Jump to content
divica

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

Recommended Posts

Rhaegar is the one to blame for the rebellion, he wronged 3 houses in one stroke. Aerys made things worst, but it was Rhaegar that started it all.

Eddard Jon and Robert were defending themselfs. Do not need make things more complicated than they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, wia said:

Sooo... the point of having a council would be to...

Regent?

4 minutes ago, wia said:

We have text that outright says that there were rumours that Rhaegar was planning to call a Great Council in order to arrange a regency / a forced abdication / depose his father and seize the Iron Throne for himself.

We have text that outright says that there were rumours that Rhaegar was planning to call a Great council in order to arrange a regency / a forced abdication / depose his father and seize the Iron Throne for himself. make changes.

 

6 minutes ago, wia said:

Normally you put 2 and 2 and get your answer.

Yes.  But these stories aren't addition.  They fn advanced Allegra. 

 

7 minutes ago, wia said:

If you wanna be really thorough, you'd think of what sort of other councils that we know of he could call.

Quote

"Yes," Ned said, in words that would brook no argument. "You must govern the north in my stead, while I run Robert's errands. There must always be a Stark in Winterfell. Robb is fourteen. Soon enough, he will be a man grown. He must learn to rule, and I will not be here for him. Make him part of your councils. He must be ready when his time comes."

Council, in general, just means a group of people that come together to discuss, deliberate or make decisions.  Rhaegar did not specify general, war, small or grand.  Therefore all are possibilities.  He might have wanted to get his Lords together for advice/guidance before taking the next step.

Here is where we are disagreeing.  It seams like a lot of us think that a GC is possible, perhaps even likely.   You are saying that it was 100% going to happen.  The text supports the possibility but not the guarantee.

From the WB:

Quote

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.

Right there we have 2 situations stated to us.

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

Do not need make things more complicated than they are.

Uh, then what are we supposed to do between books?  lol

Share this post


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

Arya murders people and call it justice.  She gives skin peels to corpses.  That's sickness.  Evil?  Well, yeah.  Even if it's the teachings of her cult.  It's a choice.  Better to reject your family and your culture if they are wrong.

Fair enough, as long as you recognize that these are judgements from your perspective, not some universal, absolute notion of what is good and what is evil. From Arya's perspective, and that of Jaqen and the FM, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they are doing. It is God's work.

Understanding the actions of the characters through their own perspectives, moral and otherwise, is a big part of understanding what is happening in the story, and why.

Share this post


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

Arya murders people and call it justice.  She gives skin peels to corpses.  That's sickness.  Evil?  Well, yeah.  Even if it's the teachings of her cult.  It's a choice.  Better to reject your family and your culture if they are wrong.

Yeah, but martin is the best at giving his characters the evil sickness. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2018 at 1:23 AM, Universal Sword Donor said:

Yeah it's the scope of the acts that make him the worst, not the actual acts themselves. Taken piece by piece there are several characters worse.

What was the scope on Aerys' villainy? He executed a few lords and plunged Westeros into war. 

Who didnt?

Joffrey plunged Westeros into war too, as did Petyr and Euron, they also killed the innocents.

Tywin and Walder may have prevented a longer war but they also executed many nobles with their army while breaking the laws of the gods.

Thats 5 modern characters who were more of a villain then Aerys, through the world scope and through their personal actions.

On 12/13/2018 at 1:23 AM, Universal Sword Donor said:

Robert didn't rebel for Lyanna. He rebelled to save his own hide. After SE, Robert didn't ride with Ned to find her. He was either excluded or didn't care. Ned and Robert hadn't talked since the Sack and wouldn't talk again until Ned told him Lyanna died.

If that were truly the case he'd have laid down his arms after the Trident, or at least put Viserys on the throne after Aerys died

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

If you don't mind my saying so, I think you're guilty of double- standards.  :)  Ok.  You just wrote a very slanted opinion against Dany in one of your essays above.   I am referring to this.

Those Ghis slavers were acting according to their laws.  Slavery and the torture of the less fortunate people are legal in the culture of the Ghiscari.  Nonetheless, they are guilty of crimes against their fellow man for moral reasons.  And yet here you are presenting a negative spin against Dany.  Those slavers are guilty even if they are behaving according to their legal system.  

According to the moral system you advocate for, those slavers are villains.  Dany's war against the villains is, therefore, just.  She is a hero in my opinion.  A villain is an offender.  The slavers may be lawful according to the slaving laws of Ghis, but they are guilty of crimes against humanity.  Unless you believe slavery is not a crime against humanity.  I hope not because that would put you in the same position as some of Dany's desperate "critics" who even go so far as to justify slavery in their futile attempt to make her look like a villain.   

Nobody here is saying King Aerys was a man of virtue.  He was not that.  He was petty and cruel.  That he had the right to rule the seven kingdoms is without question.  The question is, did the rebels have the right to start a war to remove him from power?  If you answer yes, then you have to be open to the possibility that Roose Bolton had a right to remove the Starks from power if he saw them as unfit to lead the north.  It can be a matter of perspective.  House Stark has erratic members whose irresponsible conduct brought the north to war.  And lords and commons who have nothing to do with it got dragged into it.  Can you see why Roose would be annoyed with the Starks and why he might want to replace them?  Bowen Marsh watched his erratic lord commander make one stupid decision after another and he faithfully obeyed until it was revealed that Jon let Mance Rayder go and ordered him to fetch his sister.  Jon's conduct clearly violated the oaths and endangered the watch.  If you believe the rebels had a right to remove Aerys then you have to also believe Bowen Marsh had the right to remove Jon from office.  

:agree:

20 hours ago, divica said:

I agree with a lot of what you said (I don t think jon's decisions were stupid by westerosi standards).

Danny's case is very interesting. I don t think that as a conqueror she is a villain. She had the means and therefore conquered the city. I prefer to judge her about what she did after conquering meereen. She is someone extremelly biased against the slavers and everyone related to enslavement when these people have comited no crime because all they did was what is thought in their culture.

Then enters danny that forces her values upon the population. Does she care about the rights of the slavers? how will they keep on earning Money? what they have lost with her conquest?

While you can call danny a good person she was an awfull ruler. It is the same as the vegans conquering the world and judging all the people that eat meat as monsters. While we and westerosi understand that slavery is a crime against humanity most people in essos don t. Does that make them second class citzens? Do they deserve to pay for doing as their society tought was right?

The truth is that danny was a tyrant that tried to change completly a society without caring about the rights of the people she didn t like.

Things get so bad that dany has to make compromise after compromisse in order to obtain peace. And in the end things were almost equal to how they were before dany with slaves being sold just outside of meereen.

 

In regards about the second part of your post. I think when vassals swear fealty to a lord/king the lord/king also swers them several things. Therefore in order for a vassal to justify a rebelion their lord/king has to break their oath, Otherwise, whenever a lord makes an unpopular decision or a decision against the interests of a vassal he would risk facing rebelion.

The true question is when a lord makes enough bad decisions that he should lose his position… However I find very dificult to justify killing someone's entire familly in order to depose 1 person… So even if the lords didn t like aerys or rhaegar (even though rhaegar also didn t have a fair trial before everyone decided he kidnaped lyanna) they still had viserys that could rule with a regent of their liking.

Slavery is wrong.  It doesn't matter whether the culture allowed it or not.  That kind of abuse cannot be excused away by "Oh, it's just our culture.  We're just doing what our fathers did."  There is also this thing called justice.  For all they have done, for all the atrocities they have committed, those slavers deserved to be punished.  You see, there is no way to respect their culture and abolish slavery at the same time.  You do not appease the KKK.  

World War II didn't immediately improve the lives of people when the Nazis were taken down.  The process is painful.  That is the price of freedom.  Freedom is paid for with blood.  The suffering and the sorrow will come before the rewards of freedom.  What Daenerys is doing is absolutely right.  The process will be painful but worth it in the end.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Arthur Peres said:

Rhaegar is the one to blame for the rebellion, he wronged 3 houses in one stroke. Aerys made things worst, but it was Rhaegar that started it all.

Eddard Jon and Robert were defending themselfs. Do not need make things more complicated than they are.

Who the villain is depends on what Robert and Rickard were up to.  They are the villains if they were truly plotting against the Targaryens.  On the other hand, if they were loyal to Aerys and they just got on his bad side and got roasted then you could say they were innocent victims.  I'm on the camp that believe they were plotting to overthrow Aerys.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

What was the scope on Aerys' villainy? He executed a few lords and plunged Westeros into war. 

Who didnt?

The people you listed. Aerys did far more than execute a few lords and you know that.

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Joffrey plunged Westeros into war too, as did Petyr and Euron, they also killed the innocents.

The Lannisters had already broken the King's peace and there was fighting all over the RL. Joff had no hand in that. Nor did he have a hand in Ned's imprisonment. That was Cersei and LF.

Euron was joining a war that had already started from the IB perspective.

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Tywin and Walder may have prevented a longer war but they also executed many nobles with their army while breaking the laws of the gods.

Agreed

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Thats 5 modern characters who were more of a villain then Aerys, through the world scope and through their personal actions.

No? Maybe one? Euron is probably more villainous but we only have a small taste of what he's done

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

If that were truly the case he'd have laid down his arms after the Trident, or at least put Viserys on the throne after Aerys died

Well no. A grown Viserys is not going to like the man who killed his father and older brother. Pretty much everyone in the books agrees that living Targs are a danger to Robert AND his throne, not just his throne. Even Ned admits that, but merely observes that the Dothraki "can't run on water." Or as GRRM put it:

"My father had a saying too. Never wound a foe when you can kill him. Dead men don't claim vengeance."

"Their sons do," said Hoster, apologetically.

Share this post


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

Sooo... the point of having a council would be to... let Aerys do what he wants? Are those the changes to be made by Rhaegar? This is just ridiculous at this point. The point is not what a council would have done, the point is why Rheagar wanted to call it. 

Those two are inseparable. 

4 hours ago, wia said:

We have text that outright says that there were rumours that Rhaegar was planning to call a Great Council in order to arrange a regency / a forced abdication / depose his father and seize the Iron Throne for himself.

Rumors from Aerys' lickspittles that the exact same text says they had no shred of proof.

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.

Shockingly neither happened. Probably because they were worthless rumors. 

Had any whiff of proof come into their hands to show that Prince Rhaegar was conspiring against his father, King Aerys’s loyalists would most certainly have used it to bring about the prince’s downfall. Indeed, certain of the king’s men had even gone so far as to suggest that Aerys should disinherit his “disloyal” son, and name his younger brother heir to the Iron Throne in his stead.

Oh man no proof, despite Varys being on the case with his little birds.

Wait there's a pattern here:

The lickspittle lords who surrounded Aerys II had gained much and more from the king’s madness and eagerly seized upon any opportunity to speak ill of Prince Rhaegar and inflame the father’s suspicions of the son.

---

Prince Viserys was but seven years of age, and his eventual ascension would certainly mean a regency, wherein they themselves would rule as regents.

-----

the lickspittle lords gathered around the king declared that [naming Lyanna his Queen of Love and Bueaty] further proof of his perfidy

----

I, for one, definitely put 100% stock in people like this. It's how I make decisions in my life.

4 hours ago, wia said:

We have text where Rhaegar personally says that he meant to call a council long ago and the he will call it once he's back from the Trident to make changes.

This is accurate

4 hours ago, wia said:

Normally you put 2 and 2 and get your answer.

Except the formula is x + 2 = y, not 2 + 2 = y. You can opine that Rhaegar's intent was 100% slam dunk removal of Aerys, but you have nothing concrete to base it off of, which is entirely GRRM's intent.

Share this post


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

The people you listed. Aerys did far more than execute a few lords and you know that.

Like what? What did he do that truly justifies his claim for The Mad King, when King Joffrey shoots a crossbow into a hungry crowd and utilizes the famous kg to beat his fiance in public, or King Euron who drowns those opposed to his claim and enslaves his captors. Even fake kings like Viserys who outlines Rhaego with a sword over his sisters stomach or Cersei who wishes to fill the red keep with heads until she gets her brothers deserve the title more.

The night is dark and full of terrors, especially for those who wear a crown.

17 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

The Lannisters had already broken the King's peace and there was fighting all over the RL. Joff had no hand in that. Nor did he have a hand in Ned's imprisonment. That was Cersei and LF.

Joff killed Ned, under strict orders to pardon. Joffrey is very responsible for Robb Starks war. 

17 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Euron was joining a war that had already started from the IB perspective..

Nah man, that was Victarions campaign speech. Euron is not fighting his brothers war, his campaign speech was more of a world domination with magically submissive dragons

17 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

No? Maybe one? Euron is probably more villainous but we only have a small taste of what he's done

Which one? Your on the fence on Euron? Lol he rapes his brother, sleeps with his sister in law, then kills the remaining brother, all before hes got screen time. This small taste is about to start with Oldtown.

How are Petyr and Walder not super villains? 

Did Ramsays actions not destroy Robbs North, how is that less consequential then Aerys losing his own South? 

17 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Well no. A grown Viserys is not going to like the man who killed his father and older brother. Pretty much everyone in the books agrees that living Targs are a danger to Robert AND his throne, not just his throne. Even Ned admits that, but merely observes that the Dothraki "can't run on water." Or as GRRM put it:

"My father had a saying too. Never wound a foe when you can kill him. Dead men don't claim vengeance."

"Their sons do," said Hoster, apologetically.

Jaime killed Aerys, as his father killed Rhaegars family. Robert killed Rheagr and won the rebellion, sure, but vengance for Targaryen family isnt soley on Robert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2018 at 8:51 AM, DarkSister1001 said:

Evil is the exact word for someone who burns a person and gets so aroused he rapes his sister/wife.  Evil is perfect for someone who intends to move forward with mass genocide.  Nah, Aerys was evil.  But it isn't mutually exclusive.  Just bc Aerys was evil doesn't mean that Robert didn't do evil things, like excusing the murder of children. 

Yeah, kinda seems wrong to actually label a man such as Aerys evil. The guy seemed literally to be insane. Which in all honesty shy render any discussion of the “goodness” or “evilness” of his character entirely moot. Like, we wouldn’t call rats evil by virtue of it being common for them to eat some of their offspring or dogs to have killed their masters even if their masters were always kind to them. They simply don’t have enough wherewithal to honestly be condemned. Honestly, I imagine most courts in the modern world would probably just send Aerys to a mental hospital rather than prison.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t particularly see the dichotomy of RR of being that of heroes v Villians. Mostly because I don’t really see heroes. Ned and Robert, were merely trying to survive, despite Ned’s grandiose spell of them having displaced Aerys, it’s very clear they didn’t rebel over any specific crime that wasn’t directly related to them in some manner. In fact, it seems by killing Rheagar, Robert made the seven kingdoms that much more underprepared to face the coming invasion of the others. I don’t feel it’s particularly appropriate to appropriate to call He and Ned villains, I don’t really feel that much better with them being called heroes. Like Robb. He wasn’t a hero or a villain during his rebellion either. He was pretty neutral all things considered.

I never understood, if House Stark and House Tully were planning to set up an alliance to oust House Targyen, why Rickard and Brandon Stark were so suprised in how Aerys dealt with them. I mean if you’re planning a coup wouldn’t trying to know how the person you’re seeking to dispose is acting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2018 at 12:17 PM, Hugorfonics said:

Like what? What did he do that truly justifies his claim for The Mad King, when King Joffrey shoots a crossbow into a hungry crowd and utilizes the famous kg to beat his fiance in public, or King Euron who drowns those opposed to his claim and enslaves his captors. Even fake kings like Viserys who outlines Rhaego with a sword over his sisters stomach or Cersei who wishes to fill the red keep with heads until she gets her brothers deserve the title more.

Basically everything he did post Duskendale and a fair amount before it. Euron is definitely mad. His IB say as much. If he controls as much territory for remotely as long as Aerys, he will be worse.

On 12/15/2018 at 12:17 PM, Hugorfonics said:

Joff killed Ned, under strict orders to pardon. Joffrey is very responsible for Robb Starks war. 

Robb Stark had already started his war and fought both Lannister armies at this point.

On 12/15/2018 at 12:17 PM, Hugorfonics said:

Nah man, that was Victarions campaign speech. Euron is not fighting his brothers war, his campaign speech was more of a world domination with magically submissive dragons

Lol Euron's intentions are immaterial to my point. Balon had already started a war and taken 4 northern castles at this point.

On 12/15/2018 at 12:17 PM, Hugorfonics said:

Which one? Your on the fence on Euron? Lol he rapes his brother, sleeps with his sister in law, then kills the remaining brother, all before hes got screen time. This small taste is about to start with Oldtown.

Oh he's definitely bad and mad, but frankly he just hasn't has as much time or influence. That is why

On 12/15/2018 at 12:17 PM, Hugorfonics said:

How are Petyr and Walder not super villains? 

Once again, scope. Walder is definitely a villain but other than the RW what has he done? As to LF, more often than not he's just letting people do what they want to do and goes along for the ride. He's definitely a bad(der) guy but hardly an arch villain.

On 12/15/2018 at 12:17 PM, Hugorfonics said:

Did Ramsays actions not destroy Robbs North, how is that less consequential then Aerys losing his own South? 

Aerys lost his entire kingdom, one that he ran. Ramsay ruins one part of a kingdom that he does not run

On 12/15/2018 at 12:17 PM, Hugorfonics said:

Jaime killed Aerys, as his father killed Rhaegars family. Robert killed Rheagr and won the rebellion, sure, but vengance for Targaryen family isnt soley on Robert.

Never said it was. I just said that basically everyone acknowledges that the Targs are a threat to his life and his throne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2018 at 9:57 PM, Damsel in Distress said:

Who the villain is depends on what Robert and Rickard were up to.  They are the villains if they were truly plotting against the Targaryens.  On the other hand, if they were loyal to Aerys and they just got on his bad side and got roasted then you could say they were innocent victims.  I'm on the camp that believe they were plotting to overthrow Aerys.  

 

 

Robert never wanted to be king, he was wronged twice by Rhaegar, he only rebelled when Aeryrs asked for his head out of nowhere.

Rickard had his matches south, he was finally integrating the North into the seven kingdoms, Rhaegar crushed and burned it, Aerys finished the job when he made a mockery of a trial and executed Brandon and Rickard.

The wrong side in the rebellion is pretty clear and was the Targs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I never understood, if House Stark and House Tully were planning to set up an alliance to oust House Targyen, why Rickard and Brandon Stark were so suprised in how Aerys dealt with them. I mean if you’re planning a coup wouldn’t trying to know how the person you’re seeking to dispose is acting?

That is an excellent way to phrase it. I had not thought of it in that light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2018 at 5:24 PM, sweetsunray said:

There was nothing strange about these marriages, Aegon the Conquerer's sister-wives arranged marriages between great houses of regions (including one between House Stark and Arryn) and so did Queen Alysanne Targaryen. House Stark, Tully and Arryn were only doing what the first Targs tried to establish. That Aerys thought it a threat is just further evidence of his paranoia.

Those Targaryens had dragons, Aerys did not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2018 at 12:57 AM, Damsel in Distress said:

They are the villains if they were truly plotting against the Targaryens. 

Why would plotting against Targaryens make you a villain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2018 at 3:42 PM, Arthur Peres said:

Rhaegar is the one to blame for the rebellion, he wronged 3 houses in one stroke. Aerys made things worst, but it was Rhaegar that started it all.

Eddard Jon and Robert were defending themselfs. Do not need make things more complicated than they are.

They would not have had to defend themselves if they were not planning to overthrow Aerys.  

Share this post


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

They would not have had to defend themselves if they were not planning to overthrow Aerys.  

They would not have had to plan to overthrow Aerys...

 

nm they didn’t plan on that. Sorry 

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

×