Jump to content
Mario Seddy

Was Robert's Rebellion justified ?

Recommended Posts

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

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. 

Except that has nothing to do with the war itself and you're also completely disregarding the context of the time period Westeros is set in. Of course Jon Arryn would care more about other nobles than a few thousand peasants.

And the rebellion is in no way 'unjustifiable'. By that logic the French and Russian revolutions were 'unjustifiable' but tell that to the people who fought it and you can bet you'd get a different answer from them.

Share this post


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

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. 

So from your point of view, Aegon the Conqueror should never have conquered Westeros because he was going to kill many innocents that had nothing to do with his ambitions. This is still a medieval world.

During WW2, the Allies killed many innocents, but we rarely argue that Britain and Frances declaration of war on the Third Reich was unjustified 

What Robert did after his coronation has nothing to do with Arryns reason to call his banners. The war started with the aim of removing a mad king. Robert decided to take the throne after the battle of the bells. 

Honour demanded a war.

Share this post


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

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. 

I’ll make it easier for you. Here, these are the points I’m referring to, the ones you never addressed:

53 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

 

Share this post


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

I’ll make it easier for you. Here, these are the points I’m referring to, the ones you never addressed:

 

Jon Arryn should have waited it out.  Calling his banners to war was rash and irresponsible.  It's historical so we already know it ended in disaster.  The Baratheons bankrupted the realm.  So you can't win with your claim that the rebellion was justified because we already know it turned out. 

Share this post


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

Jon Arryn should have waited it out.  Calling his banners to war was rash and irresponsible.  It's historical so we already know it ended in disaster.  The Baratheons bankrupted the realm.  So you can't win with your claim that the rebellion was justified because we already know it turned out. 

Are you really not understanding what I’m saying? It’s NOT about the rebellion being justified or not. It’s about your claim that Arryn should wait for Aerys to die, and then Viserys would have been king etc. Which doesn’t work because if Arryn waits for Aerys to die, it means no rebellion, which means Rhaegar doesn’t die, which in turn means Viserys is never King, Rhaegar is, and then his son Aegon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2019 at 5:09 PM, Lord Varys said:

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.

This is what I’ve been arguing for years. Robert’s Rebellion was 100% justified(though I’ll still argue that Arryn should have never started a war over two men)but disposing of the Targaryen dynasty was not. 
 

And yes taking the throne will bite them in the ass(from the looks of it it already has)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Die hard Targs, i never can say if they are serious or just trolling, i don't think i'll ever figure that out. :)

 

@Here's Looking At You, Kid Everyone can use that same fallace argument,  why did Aerys and Rhaegar risking the lifes of thousands or... millions:rofl: if all they had to do was getting their heads and chest getting chopped offby Ice or Robert's warhammer?? Giving that they were the aggressors why didn't they have the common sense togo to their deahts?? Why Aerys' KG didn't go onhim Jaime style after what he pulled??

Don't mind about the money tho, Robert could do the same Aerys almost did... BRING THE TITAN TO HIS KNEES,  or just make Tywin sign off the debts.

 

38 minutes ago, The Wolves said:

This is what I’ve been arguing for years. Robert’s Rebellion was 100% justified(though I’ll still argue that Arryn should have never started a war over two men)but disposing of the Targaryen dynasty was not. 

I don't know why the Targs gets free pass for their tyranny, honestly, what Aerys had to do so people see that he had to go?? The man killed i don't know how many nobles were with Rickard, the Mallisters and Elbert Arryn, Old Jon's nephew  and heir.

Why isn't the Targ depose justified anyway?? Why did the rebels had to suffer a dynasty they could not stand anymore?? Why should they put in the throne children who god's know how they might turn out??

 

47 minutes ago, The Wolves said:

And yes taking the throne will bite them in the ass(from the looks of it it already has)

Maegor's wars, the Dance, the poison the GC 101 created,  the Blackfyre Rebellions and the Robellions, it seems that it has come to bite the Targs quite a few times. If the show is any reference, it seeems that Robert's line would be just fine, it would be anyways, his seed is strong after all and the Targs are royally fucked so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, frenin said:

Die hard Targs, i never can say if they are serious or just trolling, i don't think i'll ever figure that out. :)

 

@Here's Looking At You, Kid Everyone can use that same fallace argument,  why did Aerys and Rhaegar risking the lifes of thousands or... millions:rofl: if all they had to do was getting their heads and chest getting chopped offby Ice or Robert's warhammer?? Giving that they were the aggressors why didn't they have the common sense togo to their deahts?? Why Aerys' KG didn't go onhim Jaime style after what he pulled??

Don't mind about the money tho, Robert could do the same Aerys almost did... BRING THE TITAN TO HIS KNEES,  or just make Tywin sign off the debts.

 

I don't know why the Targs gets free pass for their tyranny, honestly, what Aerys had to do so people see that he had to go?? The man killed i don't know how many nobles were with Rickard, the Mallisters and Elbert Arryn, Old Jon's nephew  and heir.

Why isn't the Targ depose justified anyway?? Why did the rebels had to suffer a dynasty they could not stand anymore?? Why should they put in the throne children who god's know how they might turn out??

 

Maegor's wars, the Dance, the poison the GC 101 created,  the Blackfyre Rebellions and the Robellions, it seems that it has come to bite the Targs quite a few times. If the show is any reference, it seeems that Robert's line would be just fine, it would be anyways, his seed is strong after all and the Targs are royally fucked so...

Why should innocent Targaryen women and children and the realm by extension suffer because of Aerys and Rhaegar’s mistakes? 
 

Someone explain to me why Elia, Rhaenys, Aegon, Rhaella, Viserys and Daenerys all suffered because they were Targaryens?

And honestly fuck this Robert’s  rebellion. It took the deaths of nobles for these powerful men to act. While Aerys spent years acting crazy and being a threat they sat back and did nothing. 
 

We don’t know how Aegon would have turned out as king(I would bet money that he would be a better king than any of the Baratheons)but he was a child and could have been shaped to be great one with the right mentors. 
 

The rebellion wasn’t even about disposing of the Targaryen throne. And please don’t mention  that ugly show. The Baratheons are done, half of them are dead, the other half are bastards who are getting murdered and the royal ones are incest Lannisters bastards. The Baratheons don’t even control the throne, Robert was murdered by his wife for the throne, Stannis killed Renly for the throne and left Robert surrounded by Lannisters for the throne. The Baratheons are tethering  on extinction because of the throne, it has come back to bite them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Bowen Marsh said:
  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. 

3)  That’s the deal breaker.  Aerys can’t allow the two houses to form the blood bond of marriage.  Sending Ned and Rob to the wall should have been offered as the compromise.  
 

There are unknowns and all we’re doing is guessing.  Did Rhaegar take Lyanna by force?  If not, do the Starks know she ran away?  Did King Aerys know the truth about Lyanna?  The rebellion is Rhaegar’s fault if he was thinking with his cock and stole the girl.  If the Starks we’re conspiring with the Baratheon to overthrow King Aerys?  They should be executed for treason.

Share this post


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

Why should innocent Targaryen women and children and the realm by extension suffer because of Aerys and Rhaegar’s mistakes? 

Because the Targs happened to not be peasants, but the royal family and the rebels happened to not want the Targs on the throne anymor, since Aerys and Rhaegar wouldn't go if asked nicely, the Realm would suffer.

 

4 hours ago, The Wolves said:

Someone explain to me why Elia, Rhaenys, Aegon, Rhaella, Viserys and Daenerys all suffered because they were Targaryens?

 

Elia, Rhaenys and Aegon, because Tywin is a dick,  Dany and Viserys ecause they were Targs and they were a threat..

 

4 hours ago, The Wolves said:

 And honestly fuck this Robert’s  rebellion. It took the deaths of nobles for these powerful men to act. While Aerys spent years acting crazy and being a threat they sat back and did nothing. 

It usually takes noble deaths to nobles act, it's the world they lived in. Why should they do?? Depose him when not even his heir could bring himself to do it?? Or when half the Realm would try to stop them and they'd be called traitors?? Wgo even tells you that they knew the depth of Aerys madness or everything he was doing?? Who tells you that the rebels wanted to become traitors prior the rebellion?? I can't even with this fallacy.

 

 

4 hours ago, The Wolves said:

We don’t know how Aegon would have turned out as king(I would bet money that he would be a better king than any of the Baratheons)but he was a child and could have been shaped to be great one with the right mentors. 

He might be or he might not be a great one, he might be mad or he might not be but again, the rebels didn't want him on the Throne, they didn't want any Targ on the Throne by the time of the Trident, which is pretty understandable if you ask me, whether you agree with it or not is totally up to you, but to just say it was unjustifiable... A better question would be, why should the rebels care??

 

4 hours ago, The Wolves said:

The rebellion wasn’t even about disposing of the Targaryen throne. And please don’t mention  that ugly show. The Baratheons are done, half of them are dead, the other half are bastards who are getting murdered and the royal ones are incest Lannisters bastards. The Baratheons don’t even control the throne, Robert was murdered by his wife for the throne, Stannis killed Renly for the throne and left Robert surrounded by Lannisters for the throne. The Baratheons are tethering  on extinction because of the throne, it has come back to bite them. 

 

  1. The Robellion wasn't even about deposing the Targs... Until it was, just as independence wasn't the reason why Robb marched south.
  2. Are they?? Who knows, what we know us that nothing good awaits the Targs.
  3. The Dany and Bran's plots are pretty much confirmed, so i think i can mention that ugly show.
  4. It only takes one of them to survive and cling to power so they are not done, just as Jaeharys and the Dance showed, those wars were all infighting but they made trough it.
  5. You pretty much defined infighting, were the Targs cursed to fail when they were all killing eah other back in the good ol days?? I don't think so, what the Baratheons are going through happened to the Targs before and will happen to them, or to the Baratheons if they were to prevail, again in the future.
  6. Right now there are three Baratheons and three Targs left, two of them legit of each iwn, Stanis and Shereen and YGriff and Dany, one"great bastard",Jon and Edric and Robert's god knows how many bastards, I think they are pretty even and given  Broken things and those shenanigans, nothing good awaits for the Targs, jury's still opefor the Baratheons.
  7. The idea that the evil upstarts Baratheon arebeing punished by fate and gods and fate for defying the "natural order of things" is quite... endearing i  guess but infighting comes with royalty.

 

@Widowmaker 811

Quote

3)  That’s the deal breaker.  Aerys can’t allow the two houses to form the blood bond of marriage.  Sending Ned and Rob to the wall should have been offered as the compromise.  
 

Not only they are wanted because their King is a tyrant but they should expect nothing beter because their king is a tyrant, apparently Aerys can't allow those two houses to marriage, one could just say that it's not Aereys beeswax nut even ignoring that, why didn't Aerys say something before??

Edited by frenin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours 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.

Jon Arryn had absolutely no responsibility to the other six kingdoms, he was responsible for the Vale and his wards. The Vale was not ravaged by war, nor were the 7k as a whole, ( the rebellion was a good deal shorter than the war of the 5 kings, and had far less civilian casualties) Kings Landing was sacked, and probably brutally, but the first hostiles through the gates of the city were Lannister men, posing as allies, not soldiers from the Vale. As to protecting the innocents that were actually under his power, Jon Arryn did better than most.

You are painting a very inaccurate portrait of Jon Arryn.

Also whether Robert was the best or worst king in the history of westeros has absolutely no bearing on the OPs question, you are speaking with the omniscient hindsight of a reader of the books, not a character in the moment.

Edited by Back door hodor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

3)  That’s the deal breaker.  Aerys can’t allow the two houses to form the blood bond of marriage.  Sending Ned and Rob to the wall should have been offered as the compromise.  

Many great houses have married with each other before. We know that a Tyrell married the lord of the eyrie. And a Lannister has also married an Arryn and Baratheon. 
What was worrying was that Rickard was creating an alliance block with 4 kingdoms. Now that’s a bigger threat than two great houses marrying. 

Share this post


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

What was worrying was that Rickard was creating an alliance block with 4 kingdoms. Now that’s a bigger threat than two great houses marrying

Was that worrying?? At least Aerys and  Rhaegar seemed to find each other a more urgent  problem and  none of that Houses were nothing but loyal at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2019 at 7:21 AM, The Young Maester said:

Many great houses have married with each other before. We know that a Tyrell married the lord of the eyrie. And a Lannister has also married an Arryn and Baratheon. 
What was worrying was that Rickard was creating an alliance block with 4 kingdoms. Now that’s a bigger threat than two great houses marrying. 

Queen Rhaenys made marriage matches to force families towards peace.  There is a historical precedent for monarchs choosing who will marry whom.  It is nothing illegal.  Miraxes was there to back up Rhaenys.  Aerys had backup but they were less effective.  It was within his rights to order Rickard to stop the engagement.  My opinion, he did through emissaries and the Starks refused.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Queen Rhaenys made marriage matches to force families towards peace.  There is a historical precedent for monarchs choosing who will marry whom.  It is nothing illegal.  Miraxes was there to back up Rhaenys.  Aerys had backup but they were less effective.  It was within his rights to order Rickard to stop the engagement.  My opinion, he did through emissaries and the Starks refused.  

No, you have no evidence of this that's just your head canon which has no bearing on anything unless you can produce something that gives a single hint towards that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Darksnider05 said:

No, you have no evidence of this that's just your head canon which has no bearing on anything unless you can produce something that gives a single hint towards that.

widowmaker's about as anti-Stark as they come, tbh it borders on illogical most of the time. You are correct that there is no precedent for a monarch ordering two vassals about who they can marry. Rhaenys encouraged marriages and worked as a broker between houses but there was no forcing there.

Hell, under both Viserys I and Aegon V the direct heir to the throne married without the King (their father) giving his permission and it wasn't a crime. Hell, Egg's second and third children also married without consent and they became King and Queen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Queen Rhaenys made marriage matches to force families towards peace.  There is a historical precedent for monarchs choosing who will marry whom.  It is nothing illegal.  Miraxes was there to back up Rhaenys.  Aerys had backup but they were less effective.  It was within his rights to order Rickard to stop the engagement.  My opinion, he did through emissaries and the Starks refused.  

Rhaenys forced marriages to promote integrity within the newly made kingdoms. Nowhere it says she forced houses into breaking marriage pacts.

We have never seen a case in which the king has forced a great house to break its marriage pact with another house. Breaking a betrothal isnt something you do out of a whim. The Red Wedding is a clear example of how angry a house can be at you when you dishonour a betrothal and decide to break it. 

2 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

here is a historical precedent for monarchs choosing who will marry whom.  It is nothing illegal.

Yes between courtiers and unmarried lords and ladies. Not through breaking marriage contracts. 

2 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

 It was within his rights to order Rickard to stop the engagement.  My opinion, he did through emissaries and the Starks refused.  

Saying it was within his rights to demand such an order without any evidence of such a thing being done by previous kings, wont make it a fact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2019 at 4:56 PM, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

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. 

The crimes of Aerys go further than just killing Brandon and Rickard Stark.

 

  • He killed everyone with Darklyn blood or who had that last name with the exception of Ser Dontos Hollard, as well as those serving those houses directly. He also burned the villages of those 2 Houses(not sure why he didnt burn Duskendale itself).
  • Killed the wet Nurse of Jaehaerys, then killed his mistress and entire family. 
  • It is stated that other executions were done between this event and the Rebellion, but not named specifically. 
  • Besides Brandon Stark, heir to Winterfell; King Aerys also killed  Elbert Arryn, heir to the Eyrie , Kyle Royce, and Jeffory Mallister.  

So no, Stannis is not responsible for more deaths than Aerys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2019 at 4:03 AM, 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 ? 

 

Well, I think George went out of his way to justify it. This is not remotely a grey situation. One family are a bunch of inbred and entitled creatures who have lost what made them strong in the first place led by a cackling madman. Set against two young warriors who represent both the righteous vigor of the Baratheons and the stoic purity of the Starks. The latter of which have peacefully ruled the North for centuries and are entirely the victims in every situation they are involved in. Men of Wolfsblood and the First Men who are superior to both Andal and Valyrian alike. They don’t do it to just take power but have pure motivations.

He also has the Lannisters do the dirty work by sacking Kings Landing, killing the Mad King, murdering Elia and her children. This means that Rob and Ned won the war with clean sheets so that Tywin takes all the blame.

Well the entire war is an absurdity thats made to create conflict and drama. It wouldn’t be interesting if people just thought things through and had a more bureaucratic view of the world. Everything has to be personal and about the whims of great men.

 

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

×