Jump to content

Why was there no justice given to Elia Martell and her children ?


Sasuke Targaryen

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I am talking about in-universe standards - which largely mirror those of 15th century Europe.

So am I, it is why I gave you an example of Thomas Stanley, who did something very similar and suffered little harm from it, much like Tywin did not.

Quote

 

 Nobody talks of the sack of Kings Landing as something the inhabitants brought on themselves by defying Lord Tywin.

Dude, that is not my argument at all.

Where have I claimed the smallfolk are to blame? Is there any need to resort to bad faith arguments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

Why dodge the question? Why continuously make points and then refuse to back them up?

  • Where is it claimed that Amory and Clegane were easy for Tywin to find?
  • Where is it claimed that the Westerlands has more such men than any other kingdom in Westeros?

I didn't claim that, i said that it was easy to find and I was talking especifically about hired muscle, which is why  you made the question only about nobles.

 

 

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

eh? Did you misunderstand what I said? Did you disagree with it, if so which parts?

That it has yet  to be said that other part  but the Lannister army actually ravaged the  city, all the sources keep saying that it was the Lannisters the one who do it,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

This kind of shit was not that uncommon, though not in these exact circumstances. Lord Stanley did something similar at the Battle of Bosworth. He switched sides during the battle, betraying Richard III despite starting the day on his side.

A more salutary example would be the conduct of Edward III's troops in his Normandy campaign before the Battle of Crecy. In it, on a number of occasions towns were sacked after surrender on terms and in one instance even after intriguing to go over to the English before the campaign had begun (this was due to a notably even for the time undisciplined English army in this particular campaign, and a result of piracy campaign waged by Normandy on southern England having troops seeking to destroy the duchy regardless of what their commanders ordered- bear in mind all of these breeches were against explicit orders).

As a consequence of this- even after Crecy (a battle that among other things had French nobles in other parts of the realm making private truces with the English)- the Norman lord that had invited Edward III in self-exiled to the HRE and then lobbied to re-submit to Paris (successfully).

It's pretty serious shit, man. Hell, simply ignoring a Lord's parole that he had given led to a breech between the French crown prince and the king right about then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2020 at 10:17 AM, frenin said:

I didn't claim that, i said that it was easy to find

You said it was easier to find in the Westerlands than any other region, did you not?

On 7/30/2020 at 10:17 AM, frenin said:

 

and I was talking especifically about hired muscle, which is why  you made the question only about nobles.

No, the point was about Gregor and Lorch, both nobles. It is not easy finding nobles with their skill set, trust and being willing to murder royal children. The consequences of that such actions could be dire. Most nobles would not take the risk.

The idea that such men are easy to find is not really backed up in the series.

On 7/30/2020 at 10:17 AM, frenin said:

 

 

That it has yet  to be said that other part  but the Lannister army actually ravaged the  city, all the sources keep saying that it was the Lannisters the one who do it,

No, they say the Lannisters were the cause of it. Which is true. The attacking army is always going to be the cause of the sack. My point is that the raping, murdering and thieving is done by all sides (soldiers on both sides and unruly smallfolk).

 

On 7/30/2020 at 8:11 PM, illrede said:

A more salutary example would be the conduct of Edward III's troops in his Normandy campaign before the Battle of Crecy. In it, on a number of occasions towns were sacked after surrender on terms

Kings Landing had not surrendered. I don't know why I have to keep on repeating this.

They thought they opened the gates to allies, they did not. Tywin was treacherous in this endeavour, but they did not surrender.

Tywin still needed to take control of the city, capture Aerys, the Royal family, the Small Council, the treasury, take control of the docks and gates. So Tywin prioritized these things over the safety of the residents of the city. He could have taken the city far more peacefully, but it would have taken longer and run the risk of his main objectives (those listed) not being carried. out.

 

42 minutes ago, S. D said:

Robert is a moral coward that's why

Not in this scenario. Robert hated the Targs, wanted them all dead. He did not punish people who killed them because he was scared of the reaction of others, but because he was happy to see them dead. 

In fact him not punishing Gregory and Lorch meant that he and Ned fell out. He was okay with the hostility from others in this decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Not in this scenario. Robert hated the Targs, wanted them all dead. He did not punish people who killed them because he was scared of the reaction of others, but because he was happy to see them dead. 

In fact him not punishing Gregory and Lorch meant that he and Ned fell out. He was okay with the hostility from others in this decision.

That must be why they didnt visit each other 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

You said it was easier to find in the Westerlands than any other region, did you not?

No, the point was about Gregor and Lorch, both nobles. It is not easy finding nobles with their skill set, trust and being willing to murder royal children. The consequences of that such actions could be dire. Most nobles would not take the risk.

The idea that such men are easy to find is not really backed up in the series.

No, they say the Lannisters were the cause of it. Which is true. The attacking army is always going to be the cause of the sack. My point is that the raping, murdering and thieving is done by all sides (soldiers on both sides and unruly smallfolk).

Kings Landing had not surrendered. I don't know why I have to keep on repeating this.

They thought they opened the gates to allies, they did not. Tywin was treacherous in this endeavour, but they did not surrender.

Tywin still needed to take control of the city, capture Aerys, the Royal family, the Small Council, the treasury, take control of the docks and gates. So Tywin prioritized these things over the safety of the residents of the city. He could have taken the city far more peacefully, but it would have taken longer and run the risk of his main objectives (those listed) not being carried. out.

Not in this scenario. Robert hated the Targs, wanted them all dead. He did not punish people who killed them because he was scared of the reaction of others, but because he was happy to see them dead. 

In fact him not punishing Gregory and Lorch meant that he and Ned fell out. He was okay with the hostility from others in this decision.

I don’t know that we can say that he was happy to see them dead. Some people seem to think so, but we don’t have a Robert POV. And the fact that he expressed regret over ordering Danny’s death on his deathbed suggests that he always knew it was wrong. I’m not sure that he’d have been able to bring himself to do it if he’d made it to the capital before the Lannisters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Lee-Sensei said:

I don’t know that we can say that he was happy to see them dead. Some people seem to think so, but we don’t have a Robert POV. And the fact that he expressed regret over ordering Danny’s death on his deathbed suggests that he always knew it was wrong. I’m not sure that he’d have been able to bring himself to do it if he’d made it to the capital before the Lannisters.

The fandom thinks it's cool to take a pot shot at Bobby B whenever they can......

Since he somewhat defines the trope of the over-achieved good looking white dude who won so hard.... That he had nothing to do but get fat on his success....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Orm said:

The fandom thinks it's cool to take a pot shot at Bobby B whenever they can......

Since he somewhat defines the trope of the over-achieved good looking white dude who won so hard.... That he had nothing to do but get fat on his success....

IIRC, Bernie defends him a bit. I also don’t think that Robert was an overachiever generally. Maybe just at tradition “masculine” pursuits (fighting, warring, sports, hawking, hunting etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lee-Sensei said:

I don’t know that we can say that he was happy to see them dead. Some people seem to think so, but we don’t have a Robert POV.

I think we can say that until such a POV turns up,  that Robert most likely was happy to see them dead.

He remembered the angry words they had exchanged when Tywin Lannister had presented Robert with the corpses of Rhaegar's wife and children as a token of fealty. Ned had named that murder; Robert called it war. When he had protested that the young prince and princess were no more than babes, his new-made king had replied, "I see no babes. Only dragonspawn."

That seems pretty damning. As is the fact that the mere mention of their name still makes him angry almost two decades later

"Treachery was a coin the Targaryens knew well," Robert said. The anger was building in him again. "Lannister paid them back in kind. It was no less than they deserved. I shall not trouble my sleep over it."

 

Quote

 

And the fact that he expressed regret over ordering Danny’s death on his deathbed suggests that he always knew it was wrong.

And still did it anyway.

Having regret on your deathbed is a common trope for people scared of the consequences in their next life, or simply to how they will be remembered.

Robert later having regret does not change the fact that he ordered the death of a pregnant teenager.

Quote

 

I’m not sure that he’d have been able to bring himself to do it if he’d made it to the capital before the Lannisters.

I agree. And with Jon Arryn and Ned with him I think their deaths may have been prevented. That does not mean Robert did not hate them and did not wish to see them dead, but it is probably something that he would have been too ashamed to have done, while they were that age.

Under a Robert kingdom I see them being his 'guests' in some tower somewhere and Aegon dying in his sleep once he reached an age that Robert could deal with his death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lee-Sensei said:

IIRC, Bernie defends him a bit. I also don’t think that Robert was an overachiever generally. Maybe just at tradition “masculine” pursuits (fighting, warring, sports, hawking, hunting etc.).

I am not referring to Bernie Mac....... I am referring to those people who believe that Rob was the macho scum who became king in westeros......while knowing that the Author himself says otherwise........

And being a self-made king of the continent is what I would consider over-achieving in a fantasy midieval world.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

That seems pretty damning. As is the fact that the mere mention of their name still makes him angry almost two decades later

Isn't it what moral cowardice is though?

He knows it's wrong to butcher children..... He won't butcher children. So justifies it to himself in almost a racist kind of way(dragonspawn) , not even acknowledging them as children and condemning it out of rage and hatred....

36 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

And still did it anyway.

Having regret on your deathbed is a common trope for people scared of the consequences in their next life, or simply to how they will be remembered.

Robert later having regret does not change the fact that he ordered the death of a pregnant teenager.

And this makes him by default, Already better than half the nobility in Westeros... And 70% of the Targ kings before him......

Sadly.......

I would also he didn't give two shits about his image when he lived..... It felt like when he was dying, why did it not come sooner...... So before dying he looks back and let's go of his rage and hatred.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

I think we can say that until such a POV turns up,  that Robert most likely was happy to see them dead.

He remembered the angry words they had exchanged when Tywin Lannister had presented Robert with the corpses of Rhaegar's wife and children as a token of fealty. Ned had named that murder; Robert called it war. When he had protested that the young prince and princess were no more than babes, his new-made king had replied, "I see no babes. Only dragonspawn."

That seems pretty damning. As is the fact that the mere mention of their name still makes him angry almost two decades later

"Treachery was a coin the Targaryens knew well," Robert said. The anger was building in him again. "Lannister paid them back in kind. It was no less than they deserved. I shall not trouble my sleep over it."

And still did it anyway.

Having regret on your deathbed is a common trope for people scared of the consequences in their next life, or simply to how they will be remembered.

Robert later having regret does not change the fact that he ordered the death of a pregnant teenager.

I agree. And with Jon Arryn and Ned with him I think their deaths may have been prevented. That does not mean Robert did not hate them and did not wish to see them dead, but it is probably something that he would have been too ashamed to have done, while they were that age.

Under a Robert kingdom I see them being his 'guests' in some tower somewhere and Aegon dying in his sleep once he reached an age that Robert could deal with his death.

1) It really doesn’t. He was angry when he ordered the assasination against Daenerys too, but on his death bed he admitted that he knew it was wrong. If he wanted to, he could have killed them while they were wandering through Essos, yet he doesn’t try to kill them until the alliance with the Dothraki. We’re told that Jon Arryn convinced him not to, and that’s probably partially true, but Jon Arryn also tried to get him to spend less money and he kept spending anyways. If Robert wanted to do something, he was going to do it, even if he was being advised not to.

2) The Daenerys order is a lot more complicated than that. It’s not at all comparable to killing two babies. It’s also much more justifiable than what happened to Rhaegars babies. The marriage alliance between Daenerys and Khal Drogo was clearly a threat to Westeros and if the books turn out anything like the show, the realm will pay the price for letting her live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

1) It really doesn’t. He was angry when he ordered the assasination against Daenerys too,

He was just angry talking about them, 15 years later, to Ned.

I don't know how anyone can argue that Robert did not hate the Targaryens

Ned did not feign surprise; Robert's hatred of the Targaryens was a madness in him.

3 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

 

but on his death bed he admitted that he knew it was wrong.

Yes. I'm not sure your point here. Hating something and knowing it is wrong to want children to die are not mutually exclusive positions.

He regretted a lot of things on his deathbed, that does not change the man he was.

3 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

 

If he wanted to, he could have killed them while they were wandering through Essos,

He did want to. Jon Arryn talked him out of it.

3 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

 

yet he doesn’t try to kill them until the alliance with the Dothraki.

Or until Jon Arryn is no longer around to talk him out of it.

3 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

 

We’re told that Jon Arryn convinced him not to, and that’s probably partially true, but Jon Arryn also tried to get him to spend less money and he kept spending anyways.

Did he?

But I'm not sure your point. Is your argument really that Robert could not have hated the Targs because Arryn was able to convince him not to assassinate two children?

3 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

 

If Robert wanted to do something, he was going to do it, even if he was being advised not to.

Again, what does this have to do with hate?

Robert, or anyone for that matter, can be talked out of doing something without them changing their opinion on it.

3 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

2) The Daenerys order is a lot more complicated than that. It’s not at all comparable to killing two babies.

It is comparable. Something does not have to be exactly the same to be comparable.

13 year old Dany and her unborn child can be compared to a 3 and a 1 year old. I'd argue that the latter was more cruel, but they are definitely comparable unfair executions.

3 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

 

It’s also much more justifiable than what happened to Rhaegars babies.

Not really. The Dothraki have never left Essos, they were heading East not West.

Aegon, had he been allowed to live, would be King to many people, would have rebellion in his name whenever someone was angered by Robert's rule.

Both orders are reprehensible, but I don't see how one was more justified than the other. If anything ordering the wife and baby of a Dothraki Lord assassinated could have had much worse ramifications than Tywin pissing off the Martels.

3 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

 

The marriage alliance between Daenerys and Khal Drogo was clearly a threat to Westeros and if the books turn out anything like the show, the realm will pay the price for letting her live.

Do you not think that Drogo could have attacked with his wife and child murdered?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

He was just angry talking about them, 15 years later, to Ned.

I don't know how anyone can argue that Robert did not hate the Targaryens

Ned did not feign surprise; Robert's hatred of the Targaryens was a madness in him.

Yes. I'm not sure your point here. Hating something and knowing it is wrong to want children to die are not mutually exclusive positions.

He regretted a lot of things on his deathbed, that does not change the man he was.

He did want to. Jon Arryn talked him out of it.

Or until Jon Arryn is no longer around to talk him out of it.

Did he?

But I'm not sure your point. Is your argument really that Robert could not have hated the Targs because Arryn was able to convince him not to assassinate two children?

Again, what does this have to do with hate?

Robert, or anyone for that matter, can be talked out of doing something without them changing their opinion on it.

It is comparable. Something does not have to be exactly the same to be comparable.

13 year old Dany and her unborn child can be compared to a 3 and a 1 year old. I'd argue that the latter was more cruel, but they are definitely comparable unfair executions.

Not really. The Dothraki have never left Essos, they were heading East not West.

Aegon, had he been allowed to live, would be King to many people, would have rebellion in his name whenever someone was angered by Robert's rule.

Both orders are reprehensible, but I don't see how one was more justified than the other. If anything ordering the wife and baby of a Dothraki Lord assassinated could have had much worse ramifications than Tywin pissing off the Martels.

Do you not think that Drogo could have attacked with his wife and child murdered?

1) Where did I say that he didn’t hate Targaryens? There’s a big difference between hating a family and killing babies from that family.

2) “The girl. Daenerys. Only a child, you were right... that’s why, the girl... the gods sent the boar... sent to punish me...” The king coughed, bringing up blood. “Wrong, it was wrong, I... only a girl... Varys, Littlefinger, even my brother... worthless... no one to tell me no but you, Ned... only you... ” He lifted his hand, the gesture pained and feeble. “Paper and ink. There, on the table. Write what I tell you.”

It seems to be something that he already knew. It’s not just that he’s dying. Robert never does kill any children in the series and I think that George didn’t have him cross that line intentionally.

3) I’ve already explained this one. Jon Arryn told him a lot of things and he did what he wanted anyways. If he really wanted to kill Viserys and Dany, he could have ordered it while they were wandering through Essos for 15 years.

4) Nope. It’s not until Jon Arryn died. As I said before, if he’d wanted them dead, Jon wouldn’t have been able to stop him from giving that order. He only orders her assassination after she consummates Her marriage to Khal Drogo and when she’s having his child.

5) Nope. I never said that he didn’t hage the Targaryens. I said that there’s a big difference between hating Targaryens and be willing to kill babies.

6) Viserys was King after Aerys and a Rhaegar died. Yes. There is a moral difference. Them moving east for a time, doesn’t mean much. I’m pretty sure that there’s a conversation between Jorah and a Dany about wanting to return home and Viserys not being strong enough to do it before the assassination order was given. She’s also much older than Aegon and Rhaenys.

7) Do you think that he could have attacked with them alive?

8) This is pretty simple. Why do you think that Jon Arryn was able to convince a Robert not to kill the Targaryen children, but he was unable to convince Robert not to beggar the realm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lee-Sensei said:

Robert never does kill any children in the series and I think that George didn’t have him cross that line intentionally.

I am just going to say if Jon, Stannis or Ned ever told him face to face about the twincest before he got gutted..... Then even if not Myrcella and Tommen, Joffrey along with his parents would surely lose their heads....

He is generally a good natured dude and a good man by westerosi standards... But when he's enraged, he doesn't give a crap about anything.......

Although, what truly enrages him is a knife thrusted at the back.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Orm said:

I am just going to say if Jon, Stannis or Ned ever told him face to face about the twincest before he got gutted..... Then even if not Myrcella and Tommen, Joffrey along with his parents would surely lose their heads....

He is generally a good natured dude and a good man by westerosi standards... But when he's enraged, he doesn't give a crap about anything.......

Although, what truly enrages him is a knife thrusted at the back.....

I agree with this. It is possible that he’d kill them in his anger if he’d found out. It’s kind of sad for Joffrey though, since Robert was one of the only people that he liked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

With Tywin and Robert dead and Gregor a zombie, the justice window may be closed. Joining Aegon is the only hope for that I guess. 

What I wouldn’t have given to read about Dany unleashing her dragons on these monsters and lighting them up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...