Jump to content
Mario Seddy

Was rebellion inevitable against the Targaryen Dynasty ?

Recommended Posts

Was rebellion inevitable against the targaryens ? If Robert rebellion hadn't then maybe another rebellion would have been faught to bring down the targaryen dynasty ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem was Aerys specifically, not the Targs in general. Rhaegar was well-liked, had lots of potential and was like a rock star of Westeros.

Crap lords and kings happen and the burden is on the rest of the family to do damage control when that happens. That's what Tywin did with Tytos and later Tyrion, Cersei and Joff. Rhaegar wouldn't/couldn't 25th Amendment Aerys and it snowballed very badly.

The Targs stayed in power post-dragon because they had the sense to step back and let the kingdoms roll how they wanted. It all blew up when Aerys didn't respect that tradition and messed with the heirs of the Eyrie, Winterfell, Storm's End and Casterly Rock. And it looked like he was just getting started. A rebellion against the Targs wasn't inevitable at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Just remove Aerys from the equation and House Targaryen wouldn’t be facing rebellions.

Rhaegar bares the fault as much as his father.

Share this post


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

Rhaegar bares the fault as much as his father.

That’s true. But Aerys has been antagonising the lords of Westeros for years. Like taking Tywins heir. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One could say that once the Targaryens lost their dragons, which is the thing that made gave them a edge against the rest of the families and made them the strongest family in Westeros,  a rebellion against them was inevitable sooner or later.

But they probably would have stayed a lot more time on the Iron Throne had Rhaegar not stolen Lyanna or had Aerys been a little less mad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Mario Seddy said:

Was rebellion inevitable against the targaryens ? If Robert rebellion hadn't then maybe another rebellion would have been faught to bring down the targaryen dynasty ? 

Probably.  But it had nothing to do with Aerys.  Lords like Robert was starting to question why they have to answer to the Targaryens.   Lords like Robert are like male wolves who will look for ways to challenge the alpha.  They need to know that any rebellion they start has no chance of success.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

Why are you obsessed with attempting to discredit the Targaryens in opposition to all textual evidence?

You got right to the point.  Thank you.  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

One could say that once the Targaryens lost their dragons, which is the thing that made gave them a edge against the rest of the families and made them the strongest family in Westeros,  a rebellion against them was inevitable sooner or later.

Yep. We have seen the feudal nature of Westeros leads to inevitable conflict, and it's stated multiple times that lords have to constantly reinforce their positions of strength to keep unruly bannermen in line. The Targaryens tended to fall into hubris assuming they were in charge because manifest destiny or something, not remembering that they were in power to begin with only because they had dragons. Add in the fact that the Targaryens were known for a lot of internal family civil wars (Maegor, Dance of the Dragons, Blackfyres), and it's no surprise that inevitably vassals are going to ask "Why are these guys in charge again?".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2019 at 10:40 PM, Mario Seddy said:

Was rebellion inevitable against the targaryens ? If Robert rebellion hadn't then maybe another rebellion would have been faught to bring down the targaryen dynasty ? 

There were many rebellions before Robert. The Blackfyres, for example, although they were nominally Targaryens themselves. But there was also the Sistermen's Rebellion, Dalton Greyjoy's raiding after the DotD, the Dornish rebellion after the submission of Sunspear, the Peake Uprising, Lyonel Baratheon's rebellion, the Defiance of Duskendale  . . . You could even consider the Reyne/Tarbeck rebellion as a rebellion against the crown, since they were bucking one of its principal vassals -- the Warden of the West, in fact.

So, yes, rebellion against the Targs was inevitable, just as it is with any ruling dynasty. 

Share this post


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

I said the same thing to Mario Seddy a few days ago.  The attempt to smear the Targaryens is not working. 

I've not read Mario's posts recently enough to know if he has been guilty of the accusation before, but the question asked in this post is innocent. Would there have been a rebellion regardless of Aerys? Eventually, no doubt. As people have mentioned previously, rebellions happen all of the time led by one unsatisfied lord or the other. There have been miserable Targ kings before Aerys. There would have at least been an attempted rebellion sooner or later, and the fact that the Targs owned dragons in Westeros no longer put them in enough of a vulnerable position for a different successful rebellion.

This isn't a smear against the Targs, it's common sense. But, uh, if Mario has started his own attempted rebellion I haven't seen it yet and he'll probably meet the same fate as the blackfyres. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A civil war was always inevitable. The Targaryens have a god complex and believe themselves to be above the law of men. It's this mentality that enabled Rhaegar and Aerys to make reckless moves and not believe they would face the consequences of their actions. 

Edited by Elegant Woes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inevitable? I don't think so. More like certain lords were fed up with Aerys (Robert etc) and felt that there would be no better time to seize the throne than when Aerys II sat it and when the Targaryens had no dragons. But problems started in the dynasty before Aerys, though I do not think it is enough to say rebellion was inevitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How inept are you that you manage 5 rebellions from inside your own freaking family (Blackfyres) in only 300 years of ruling? And dragging the rest of realm into your petty family squabbles as a result. How inept are you to let sadistic, crazy people rule instead of removing them? Because that is a recipe for your own undoing, in the form of rebellions. That kind of ineptitude will only work for so long until it becomes a giant problem to the point where the rest of the continent will say 'enough'. And that whole God complex, I can do what I want and screw the consequences because I'm a Targ thinking, will eventually backfire as well.

Edited by Mystical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Ghost Beyond the Wall said:

Inevitable? I don't think so.

Everything that is possible is eventually inevitable. Regardless of Targ strength at a given time, eventually there would be cause, reason, and means for successful rebellion. And it has nothing to do with shortcomings of the Targaryen dynasty or anything of the sort.

By the same token, if possible for the Targs to reclaim the throne (Aegon / Dany and her dragons) it will inevitably happen somehow given enough time. Time is the only thing that drives change in Westeros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2019 at 10:40 PM, Mario Seddy said:

Was rebellion inevitable against the targaryens ? If Robert rebellion hadn't then maybe another rebellion would have been faught to bring down the targaryen dynasty ? 

An unbroken rule over the continent for that long was bound to end.  Westeros is not of one culture and to hold it together for that long was a remarkable achievement.  It was bound to end, but not for the reason the others are trying to imply.  It is just damned hard to maintain hold on so many cultures for so long when some among those people had grudges dating from before the Conquest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

An unbroken rule over the continent for that long was bound to end.  Westeros is not of one culture and to hold it together for that long was a remarkable achievement.  It was bound to end, but not for the reason the others are trying to imply.  It is just damned hard to maintain hold on so many cultures for so long when some among those people had grudges dating from before the Conquest. 

Acting like a tyrantdon't help either.

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

×