Why did anyone support the targaryens in the rebellion ?

[Mario Seddy]

Why did the lords support aerys, everyone knew he was mad, so why did anyone bother to support the targaryens? why didn't they just support the rebellion and dispose the mad King ? 

[Lluewhyn]

The eternal question. Some were supporting Rhaegar rather than Aerys, some were jockeying for favors (the best way to get new lands and titles is to be on the winning side of a war), and who knows about the rest.

[nyser1]

3 hours ago, Lluewhyn said:

The eternal question. Some were supporting Rhaegar rather than Aerys, some were jockeying for favors (the best way to get new lands and titles is to be on the winning side of a war), and who knows about the rest.

I agree with the middle two points. There are other reasons - some might actually want to honor their oath to their king, some may feel compelled to do so regardless, some may be bound by alliances, some may actually have had good relations with Aerys, etc.

[Farstrider]

9 hours ago, Mario Seddy said:

Why did the lords support aerys, everyone knew he was mad, so why did anyone bother to support the targaryens? why didn't they just support the rebellion and dispose the mad King ? 

1. They swore allegiance to Aerys.
2. He was their lawful ruler.
3. He and his councilors managed the kingdom properly.
4. The kingdom grew rich under his rule.
5. Many lords were benefiting from Aerys and his robust economy.
6. They could care less what Aerys did to Brandon and Rickard.

[frenin]

52 minutes ago, The Coonster said:

• He and his councilors managed the kingdom properly.
• The kingdom grew rich under his rule.
• Many lords were benefiting from Aerys and his robust economy.

Why are you acting like Tywin's accomplisments were Aerys or as if no one knew that Aerys was more than a figure head??

 

54 minutes ago, The Coonster said:

1. They could care less what Aerys did to Brandon and Rickard.

Since Aerys could do the same to them is rather odd that they cared less for what he pulled.

 

Aerys seemed the winner option,  usually stable rulers are the best options ti bet and the rebellion wasn't taken seriously until after the bells.

[cassidyaj]

IIRC even Stannis had a head time choosing his brother over the "rightful" ruler.

[Rose of Red Lake]

Aerys held Elia hostage and forced Dorne to fight for him.

[Aldarion]

20 hours ago, Mario Seddy said:

Why did the lords support aerys, everyone knew he was mad, so why did anyone bother to support the targaryens? why didn't they just support the rebellion and dispose the mad King ? 

Several reasons:

1) Honor. They are bound by duty, honor and pledge to support the rightful king. That is not so easily broken, especially with people who are not as psychopathic as modern humans are. Why do you think German officers took so long a time to try and kill off Hitler, even after the war turned against Germany? They were sworn - and Hitler played it cleverly by making them swear a pledge of loyalty directly to him, not to German state or people; so they could not use Byzantine justification for overthrowing a ruler ("He is harmful to common good").

2) Consistency. Targaryens had been ruling for centuries, and Aerys himself was not always mad. Overthrowing a ruler is not easy to justify, overthrowing a dynasty far less so. And Rhaegar himself remained loyal, so they lacked a figurehead to form around.

3) Hope. As I mentioned, Rhaegar was there. So there was hope that "we just need to survive this insane moron and then we are good". But Rebellion happened and insane moron got replaced by a lazy moron.

[X-Buster]

6 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Several reasons:

1) Honor. They are bound by duty, honor and pledge to support the rightful king. That is not so easily broken, especially with people who are not as psychopathic as modern humans are. Why do you think German officers took so long a time to try and kill off Hitler, even after the war turned against Germany? They were sworn - and Hitler played it cleverly by making them swear a pledge of loyalty directly to him, not to German state or people; so they could not use Byzantine justification for overthrowing a ruler ("He is harmful to common good").

2) Consistency. Targaryens had been ruling for centuries, and Aerys himself was not always mad. Overthrowing a ruler is not easy to justify, overthrowing a dynasty far less so. And Rhaegar himself remained loyal, so they lacked a figurehead to form around.

3) Hope. As I mentioned, Rhaegar was there. So there was hope that "we just need to survive this insane moron and then we are good". But Rebellion happened and insane moron got replaced by a lazy moron.

Killing subordinates is not unheard of in a feudal world.  Killing the Starks was not a good reason to rebel. I would think many lords chuckled when they heard what Aerys did to the Starks.  Aerys was not harming the regular folks.  Westeros was stable and many lords were getting fat under his reign. 

[Aldarion]

1 hour ago, Unit A2 said:

Killing subordinates is not unheard of in a feudal world.  Killing the Starks was not a good reason to rebel. I would think many lords chuckled when they heard what Aerys did to the Starks.  Aerys was not harming the regular folks.  Westeros was stable and many lords were getting fat under his reign. 

There is difference between killing subordinates and killing feudal lords - especially lords whom Targaryens did not name. Take a look at what happened when Robb Stark hacked off old Karstark's head - with, I might add, far more justification than what Aerys did.

Keep in mind also that Starks used to be Kings in the North until Targaryens came. In any conflict between the two, North will support the Starks. Of course, Starks would have found little support if they had not already built it up, either intentionally (the Great Northern Conspiracy theory) or unintentionally (through other acts of Aerys' cruelty and madness we do not hear of). And as you state, fact that Aerys killed the Starks does not mean many other lords would have supported rebellion without having some other cause besides.

[John Suburbs]

On 11/7/2019 at 11:36 AM, Mario Seddy said:

Why did the lords support aerys, everyone knew he was mad, so why did anyone bother to support the targaryens? why didn't they just support the rebellion and dispose the mad King ? 

Dorne supported him because Lewyn was a member of the kingsguard and Aerys had Elia and her two children as hostage.

The Tyrells are a bit more complex. Prior to the rebellion, there were all kinds of marriage contracts in the works that would have united the Starks, Tully's, Baratheons and even the Lannisters, with maybe the Arryns thrown in as well. Up to this time, it was very rare for the great houses to inter-marry, with at best a great house marrying a bannerman to another great use, ie, Stark-Royce, Lannister-Frey. The fact that these houses are suddenly looking to unite by marriage would have been very worrisome to the MK, because it could potentially lead to a power-bloc that could threaten the Targ dynasty.

But it would also have been very worrisome to the Tyrells. If you look at history, Highgarden has been the traditional hegemon on the continent, first under the Gardeners, then the Tyrells. This was necessary because the Reach doesn't have much in the way of natural defenses -- no cold winters, no mountains, no deserts, etc. All they have is people, lots and lots of people, which is what allows them to field the largest army, by far. It takes two or even three other houses to match the might of Highgarden. But this only works when there is political stability among the Reach nobility, and the best way to get that is through marriage. If you look at the family trees, you'll see that the Tyrells, Redwynes and Hightowers are one large extended family, with a smattering of Fossoways, Tarlys and Beesburys thrown in (but no Florents). It's telling that the only time Highgarden has ever fallen is when the Gardener king at the time made a series of unwise marriages for his daughters, which led to dissension among the banners, and the Reach was invaded simultaneously by Dorne, the stormlands and the westerlands.

So if enough of the other high lords were to unite their families in the same way that the Tyrells have, this would pose a significant challenge to their hegemony. And the fact that, after the war, Tywin Lannister has managed to do this very thing -- he has both the Iron Throne and Storm's End through Cersei, the riverlands through Genna, the north through Tyrion, and even hooks into Dorn through Myrcella -- would have been equally disturbing for Tyrells with sense enough to see what is going on. And this is why Lady Olenna tried to kill Tyrion at the Purple Wedding by putting a poison crystal into his pie.

[Back door hodor]

On 11/7/2019 at 9:39 PM, frenin said:

Why are you acting like Tywin's accomplisments were Aerys or as if no one knew that Aerys was more than a figure head??

To many there would be no difference, the king will get the credit(or the blame.) We as readers know how capable Tywin was, and how much he actually did, the average noble, who does not go to Kinngs Landing often, would see only the realm in prosperity and not question the Kings ability 

[frenin]

1 hour ago, Back door hodor said:

To many there would be no difference, the king will get the credit(or the blame.) We as readers know how capable Tywin was, and how much he actually did, the average noble, who does not go to Kinngs Landing often, would see only the realm in prosperity and not question the Kings ability 

None of these grandiose plans ever came to fruition; most, indeed, were forgotten within a moon’s turn, for Aerys II seemed to grow bored with his royal enthusiasms as quickly as he did his royal paramours. And yet the Seven Kingdoms prospered greatly during the first decade of his reign, for the King’s Hand was all that the king himself was not—diligent, decisive, tireless, fiercely intelligent, just, and stern. “The gods made and shaped this man to rule,” Grand Maester Pycelle wrote of Tywin Lannister in a letter to the Citadel after serving with him on the small council for two years. And rule he did. As the king’s own behavior grew increasingly erratic, more and more the day-today running of the realm fell to his Hand. The realm prospered under Tywin Lannister’s stewardship —so much so that King Aerys’s endless caprices did not seem so portentous. Many Targaryens before him had exhibited similar behavior without great cause for concern. From Oldtown to the Wall, men began to say that Aerys might wear the crown, but it was Tywin Lannister who ruled the realm. It was Tywin Lannister who settled the crown’s dispute with the Braavosi (though without “making the Titan kneel,” to the king’s displeasure), by repaying the monies lent to Jaehaerys II with gold from Casterly Rock, thereby taking the debts upon himself. Tywin won the approbation of many great lords by repealing what remained of the laws Aegon V had enacted to curb their powers. Tywin reduced tariffs and taxes on shipping going in and out of the cities of King’s Landing, Lannisport, and Oldtown, winning the support of many wealthy merchants. Tywin built new roads and repaired old ones, held many splendid tournaments about the realm to the delight of knights and commons both, cultivated trade with the Free Cities, and sternly punished bakers found guilty of adding sawdust to their bread and butchers selling horsemeat as beef. In all these efforts he was greatly aided by Grand Maester Pycelle, whose accounts of the reign of Aerys II give us our best portrait of these times. Yet despite these accomplishments, Tywin Lannister was little loved. His rivals charged that he was humorless, unforgiving, unbending, proud, and cruel. His lords bannermen respected him and followed him loyally in war and peace, but none could truly be named his friends. Tywin despised his father, the weak-willed, fat, and ineffectual Lord Tytos Lannister, and his relations with his brothers Tygett and Gerion were notoriously stormy. He showed more regard for his brother Kevan, a close confidant and constant companion since childhood, and his sister Genna, but yet even in those cases, Tywin Lannister appeared more dutiful than affectionate. Yandel

 

By this time, King Aerys had become aware of the widespread belief that he himself was but a hollow figurehead and Tywin Lannister the true master of the Seven Kingdoms. These sentiments greatly angered the king, and His Grace became determined to disprove them and to humble his “overmighty servant” and “put him back into his place.” Yandel

 

His Grace’s growing madness had become unmistakable by that time. From Dorne to the Wall, men had begun to refer to Aerys II as the Mad King. In King’s Landing, he was called King Scab, for the many times he had cut himself upon the Iron Throne. Yet with Varys the Spider and his whisperers listening, it had become very dangerous to voice any of these sentiments aloud. Yandel

 

I find it very hard to believe, the only thing Aerys can be credited for is for keeping peace and even then, given that after Tywin left Aerys didn't last even galf a year without fucking on his own dynasty, that can be argued.

[apovsic]

15 hours ago, Unit A2 said:

I would think many lords chuckled when they heard what Aerys did to the Starks. 

I would think not, because there wasn't so many psychos among theme.

[Here's Looking At You, Kid]

On 11/7/2019 at 11:36 AM, Mario Seddy said:

Why did the lords support aerys, everyone knew he was mad, so why did anyone bother to support the targaryens? why didn't they just support the rebellion and dispose the mad King ? 

Why does Walton support and gives his loyalty to Roose Bolton when everyone knows what he does to his small people?  Because he's their lord!  They swore an oath and as long as it's not them or their loved ones getting punished it's ok.  Cruelty and harsh punishment is the way of things in their system.  Do you remember the hanging corpses seen by Dunk and Aegon on their way to serve Ser Eustace?  Why do the western lords support Tywin?  After all, look what he did to an innocent girl named Tysha.  Look what he did to the Reynes.  They support him because he's their lord and they don't see those things as anything illegal.  And it wasn't done to them.  If a mere lord can do those things and get away with it in the eyes of the public then most certainly a king can burn a mere lord and his hotheaded son.  What Aerys did was not cause enough to remove him from power because he was not harming the masses.  Hindsight is perfect and now we know the rebellion and the Baratheon rule did more harm than good.  Jon Arryn placed the interest of Ned and Robert ahead of the welfare of the millions of people in Westeros.  It might have been acceptable if the Baratheons had brought peace, prosperity, and progress.  They did not.  So the rebellion was pointless. 

The OP is trying to paint the Targaryens as a hated family and their rule as a failure when that is far from the truth.  The attempt to revise the story has failed to gain traction because it is not true.  The Targaryens were largely successful.  I should think if Viserys Targaryen and Robb Stark were to hold an election for the throne of the kingdom that Viserys would win more votes very easily. 

[frenin]

1 hour ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

Hindsight is perfect and now we know the rebellion and the Baratheon rule did more harm than good.  Jon Arryn placed the interest of Ned and Robert ahead of the welfare of the millions of people in Westeros.  It might have been acceptable if the Baratheons had brought peace, prosperity, and progress.  They did not.  So the rebellion was pointless. 

The Baratheons brought peace and progress, the Realm prospered but the crown didn't so we can't say they brought prosperity, if we cut the Targ line in Maegor, is fairly easy to say the Targs didmore harm than good and them not accepting incest is not good, polygamy is not good fucked the Realm, is the things about cherry picking, everyone can do it.

 

1 hour ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

 The OP is trying to paint the Targaryens as a hated family and their rule as a failure when that is far from the truth.  The attempt to revise the story has failed to gain traction because it is not true.  The Targaryens were largely successful.  I should think if Viserys Targaryen and Robb Stark were to hold an election for the throne of the kingdom that Viserys would win more votes very easily. 

Well, they certainly are not the most loved.

Viserys, the Beggar King, half mad and son of the Mad King would only win very easily in his mind.

[Here's Looking At You, Kid]

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

The Baratheons brought peace and progress, the Realm prospered but the crown didn't so we can't say they brought prosperity, if we cut the Targ line in Maegor, is fairly easy to say the Targs didmore harm than good and them not accepting incest is not good, polygamy is not good fucked the Realm, is the things about cherry picking, everyone can do it.

 

Well, they certainly are not the most loved.

Viserys, the Beggar King, half mad and son of the Mad King would only win very easily in his mind.

The Baratheons did not bring peace.  Balon rebelled soon after Robert stole the throne.  The crown's debt is the realm's debt.  It's the working class that pays. 

In the world of ice and fire, yes.  The Targaryens are the most loved family by the people.  The High Lords' family are loved by many of their vassals and underlings.  That's normal for people to have affection for their leaders.  Imperfect they may be but that leader is theirs.  The Targaryens ruled over everyone in Westeros.  They have more "fans" in Westeros when compared to any single family.  They ruled more and are known by more. 

[frenin]

8 minutes ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

The Baratheons did not bring peace.  Balon rebelled soon after Robert stole the throne.  The crown's debt is the realm's debt.  It's the working class that pays. 

 

Neither the Targs, who had a major civil war by generation, the Barathenos are following their footsteps , Balon's war was little and it didn't even last a year, after that, yeah peace.

Is it?? I don't see the North or the Vale indebted because the crown is, btw the working class always pays.

 

11 minutes ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

 In the world of ice and fire, yes.  The Targaryens are the most loved family by the people.  The High Lords' family are loved by many of their vassals and underlings.  That's normal for people to have affection for their leaders.  Imperfect they may be but that leader is theirs.  The Targaryens ruled over everyone in Westeros.  They have more "fans" in Westeros when compared to any single family.  They ruled more and are known by more. 

Ofc, if you ask a northener who they love more, a Targ or Dornish, the answer is clear, even when the truth is"none, i don't know them".

But Aerys wasn't known as the Mad King for naught, Robb is more known than any living Targ.

[Mordred]

Families who were prospering won't be eager to change the government.  Maintain the status quo was their motto.  The Targaryens didn't do anything that would rise to the level of a rebellion.  Its like what happened to Bran does not rise to the level where war is justified. 

[frenin]

25 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Families who were prospering won't be eager to change the government.  Maintain the status quo was their motto.  The Targaryens didn't do anything that would rise to the level of a rebellion.  Its like what happened to Bran does not rise to the level where war is justified. 

I'm curious, what would have Aerys and  Rhaegar done for the rebellion to be justified in your mind??