Jump to content
divica

Were Ned, Robert and Jon Arryn the villains of the rebellion?

Recommended Posts

Well done. *clap*

I came here and I wasn't dissapointed. Let me throw some random book quote in here, I want to have more fun.

Ned knew he was pushing this well past the point of wisdom, yet he could not keep silent. "Robert, I ask you, what did we rise against Aerys Targaryen for, if not to put an end to the murder of children?"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

Well done. *clap*

I came here and I wasn't dissapointed. Let me throw some random book quote in here, I want to have more fun.

Ned knew he was pushing this well past the point of wisdom, yet he could not keep silent. "Robert, I ask you, what did we rise against Aerys Targaryen for, if not to put an end to the murder of children?"

 

There. Sometimes the most pertinent bits go unnoticed by some. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

And we're done here. Whether or not the Vale and the North wanted Aerys gone, you cannot arbitrarily murder your vassals and not expect any kind of pushback. There was no trial. There was no hard and fast evidence, just Aerys' vast paranoia. The Southampton plot against Henry V is comparable and they had trials and evidence before the executions.  

I'd like to add that Aerys killed the father and brother to one of Jon Arryn's wards, AND called for the heads of his wards (which he is honor bond to protect), AND Jon's heir/nephew Elbert Arryn AND his vassel's kin Kyle.  

Ned just lost his father, brother, his brother's fiance's bannerman, doesn't know WTF is going on with his sister and was just told the king wants his head.

Robert lost his betrothed and is on the king's shitlist too.

That's a LOT of death around these 3 to consider them villains instead of victims.   

Rhaegar has pissed off the Dorne and Aerys has pissed off the North, the Westerlands, the Riverlands, the Vale and the Stormlands.  RR was BOUND to happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, divica said:

I don t think que can judge  what happened between rhaegar and lyanna. We don t know what happened and several scenarios fit with what we know.

I think we can judge the consequences of the actions that are canon. Which is that their disappearance looked very much like a kidnapping and that Rhaegar did not, to our information, ever try to deny anything that he was accused of and was absent for most of the year. However you look at it, if you're accused of kidnapping a girl and that leads to a war, the normal thing would be to do something about it. That is unless you kidnapped her exactly in order to start a war or if you've gone bonkers and do not care about wars in the realm that you're supposed to inherit. All of which does not give Rhaegar any charm points. So yes, we can judge.

 

4 minutes ago, divica said:

Then as the lords swore fealty to aerys they recognize him as the rightfull ruller. If they disagreed they shouldn t have sworn oaths...

Ned certainly didn't swear him any fealty.

Infact did any of them swear it? Were Lords they required to come to King's Landing and swear their fealty to each new king? - I'm not sure.

 

4 minutes ago, divica said:

And even if aerys was bad at his job did he give reason to the high lords to forsworn their vows? shouldn t they have joined to make aerys abdicate the throne to rhaegar or viserys (with a regent)? what right did they have to depose of all targs?

So they should have Aerys abdicate in favour of Rhaegar the kidnapper or Vyseris, the child who already was showing similar character to Aerys? Clearly they didn't 'cause they're not stupid.

What right do Targs have to rule? - None. Anyone has the right to depose anyone. If they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gendarrion said:

Aerys is jealous of Tywin because he gets credit for running the realm and he lusted for his wife, I doubt he plotted on anything aside from trying to marry Cersei to Rhaegar.

Aerys humiliated tywin several times. Given what we know about tywin is it really that strange that he ploted several schemes against aerys as revenge? He might not have tried to kill aerys several times, but he certainly tried to undermine him in some ways...

7 hours ago, Gendarrion said:

This is just pure assumption, you should at least give an evidence to back this, personally I think if Aerys know of such plot he would have spread it around already instead of being silent, it will weaken the plot and it's supporters and give Aerys a justified reason to prosecute them, Varys will also know at least some hints of this if it we're true.

we have the famous quote about rickard Southern ambitions (which in this case would be to make lyanna queen). The rest is just trying to analise what happened in the beguining of the rebelion… And what I wrote makes more sense that aerys suddenly starting killing his most important lords without reason and spare the life of brandon's squire. It is really hard to explain why aerys and his advisors would order jon arryn to kill ned and robert if they didn t have a strong reason to do it… And aerys could have told his version of the events to the realm. The problem is that people probably believe more in jon arryn's version and once they won the war what they said became truth.

7 hours ago, Gendarrion said:

The reason he wants Robert is because he is Lyanna's betrothed, If there ever was a plot going on to crown a new king it will be Rhaegar, he is loved by lords and smallfolk, he is intelligent and handsome, I think Robert will support him as well if he didn't abduct Lyanna, Robert to everyone is just the lord of stormlands, his claim to Iron throne is weak as well.

 

Why would he just simply kill him? Imprisoning him is a logical way, Maegor the cruel will probably to the same.
 

So rhaegar runs with robert's bride and aerys decides to kill robert? How are people suposed to accept that he killed the lord of the stormlands for that? It is madness! And while aerys was paranoid was he this mad? Hell, he thinks tywin wants to kill him and he lets him live but he kills robert without him doing anything?

I agree that from ned's pov it is hard to explain how robert would turn against the targs, however it is also strange how robert went from loyal subject to targ exterminator… I could understand if he wanted to kill rhaegar, his kids and aerys. But why would he want to kill rhaella and viserys? For someone that didn t want to be king he became used to killing a lot of inocent targs to keep his position pretty fast.

7 hours ago, Gendarrion said:

Why would he just simply kill him? Imprisoning him is a logical way, Maegor the cruel will probably to the same.

 

Brandon wanted to kill rhaegar. Is it so strange that aerys would name him a traitor and kill him? However, at this time aerys simply imprisioned him… it seems a pretty moderate reaction for a madman that after a while will want to kill 4 important lords (3 of them without reason!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, divica said:

we have the famous quote about rickard Southern ambitions (which in this case would be to make lyanna queen).

From a woman who claims to hate the Starks, and who wasn’t present and only has 2nd and 3rd hand info. Also, you are making quite the leap here in claiming the “southron ambitions” Lady Dustin speaks of to Theon involve making Lyanna queen. In fact, that’s hugely unlikely, regardless of Richard having said ambitions or not. 

7 minutes ago, divica said:

The rest is just trying to analise what happened in the beguining of the rebelion… And what I wrote makes more sense that aerys suddenly starting killing his most important lords without reason and spare the life of brandon's squire.

No, it really doesn’t. It’s true we don’t have all the details yet, far from it in fact. But we have several reliable accounts by many characters that are enough for the reader to understand that Aerys was batshit crazy, on top of being cruel, petty, vindictive, vain, etc etc. 

7 minutes ago, divica said:

It is really hard to explain why aerys and his advisors would order jon arryn to kill ned and robert if they didn t have a strong reason to do it… And aerys could have told his version of the events to the realm. The problem is that people probably believe more in jon arryn's version and once they won the war what they said became truth.

No, it isn’t. At all. Again, we are told by different sources that Aerys liked to surround himself with lickspittles and yes-men, and it only got worse once Tywin was gone. 

And anyone w/ any sense would - and should! - believe Jon Arryn over the Mad King, especially after the TaH.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, divica said:

As we all know history is written by the winners and aerys was a perfect scapegoat to justify their actions.

As we all know the WOIAF and F & B were the works of Yandel & Gyldan.

Out of those two books, which maester has the most history telling credibility?

If there is is hokey pokey goin' on in ASOIAF with aerys I would chalk it up to Pycelle's counsel  and Varys' whispers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wia said:

It does come up though.

That is a far cry from deposing Aerys, and more importantly it's definitely not:  "it is believed that rhaegar tried to depose him."

That's a memory of Jaime's he never mentions to anyone and no one else in the entire series nor the history / narrative books mentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

That is a far cry from deposing Aerys, and more importantly it's definitely not:  "it is believed that rhaegar tried to depose him."

That's a memory of Jaime's he never mentions to anyone and no one else in the entire series nor the history / narrative books mentions.

Uh... Let's recap?

It was believed that Rhaegar tried to depose him.

The World of Ice and Fire:

Quote

Most of the small council were with the Hand outside Duskendale at this juncture, and several of them argued against Lord Tywin's plan on the grounds that such an attack would almost certainly goad Lord Darklyn into putting King Aerys to death. "He may or he may not," Tywin Lannister reportedly replied, "but if he does, we have a better king right here." Whereupon he raised a hand to indicate Prince Rhaegar.

Quote

But if indeed there was a shadow, who was he, and why did he choose to keep his role a secret? A dozen names have been put forward over the years, but only one seems truly compelling: Rhaegar Targaryen, Prince of Dragonstone.
If this tale be believed, 'twas Prince Rhaegar who urged Lord Walter to hold the tourney, using his lordship's brother Ser Oswell as a gobetween. Rhaegar provided Whent with gold sufficient for splendid prizes in order to bring as many lords and knights to Harrenhal as possible. The prince, it is said, had no interest in the tourney as a tourney; his intent was to gather the great lords of the realm together in what amounted to an informal Great Council, in order to discuss ways and means of dealing with the madness of his father, King Aerys II, possibly by means of a regency or a forced abdication.
If indeed this was the purpose behind the tourney, it was a perilous game that Rhaegar Targaryen was playing. Though few doubted that Aerys had taken leave of his senses, many still had good reason to oppose his removal from the Iron Throne, for certain courtiers and councillors had gained great wealth and power through the king's caprice and knew that they stood to lose all should Prince Rhaegar come to power.

Quote

Meanwhile, King Aerys was becoming ever more estranged from his own son and heir. Early in the year 279 AC, Rhaegar Targaryen, Prince of Dragonstone, was formally betrothed to Princess Elia Martell, the delicate young sister of Doran Martell, Prince of Dorne. They were wed the following year, in a lavish ceremony at the Great Sept of Baelor in King's Landing, but Aerys II did not attend. He told the small council that he feared an attempt upon his life if he left the confines of the Red Keep, even with his Kingsguard to protect him. Nor would he allow his younger son, Viserys, to attend his brother's wedding.
When Prince Rhaegar and his new wife chose to take up residence on Dragonstone instead of the Red Keep, rumors flew thick and fast across the Seven Kingdoms. Some claimed that the crown prince was planning to depose his father and seize the Iron Throne for himself, whilst others said that King Aerys meant to disinherit Rhaegar and name Viserys heir in his place. Nor did the birth of King Aerys's first grandchild, a girl named Rhaenys, born on Dragonstone in 280 AC, do aught to reconcile father and son. When Prince Rhaegar returned to the Red Keep to present his daughter to his own mother and father, Queen Rhaella embraced the babe warmly, but King Aerys refused to touch or hold the child and complained that she "smells Dornish."

Seeing how there's no reason for Robert regime to create and circulate such rumours after their victory, it's safe to assume that those rumours were circulated at the indicated times. Now whether those rumours were true or not is another matter. 

But seeing how Rhaegar personally confirms to Jaime that he did indeed had planned to call a Great Council long ago...

Quote

A Feast for Crows - Jaime I
Rhaegar had put his hand on Jaime's shoulder. "When this battle's done I mean to call a council. Changes will be made. I meant to do it long ago, but . . . well, it does no good to speak of roads not taken. We shall talk when I return."

Well, it's pretty clear to me.

Edited by wia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, divica said:

But the truth is that all his paranoia was justified.

If a person is unhinged and relies upon his councillors  ---- do ya kinda think that his concillors may have fed into Aerys' paranoia?

What part of manipulation is not understood?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

I take it you don't believe Rickard, Jon, and Robert were plotting to overthrow the Targaryens.  I do.  That puts the Starks, Arryns, and the Baratheons in the wrong.  That is treason. 

The kingdom was prosperous.  There was peace.  To try to remove the Targaryens from power was wrong.  And what exactly did the Usurper and his mangy dogs do after taking the kingdom?  They beggared the realm.  Westeros has never had it this bad since the last long night.  The combination of Baratheon, Lannister, Arryn, Tully, and Stark being in charge did not serve the best interest of Westeros.  Those idiots destroyed Westeros.

As I said, the situation isn't black and white, both sides had pretty shitty people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, divica said:

Now moving along to the rebelion. We don t know what happened between rhaegar and lyanna neither why they disapeared (as long as we know) for some months. What we do know is that brandon apeared in KL wanting to kill rhaegar. So aerys actions in imprisioning him makes perfect sense. The problem is what happens next...

What happens next?

Jaime tells Cat ----

A Clash of Kings - Catelyn VII     "Ethan Glover was Brandon's squire," Catelyn said. "He was the only one to survive. The others were Jeffory Mallister, Kyle Royce, and Elbert Arryn, Jon Arryn's nephew and heir." It was queer how she still remembered the names, after so many years. "Aerys accused them of treason and summoned their fathers to court to answer the charge, with the sons as hostages. When they came, he had them murdered without trial. Fathers and sons both."     "There were trials. Of a sort. Lord Rickard demanded trial by combat, and the king granted the request. Stark armored himself as for battle, thinking to duel one of the Kingsguard. Me, perhaps. Instead they took him to the throne room and suspended him from the rafters while two of Aerys's pyromancers kindled a blaze beneath him. The king told him that fire was the champion of House Targaryen. So all Lord Rickard needed to do to prove himself innocent of treason was . . . well, not burn.    "When the fire was blazing, Brandon was brought in. His hands were chained behind his back, and around his neck was a wet leathern cord attached to a device the king had brought from Tyrosh. His legs were left free, though, and his longsword was set down just beyond his reach.

Where are readers to go with this? Did Jaime lie? Did Cat remember incorrectly what she heard Jaime say?

If I am following martin's story and believing every fan generated thread it appears that all if not most of martin's characters are unreliable witnesses. 

Therefore none of what martin wrote during his five books matters. BECAUSE the argument is nothing martin writes has relevance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Therefore none of what martin wrote during his five books matters. BECAUSE the argument is nothing martin writes has relevance.

Word. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Clegane'sPup said:

What happens next?

Jaime tells Cat ----

A Clash of Kings - Catelyn VII     "Ethan Glover was Brandon's squire," Catelyn said. "He was the only one to survive. The others were Jeffory Mallister, Kyle Royce, and Elbert Arryn, Jon Arryn's nephew and heir." It was queer how she still remembered the names, after so many years. "Aerys accused them of treason and summoned their fathers to court to answer the charge, with the sons as hostages. When they came, he had them murdered without trial. Fathers and sons both."     "There were trials. Of a sort. Lord Rickard demanded trial by combat, and the king granted the request. Stark armored himself as for battle, thinking to duel one of the Kingsguard. Me, perhaps. Instead they took him to the throne room and suspended him from the rafters while two of Aerys's pyromancers kindled a blaze beneath him. The king told him that fire was the champion of House Targaryen. So all Lord Rickard needed to do to prove himself innocent of treason was . . . well, not burn.    "When the fire was blazing, Brandon was brought in. His hands were chained behind his back, and around his neck was a wet leathern cord attached to a device the king had brought from Tyrosh. His legs were left free, though, and his longsword was set down just beyond his reach.

Where are readers to go with this? Did Jaime lie? Did Cat remember incorrectly what she heard Jaime say?

If I am following martin's story and believing every fan generated thread it appears that all if not most of martin's characters are unreliable witnesses. 

Therefore none of what martin wrote during his five books matters. BECAUSE the argument is nothing martin writes has relevance.

 

Where does that quote contradict what I said?

Aerys named all those lords traitors and killed them all in a cruel way… He even gave them mock trials…

And Jaime also doesn t go into detail about what happened… why was the squired spared? How did rickard become a traitor? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Clegane'sPup said:

As we all know the WOIAF and F & B were the works of Yandel & Gyldan.

Out of those two books, which maester has the most history telling credibility?

If there is is hokey pokey goin' on in ASOIAF with aerys I would chalk it up to Pycelle's counsel  and Varys' whispers.

 

that is so relative...

what do you think the maesters will write about ned stark if the lannisters remain in power?

or about stannis barateon?

Wether the maesters want or not certain things are only known if some people want...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, divica said:

why was the squired spared?

Heya, I dunna know why Brandon's squire was spared and road with Eddard to Rheagar's tower of joy.

3 minutes ago, divica said:

How did rickard become a traitor? 

 

I dunna know why the assumption is Rickard is a traitor. As far as I know Rickard was summoned and Rickard went to KL.

The CoK quote describes what happened.

Let's see -- R and L go missing-- Stark get word -- Stark rides to KL -- calls out the prince -- and then---

17 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Aerys accused them of treason and summoned their fathers to court to answer the charge, with the sons as hostages. When they came, he had them murdered without trial. Fathers and sons both."     "There were trials. Of a sort. Lord Rickard demanded trial by combat, and the king granted the request. Stark armored himself as for battle, thinking to duel one of the Kingsguard. Me, perhaps. Instead they took him to the throne room and suspended him from the rafters while two of Aerys's pyromancers kindled a blaze beneath him. The king told him that fire was the champion of House Targaryen. So all Lord Rickard needed to do to prove himself innocent of treason was . . . well, not burn.    "When the fire was blazing, Brandon was brought in. His hands were chained behind his back, and around his neck was a wet leathern cord attached to a device the king had brought from Tyrosh. His legs were left free, though, and his longsword was set down just beyond his reach.

Rickard wasn't at the infamous tourney. His pups were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DarkSister1001 said:

I'd like to add that Aerys killed the father and brother to one of Jon Arryn's wards, AND called for the heads of his wards (which he is honor bond to protect), AND Jon's heir/nephew Elbert Arryn AND his vassel's kin Kyle.  

Ned just lost his father, brother, his brother's fiance's bannerman, doesn't know WTF is going on with his sister and was just told the king wants his head.

Robert lost his betrothed and is on the king's shitlist too.

That's a LOT of death around these 3 to consider them villains instead of victims.   

Rhaegar has pissed off the Dorne and Aerys has pissed off the North, the Westerlands, the Riverlands, the Vale and the Stormlands.  RR was BOUND to happen. 

But the problem is: Did those people deserve to die?

If they were conspiring to dethrone aerys then it is normal for them to die.

And if some of those 3 people were involved in the conspiracy then they are the villains...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, divica said:

But the problem is: Did those people deserve to die?

Here it doesn’t even matter whether they were guilty of conspiring to depose Aerys. Because, see, Aerys should have given them a proper trial, and if they were found guilty, he could have executed them. What he did was a travesty, fuellled by his egomania and paranoia, and ultimately, that’s what ended up costing the Targs everything. 

Whatever happened (or didn’t happen, for those still in denial) between Rhaegar and Lyanna didn’t cause RR, but rather Aerys did when he murdered all those northerners and then asked Arryn to send him Robert and Eddard’s heads. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, divica said:

Did those people deserve to die?

"Yes they deserved to die and I hope they burn in hell!"  Couldn't resist.

So far as the text tells us, only Rhaegar for sure was planning on "making changes".  We can assume that Tywin would have been fine with a regime change.  But there is not enough textual evidence to support a conspiracy for Jon Arryn, Bobby B and Neddard prior to the onset of the war.  There is, however, oodles of flat out canonical evidence to support that Aerys was an unfit, unjust, cruel ruler and managed to alienate more than half of his Great Houses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×