Jump to content

Was Robert's Rebellion justified ?


Mario Seddy

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Mario Seddy said:

Was the rebellion against the targaryens justified ? Why did the rebels have to destroy the entire targaryen dynasty ? Couldn't Jon Arryn negotiate with Aerys ? 

Eh, no!

Aerys just ordered the gruesome death of a Lord Paramount and his heir as well as many notable companions. He ordered Arryn to kill Ned and Robert, who are his foster sons and his guests. Under what premises could have Jon negotiated with Aerys?

So, yes, the Rebellion was justified.

The problem is what to do once you topple Aerys. Put Rhaegar on the IT? Viserys with a long and strong regency? And then what? Go to separate kingdoms? Or topple the whole dynasty and start another anew?

I'm unsure about the purpose of these threads tough.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was justified, yes.

With great power comes great responsibility. The position of kings comes with many privileges, but also with some duties. Among those duties, the king has the obligation to give fair trials to their subjects. Once Aerys ignored that duty, he was no longer a rightful king.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Mario Seddy said:

Was the rebellion against the targaryens justified ? Why did the rebels have to destroy the entire targaryen dynasty ? Couldn't Jon Arryn negotiate with Aerys ? 

No.  The rebellion was not justified.  It created more problems for the present and the future.  Westeros was better off under Aerys than it was under Robert.  Jon Arryn was a moron for calling a rebellion that would kill hundreds of thousands of people.  His reasons were not good.  He should have sent Eddard and Robby to King's Landing in a shoe box.  One shoe box. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say that the rebellion as such was very much justified - if what we know about the motivations at this point is accurate and it was indeed Aerys II's command to kill Ned and Robert that caused them to rebel, and Robert hadn't already made up his mind to call his banners because of what Rhaegar did as soon as he was back at Storm's End (which I find not unlikely).

Making a new king over the dead bodies of the king's rightful - and innocent - heirs is another matter entirely. Deposing a cruel/mad king is fine, but the way to do that is to make the proper heir the next king (or at least some of his heirs who are not involved in his crimes - like all the children were)

In fact, if you look at George's historical models for this kind of thing - the deposition and murder of Richard II by a guy who wasn't his immediate heir, say - then it is quite that the overall 'original sin' of the Baratheon dynasty is supposed to bite them in the ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/17/2019 at 11:03 PM, Mario Seddy said:

Was the rebellion against the targaryens justified ? Why did the rebels have to destroy the entire targaryen dynasty ? Couldn't Jon Arryn negotiate with Aerys ? 

  1. There is a theme of antiwar here.  So no, the rebellion was not justified.  It hurt a lot more than it helped.  Killed more than it saved.  The consequences are still being felt at the present.
  2. They tried, but failed.  Viserys, the Beggar King, is still alive and his heir, the Princess Daenerys is alive.  All thanks to the real hero of the past, Ser Willem Darry. 
  3. Jon Arryn wasn't interested in negotiating.  He was a power monger who wanted to forge an alliance between two houses in order to challenge Aerys and his family. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regime change wars, in this case, was not worth it.  We have a presidential candidate right now who is running to stop costly regime change wars.  I'm a conservative when it comes to politics but still, I'm willing to listen to Tulsi Gabbard because I have seen the suffering caused by war.  Aerys was a brutal man but that was not enough reason to start a war.  George Martin is really clever because we have one Baratheon who has likely burned more people than Aerys.  So they each felt justified to cook people who displeased them.  Stannis had no better reasons than Aerys.  Aerys was not going to live much longer and many lives need not have been lost if Jon Arryn had been more patient.  Prince Viserys was a young man who could have been properly educated under the right regent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Aerys was not going to live much longer and many lives need not have been lost if Jon Arryn had been more patient.  Prince Viserys was a young man who could have been properly educated under the right regent.

If Aerys wasn’t going to live much longer and people should have just waited for him to die, Rhaegar would have been King afterwards, not Viserys. Also, Arryn should have been more patient... how exactly? Are you saying he should have sent Aerys the heads of his wards? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

If Aerys wasn’t going to live much longer and people should have just waited for him to die, Rhaegar would have been King afterwards, not Viserys. Also, Arryn should have been more patient... how exactly? Are you saying he should have sent Aerys the heads of his wards? 

Prince Viserys was chosen to succeed.  We would have had King Viserys, Third of His Name.  Jon Arryn should have Fed-Exed those heads to King's Landing.  Marked "Fragile, Handle With Care".  Receipt confirmation required, thank you very much.  He might have sent them to King's Landing alive and let the king pass the sentence.  I prefer the second option, send them alive and let Aerys judge them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Prince Viserys was chosen to succeed.  We would have had King Viserys, Third of His Name.  Jon Arryn should have Fed-Exed those heads to King's Landing.  Marked "Fragile, Handle With Care".  Receipt confirmation required, thank you very much.  He might have sent them to King's Landing alive and let the king pass the sentence.  I prefer the second option, send them alive and let Aerys judge them. 

And Jon Arryn violates Guest Right? We've seen what happens when guest right is violated; just ask Merrett Frey's neck.

Aerys showed that the Iron Throne's word was whim, that people would die horribly because he felt like it.

As far as Viserys was concerned, he was showing signs of instability at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Centurion Piso said:

No.  The rebellion was not justified.  It created more problems for the present and the future.  Westeros was better off under Aerys than it was under Robert.  Jon Arryn was a moron for calling a rebellion that would kill hundreds of thousands of people.  His reasons were not good.  He should have sent Eddard and Robby to King's Landing in a shoe box.  One shoe box. 

 Westeros could field  from 250.000 to 400.000 men by various estimates in total. "Hundreds of thousands" is vast exaggeration at best . That shoe box would need to be very large just to fit  Robby's balls. 

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

Prince Viserys was chosen to succeed.  We would have had King Viserys, Third of His Name.  Jon Arryn should have Fed-Exed those heads to King's Landing.  Marked "Fragile, Handle With Care".  Receipt confirmation required, thank you very much.  He might have sent them to King's Landing alive and let the king pass the sentence.  I prefer the second option, send them alive and let Aerys judge them. 

Viserys and success lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Prince Viserys was chosen to succeed.  We would have had King Viserys, Third of His Name.  Jon Arryn should have Fed-Exed those heads to King's Landing.  Marked "Fragile, Handle With Care".  Receipt confirmation required, thank you very much.  He might have sent them to King's Landing alive and let the king pass the sentence.  I prefer the second option, send them alive and let Aerys judge them. 

But it doesn’t make sense... Viserys was chosen after Arryn had called the banners, and after Rhaegar’s death. You said people should have been patient and waited for Aerys to die, because he “wasn’t going to live much longer” - something you can’t be sure of by the way. So, this fanfic of yours doesn’t really work. Also, king Viserys, third of his name... LOL, great potential for an even worse king than Aerys was. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

But it doesn’t make sense... Viserys was chosen after Arryn had called the banners, and after Rhaegar’s death. You said people should have been patient and waited for Aerys to die, because he “wasn’t going to live much longer” - something you can’t be sure of by the way. So, this fanfic of yours doesn’t really work. Also, king Viserys, third of his name... LOL, great potential for an even worse king than Aerys was. 

Giving time makes much more sense than calling the banners and putting the land in a state of war.  Most of the people who got killed, say 95% or more, had nothing to do with this feud.  Jon Arryn forgot about his responsibility to the masses.  Eddard and Robert were not worth the suffering and the casualties that resulted from the rebellion.  Attempting to justify a war that killed a lot of innocent people to save two boys is futile. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Giving time makes much more sense than calling the banners and putting the land in a state of war.  Most of the people who got killed, say 95% or more, had nothing to do with this feud.  Jon Arryn forgot about his responsibility to the masses.  Eddard and Robert were not worth the suffering and the casualties that resulted from the rebellion.  Attempting to justify a war that killed a lot of innocent people to save two boys is futile. 

Well, Aerys had to be stopped. Also, no Lord will feel safe w/ a capricious king who makes crazy demands. And who’s to say he’s not going to continue down the path of making crazier and crazier demands? But I get it, we disagree, and that’s fine. Still, you didn’t address the points I made in my last reply to you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Giving time makes much more sense than calling the banners and putting the land in a state of war.  Most of the people who got killed, say 95% or more, had nothing to do with this feud.  Jon Arryn forgot about his responsibility to the masses.  Eddard and Robert were not worth the suffering and the casualties that resulted from the rebellion.  Attempting to justify a war that killed a lot of innocent people to save two boys is futile. 

Breaking Guest Right isn't good either. And who's to say Jon Arryn wouldn't face death even though he complied? Rickard Stark complied, and look what it got him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Well, Aerys had to be stopped. Also, no Lord will feel safe w/ a capricious king who makes crazy demands. And who’s to say he’s not going to continue down the path of making crazier and crazier demands? But I get it, we disagree, and that’s fine. Still, you didn’t address the points I made in my last reply to you. 

I disagree.  The welfare of the kingdom should be at a higher priority than the lives of two young men.  It was an irresponsible decision on the part of Jon Arryn.  The Baratheons were so inept they couldn't even handle on succession.  To replace a 300-year dynasty with a family who can't even handle one succession competently is not in the best interest of the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I disagree.  The welfare of the kingdom should be at a higher priority than the lives of two young men.  It was an irresponsible decision on the part of Jon Arryn.  The Baratheons were so inept they couldn't even handle on succession.  To replace a 300-year dynasty with a family who can't even handle one succession competently is not in the best interest of the people.

I already knew you disagreed, as I said in my previous reply. And I’m now officially giving up on you addressing the points I made a couple of posts up thread. I get it, there’s no reply you could possibly give besides, “yeah, I was wrong, that doesn’t really work at all”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I already knew you disagreed, as I said in my previous reply. And I’m now officially giving up on you addressing the points I made a couple of posts up thread. I get it, there’s no reply you could possibly give besides, “yeah, I was wrong, that doesn’t really work at all”. 

You are trying to justify the unjustifiable.  A war that will kill thousands, hundreds of thousands versus Robert and Eddard.  It's not about making an emotional decision.  It's about making the best decision to benefit the most people.  Or, at the very least, harming the least number of people.  Calling the banners to war was irresponsible.  Jon Arryn should have given up the boys.  The incompetent Baratheons can't even manage one succession.  That's incompetence.  Robert screwed up the economy.  Aerys had a large treasury and the Baratheons squandered it all away. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...