaf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lannister Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 It's hard for me to imagine any circumstances that Robert lets the Targaryen heirs live. Their very existence is a threat to his throne and more to the point they're dragonspawn to him. Robert would insist they die and that would likely destroy Robert and Ned's friendship forever. The best I can see Ned doing for them is pulling a Davos like move and sending them away before Robert can get his hands on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ylath's Snout Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 7 hours ago, Megorova said: Jon Arryn is more guilty, than Rhaegar or Lyanna. If we will range, who's more guilty, then it should go like this: 1. Jon Arryn 2. Brandon Stark 3. Rhaegar and Lyanna THere is plenty wrong with that list but how in the name of funk powerhouse Parlament isn't Aerys on that list? Also I honestly don't see how you could blame Jon Arryn for not turning over two boys he thinks of has his sons to The Mad King. The same king that just just made a mockery his royal obligations and the laws of the land by roasting a seemingly loyal lord with wild fire while stardingling his heir in the same room. What you seem to think Jon should have done is monstrous on the personal scale and would completely undermine him as Lord Paramount of the Vale. A feudal society exists as chains of mutual obligations, protection and loyalty. If Arryn turned over Ned and Robert to the Mad King for a completely unjust execution how could any of his lords or bannermen trust him not to do something similar in the future to them if Jon would do that to his "adopted" sons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megorova Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 39 minutes ago, Pikachu101 said: Rhaegar was a fool who caused the downfall of his own House, if he was mentally stable he'd understand that a united country is vital in Aegon's war against the White Walkers. Though, what if Rhaegar realised, that Elia's Aegon is not the promised Prince, same as before that, he realised, that he himself also wasn't the Prince from the prophecy? What if gaining information from certain sources, he found out, that the promised Prince will be child of Lyanna Stark? So, combined with the fact, that the Prince also has to be descendant of Aerys, it meant, that Rhaegar is supposed to be father of that child. It was either him, or Aerys XXX Lyanna. One of Targaryens had to conceive a child with one of Starks. The Prince was supposed to be combination of Ice and Fire. Without Lyanna's kidnapping, by year 300 AC, 7K would have been strong as ever, and united under rule of King Rhaegar I Targaryen. Though, when While Walkers would have arrived, the only person, that was able to defeat them, wouldn't even exist. And then - The End for everyone. 1 hour ago, Pikachu101 said: 7 hours ago, Megorova said: Also if Jon Arryn agreed to Aerys' demand, and sacrificed Ned and Robert, then no one else would have died Yes because that's what sane person would do right? No, because loyal subjects abide to commands of their ruler, and if they don't, then their defiance causes the war to happen, and lots of people to die. Jon Arryn could have reacted differently to Aerys' demand. But he did the worst, of what he could have done. Better option would have been, to find Rhaegar, inform him about what's going to happen, if he won't stop his father. And while they were looking for Rhaegar, Jon Arryn could have just hidden Ned and Robert, and by letter informed Aerys, that those two has escaped, and that they went to Rhaegar, which would have caused Aerys to direct all his resources on finding Rhaegar's whereabouts. So then Rhaegar could have arrested his father, and declared himself King. I'm sure, that people of 7K wouldn't have opposed to this change. Or at least opposed to this less, than to Robert becoming their new King. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ylath's Snout Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 @Megorova making a argument sprinkled with a bunch of unsubstantiated "what if"s does not make it very compelling. I really don't agree with your interpretation of how the Seven Kingdoms function with regards to what a king can and cannot command his subjects to do. But let's leave that aside. You put all sorts of obligations on Jon Arryn to sacrifice his sons and go galavanting about to hunt down the missing Rhaegar out of some hardline prophecy guided utilitarianism. Wouldn't the most utilitarian way for Rhaegar to act be to: Nab Lyanna and married her, to ensure tPtWP is born. Than lead his own rebellion against Aerys? Sure Aerys has Elia and their children hostage but hey apparently letting the Mad King kill people you love is the only ethical thing to do apparently. Just one dead wife and two dead kids for a unified Kingdom that tPtWP could inherit directly instead of all the nonsense that when down in the books? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megorova Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 39 minutes ago, Ylath's Snout said: THere is plenty wrong with that list but how in the name of funk powerhouse Parlament isn't Aerys on that list? "Not guilty by reason of insanity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense Crazy people can't be held responsible for their actions. 43 minutes ago, Ylath's Snout said: Also I honestly don't see how you could blame Jon Arryn for not turning over two boys he thinks of has his sons to The Mad King. He could have lied, that they escaped. He could have hidden them, or actually let them escape, and then reported to Aerys, that he would have executed them, but they are not in The Vale, and that he is looking for them, and when they will be found, he will execute them. This would have mollified Aerys, and a few days later he would have already forgoten all about it. Or Jon Arryn could have done, what did Theon. Find two people, that look like Ned and Robert, offer their families lots of money and other favours, in exchange of their lives. By the time, when their severed heads would have arrived to KL, they would have been nearly unrecognizable. Then Ned and Robert would have survived, and the Rebellion would have been avoided. At least until Rhaegar's return. And then he would have rebelled against Aerys, and took over Iron Throne, and responsibility for death of Brandon, Rickard, and those two substitutes. 54 minutes ago, Ylath's Snout said: What you seem to think Jon should have done is monstrous on the personal scale and would completely undermine him as Lord Paramount of the Vale. A feudal society exists as chains of mutual obligations, protection and loyalty. If Arryn turned over Ned and Robert to the Mad King for a completely unjust execution how could any of his lords or bannermen trust him not to do something similar in the future to them if Jon would do that to his "adopted" sons? You're thinking in terms of modern day psychology and moral values. In medieval times life was completely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bael's Bastard Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 Aerys murdered Jon Arryn's nephew and heir. The idea that he was somehow in the wrong for not beheading Ned and Robert on Aerys's command is idiotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ylath's Snout Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 3 minutes ago, Megorova said: "Not guilty by reason of insanity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense Crazy people can't be held responsible for their actions. Are you for real? You are arguing that Aerys is is too crazy to be held accountable for his actions while at the same time expecting everyone to blindly follow his commands?!?! 6 minutes ago, Megorova said: You're thinking in terms of modern day psychology and moral values. In medieval times life was completely different. That is pretty rich of you considering you just invoced a insanity defence for Aerys.... Also what part of what I said was using "modern day psychology and moral values"? We see that several character are willing to do all sorts of things to protect their children and nobody faults em for caring so much about their kids. For example Ned, Cat and Cersei. What Aerys did to Lord Rickard, Brandon and their respective companions was a miscarriage of justice by Westeorsi standards. Rickard was tied in chains and hung from the roof, making him completely unable to fight in his trial-by-combat. That fact alone make it a unjust execution. Aerys failed in his obligation as king to dispense "Westerosi justice" and violated Rickards rights as one of the highest ranking nobles in the land. That is all the casus belli Arryn needed for a justified rebellion. You alternative scenario is nonsensical for a number of reasons: 1 How could Arryn know that Rhaegar would be willing to overthrow his father? Given what we know he never sent any signs indicating that to anyone and in actuality he died fighting to protect his father's rule. 2 Jon had no way of knowing that Aerys would stop there, Benjen and Stannis could have been next on this list. 3 Delays and faking deaths would have caused all sorts of problem for Ned and Robert down the line if they were forced to mobilize their respective armies. My argument for why it was politically impossible for Arryn to follow Arys commands is based on how feudal society actually worked while you seem to be assuming that the Seven Kingdoms was a absolute monarchy, something that is never was portrayed as. If Arryn won't protect his underlings from an unjust king they have no reason to obey their oaths to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 10 hours ago, Megorova said: how many bastard-children will have her husband Robert. 16 children were promised, and 16 children were born. This is not a coincidence, and not a lucky guess. Meggy KNEW what will happen, and it did happened. What confirmation do we have that she was right about the number of bastards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee-Sensei Posted June 26, 2018 Author Share Posted June 26, 2018 4 hours ago, Lord Lannister said: It's hard for me to imagine any circumstances that Robert lets the Targaryen heirs live. Their very existence is a threat to his throne and more to the point they're dragonspawn to him. Robert would insist they die and that would likely destroy Robert and Ned's friendship forever. The best I can see Ned doing for them is pulling a Davos like move and sending them away before Robert can get his hands on them. Robert let Viserys and Daenerys live and again, this is about what Eddard wanted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bael's Bastard Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 12 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said: Robert let Viserys and Daenerys live and again, this is about what Eddard wanted Robert was never in possession of Viserys and Daenerys, to "let [them] live." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ylath's Snout Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 1 hour ago, Bael's Bastard said: Robert was never in possession of Viserys and Daenerys, to "let [them] live." Well sure but he could have sent assassins after them much sooner. Seemingly the Drogo-Dany match set off Boby-B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bael's Bastard Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 2 hours ago, Ylath's Snout said: Well sure but he could have sent assassins after them much sooner. Seemingly the Drogo-Dany match set off Boby-B. Jon Arryn was apparently able to persuade Robert not to pursue Viserys in exile, but we don't know what he might have done or permitted in the heat of the moment had Viserys or Rhaegar's children been present and living when King's Landing was captured. I've always found it bizarre that Daenerys's pregnancy was a big deal to Robert. Viserys, a patrilineal Targaryen whose existence Robert apparently was not concerned about, was still alive, and why should Robert expect a Dothraki with matrilineal Targaryen ancestry to be favored over a Baratheon with matrilineal Targaryen ancestry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel Eyes Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 25 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said: I've always found it bizarre that Daenerys's pregnancy was a big deal to Robert. Viserys, a patrilineal Targaryen whose existence Robert apparently was not concerned about, was still alive, and why should Robert expect a Dothraki with matrilineal Targaryen ancestry to be favored over a Baratheon with matrilineal Targaryen ancestry? I’ve thought the same thing, since Viserys is almost an afterthought in Robert’s orders: “Kill Daenerys! And that fool Viserys!” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.