Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mario Seddy

Was the endgame of Robert's Rebellion always total Targaryen extermination?

Recommended Posts

I will kill every Targaryen I can get my hands on, until they are as dead as their dragons, and then I will piss on their graves."

This is what Bobby B says in the present day, but this is also a fat, drunken, boastful, idiot version of his former self. We know he justified the murder of the Targ babies as being war, but was he expecting it? Did the Mountain really just go kill crazy, or did Tywin decide on his own that this was what needed to happen, or was he knowingly agreed upon before hand?

was the end goal of the rebellion always the complete extermination of the family line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I image it must've been the end game all along, considering he's still initially hell bent on killing Dany. As long as there are whispers of a Targaryen his grasp on the throne isn't safe.

fAegon's invasion demonstrates as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was neither Dany or Viserys would've grown to adulthood, as Robert, or any other rebel, would just offed them when they were wandering through Essos.

23 minutes ago, YungWolf said:

I image it must've been the end game all along, considering he's still initially hell bent on killing Dany.

He's hellbent on killing Dany when she marries the most powerful Khal in Essos to threaten his throne.

 

54 minutes ago, Mario Seddy said:

but was he expecting it?

So far we can tell no. No one did.

 

55 minutes ago, Mario Seddy said:

Did the Mountain really just go kill crazy,

No, he was ordered to do what he did.

 

 

56 minutes ago, Mario Seddy said:

or did Tywin decide on his own that this was what needed to happen, or was he knowingly agreed upon before hand?

Tywin says that it was him all along.

 

 

56 minutes ago, Mario Seddy said:

was the end goal of the rebellion always the complete extermination of the family line?

Then, it's odd they stopped when they had the Targlings there to be killed.

The endgame was to oust them, Robert would be hellbent on killing Rhaegar and no one of the trio felt like sparing Aerys.

The women and children tho... In all honesty, I think they were uncomfortable enough topic that the trio were consciously avoiding it. Else they would inevitably clash over it.

Robert clearly did not care one way or the other, but it's obvious that Jon Arryn and Ned were indeed against murdering children no matter the reason. Robert had the final say and he heeded to their advice thrice and chose to kill once. Which also points that even him was not all that eager with having the blood of children on his hands.

Share this post


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

He's hellbent on killing Dany when she marries the most powerful Khal in Essos to threaten his throne.

 

Very true, however I think an argument could be made that Robert had grown complacent in his rule, reflected by his weight and drinking problem. However you may be spot on suggesting its only when Dany marries into a Dothraki army that he concerns himself with implanting a spy and attempting assassination.

I wonder if Varys had a hand in trying to keep Viserys and Dany out of sight and mind in council meetings (ya know, not just the actual distance between them).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly doubt the Ned, Robert, or Jon Arryn immediately agreed to exterminate the Targaryen family, including the children, when they launched their rebellion. The rebellion was a response to a tyrannical and insane king’s demand for two innocent men to die (and for the record, why he thought Benjen or Stannis would just take that lying down is beyond me, but he wasn’t the Mad King for nothing). I feel like the three leaders of the rebellion didn’t even decide on Robert being king until around the time that they were actually starting to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with @frenin, I think Bobby B, Jon Arynn, and Ned avoided the problem of what would come after and simply focused on their( in their own mind and actuality) justified rebellion a d the task of removing Aerys.

In my opinion, Tywin took the calculated risk of removing the rest of the Targs, thus prevent and Bob/Dany marriage and, paving the way wY for Cersei(and his grandchildren on the IT).

Share this post


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

I will kill every Targaryen I can get my hands on, until they are as dead as their dragons, and then I will piss on their graves."

This is what Bobby B says in the present day, but this is also a fat, drunken, boastful, idiot version of his former self. We know he justified the murder of the Targ babies as being war, but was he expecting it? Did the Mountain really just go kill crazy, or did Tywin decide on his own that this was what needed to happen, or was he knowingly agreed upon before hand?

was the end goal of the rebellion always the complete extermination of the family line?

Do you believe Robert and the Starks were plotting from the beginning to oust the Targaryens?  I do.  Robert and the Starks were working to undermine the Targaryen power.  Robert was content to kill King Aerys and probably send Rhaegar and Viserys to the Wall in the beginning.  But that changed after the death of Lyanna.  He wanted them all dead after that.  For that reason, I would have no problem at all if Princess Daenerys crosses the Narrow Sea and repaid the Baratheons in kind.  Although I do have a soft spot for Ned because he spoke up for the Princess.  Stannis would have had no qualms in murdering King Viserys III and Princess Daenerys if he had caught them on Dragonstone.  I would counsel Daenerys to show Stannis no mercy.  Spare Shireen and Selise, but for heaven's sake, do not show mercy to Stannis because he would have shown them none. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once he claimed the Iron Throne, things were only going to end one way.  Rival claimants were to be eliminated.

Given the quoted comment in the O/P, and his comment "I see no children, only dragonspawn" , why should I believe he never really meant what he said?  One might as well claim Richard IIII bore no ill will to the two princes, or King John to Arthur of Brittany.

Tywin was mostly telling the truth here.  He did Robert a big favour, not just by killing the children, but by taking the responsibility off Robert's Hands.  Otherwise, they would have just disappeared.

Assuming Jon is the son of Rgaegar and Lyanna, why would Ned hide his identity, unless he knew Robert would kill him?

As to Dany and Viserys, staging an assassination in a foreign country is not easy, and can cause diplomatic ructions. Dany's story  shows that failed assassination attempts are far more common than successful ones.   We'll subsequently learn that the Sealord of Braavos witnessed the marriage pact between Arianne and Viserys.  We can assume that Braavos gave them asylum for some years, and the Braavosi are not people a new regime wants to piss off.  They have some rather good assassins of their own, after all.  I expect those are the sorts of points that Jon Arryn made to King Robert.

 

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SeanF said:

Once he claimed the Iron Throne, things were only going to end one way.  Rival claimants were to be eliminated.

Sure some would die, Aerys and Rhaegar, some would be neutralized. Given the fact that there a lot of characters that are sent to the wall, face life in prison etc. It's pretty disingenous to act as if the only way was to kill them. It was not.

We have had this chat enough time for you to know that your claim is simply false.

 

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

Given the quoted comment in the O/P, and his comment "I see no children, only dragonspawn" , why should I believe he never really meant what he said?  One might as well claim Richard IIII bore no ill will to the two princes, or King John to Arthur of Brittany.

Who argues that  he didn't mean what he said?? His words are related to whether condone or seek justice for their murders, not about killing them himself.

 

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

Assuming Jon is the son of Rgaegar and Lyanna, why would Ned hide his identity, unless he knew Robert would kill him?

There are several other reasons, the most important one, is that regardless of Robert's feelings, a "Jon Targaryen" presents dynastic problems,  the kind that paints a target in his back and the Starks and even in the Baratheons. Even if Robert does not want to hurt the boy, that doesn't mean that the Lannisters are going to be that understanding or that those who remain loyalist are not going to try an use Jon for their cause, thus dragging everyone down to another war. Ned is not only protecting Jon when he hides his identity, he's protecting all his loved ones, which includes Robert.

Truth be told is that Robert is still clinging to Lyanna and hates Rhaegar to death for what "he did to her", so that's not a good mix, the rest of the Targlings do not have that against them.

 

 

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

As to Dany and Viserys, staging an assassination in a foreign country is not easy,

 

Quote

 I should have had them both killed years ago, when it was easy to get at them, but Jon was as bad as you. More fool I, I listened to him.”

 

Staging the assasination of two not very well protected kids is indeed easy, especially once they become a laughing stock rather than a serious matter for their hosts.

Nor do we see Robert having  a problem with staging Dany's murder in AGOT, he does it rather swiftly and the only reason it fails is because Jorah was warned beforehanded that there was an assasin on the way.

 

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

and can cause diplomatic ructions.

Better that than having walking threats to your regime i assume, diplomatic ructions can always be eased with trade agreements,  bribes, bethrothals... It's not like people would really care anyway, Viserys and Dany soon passed from being an interesting investment to an attraction comparable to the bearded woman.

 

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

Dany's story  shows that failed assassination attempts are far more common than successful ones. 

Sure, but those attempts are made.  Hell, if Robert really wanted them gone, because they were such a threat and he hated them so much, he would simply sent a faceless men to do the jobs. He pays a fuck ton of gold and no one ever notices that they were killed.

 

 

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

We'll subsequently learn that the Sealord of Braavos witnessed the marriage pact between Arianne and Viserys.

True.

 

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

We can assume that Braavos gave them asylum for some years, and the Braavosi are not people a new regime wants to piss off.

I find that hard to believe, nothing we know of proves that they were given asylum,  In fact, Dany and Viserys were kicked off by the servants.

You simply don't do that for someone that have the protection of Braavos, it's more likely that they just went to Braavos because its as far as it can be from Westeros and it's seclude enough and the Bravoosies did not care one way or the other, the same Sealord that witnessed the marriage pact was loaning Robert a lot of money.

 

 

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

 They have some rather good assassins of their own, after all.

And when they were not in Braavos anymore??

 

Quote

They had wandered since then, from Braavos to Myr, from Myr to Tyrosh, and on to Qohor and Volantis and Lys, never staying long in any one place. Her brother would not allow it. The Usurper's hired knives were close behind them, he insisted, though Dany had never seen one.

There was ample of opportunity there.

 

 

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

I expect those are the sorts of points that Jon Arryn made to King Robert.

Rober compares Jon with Ned.

Quote

but Jon was as bad as you. More fool I, I listened to him.”

And Eddard is strictly talking about the morality of killing children, not the political implications, that were negligible at the time, of killing them. 

Mind you that at the start of the series, Robert wants to kill Dany, Ned deters him from on moral grounds it and Robert  listens. 

Edited by frenin

Share this post


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

Sure some would die, Aerys and Rhaegar, some would be neutralized. Given the fact that there a lot of characters that are sent to the wall, face life in prison etc. It's pretty disingenous to act as if the only way was to kill them. It was not.

We have had this chat enough time for you to know that your claim is simply false.

 

Who argues that  he didn't mean what he said?? His words are related to whether condone or seek justice for their murders, not about killing them himself.

 

There are several other reasons, the most important one, is that regardless of Robert's feelings, a "Jon Targaryen" presents dynastic problems,  the kind that paints a target in his back and the Starks and even in the Baratheons. Even if Robert does not want to hurt the boy, that doesn't mean that the Lannisters are going to be that understanding or that those who remain loyalist are not going to try an use Jon for their cause, thus dragging everyone down to another war. Ned is not only protecting Jon when he hides his identity, he's protecting all his loved ones, which includes Robert.

Truth be told is that Robert is still clinging to Lyanna and hates Rhaegar to death for what "he did to her", so that's not a good mix, the rest of the Targlings do not have that against them.

 

 

 

 

Staging the assasination of two not very well protected kids is indeed easy, especially once they become a laughing stock rather than a serious matter for their hosts.

Nor do we see Robert having  a problem with staging Dany's murder in AGOT, he does it rather swiftly and the only reason it fails is because Jorah was warned beforehanded that there was an assasin on the way.

 

Better that than having walking threats to your regime i assume, diplomatic ructions can always be eased with trade agreements,  bribes, bethrothals... It's not like people would really care anyway, Viserys and Dany soon passed from being an interesting investment to an attraction comparable to the bearded woman.

 

Sure, but those attempts are made.  Hell, if Robert really wanted them gone, because they were such a threat and he hated them so much, he would simply sent a faceless men to do the jobs. He pays a fuck ton of gold and no one ever notices that they were killed.

 

 

True.

 

I find that hard to believe, nothing we know of proves that they were given asylum,  In fact, Dany and Viserys were kicked off by the servants.

You simply don't do that for someone that have the protection of Braavos, it's more likely that they just went to Braavos because its as far as it can be from Westeros and it's seclude enough and the Bravoosies did not care one way or the other, the same Sealord that witnessed the marriage pact was loaning Robert a lot of money.

 

 

And when they were not in Braavos anymore??

 

There was ample of opportunity there.

 

 

Rober compares Jon with Ned.

And Eddard is strictly talking about the morality of killing children, not the political implications, that were negligible at the time, of killing them. 

Mind you that at the start of the series, Robert wants to kill Dany, Ned deters him from on moral grounds it and Robert  listens. 

I know you say it's false.  That's not a point I've ever conceded.  There were always potential alternatives to killing the children, but it was always the most pragmatic course of action, as well as a way of exacting revenge on Rhaegar and Aerys.  Killing unwanted children is not unprecedented in this world.  Albeit, as Tywin conceded, it were best done more discreetly. They could have contracted a "chill" or food poisoning etc.

 Tywin would never have done what he did, had he thought it would be badly received.  

As to Jon, yes, he's a threat to Robert.  That's my point.  Aegon and Rhaneys would likewise be a threat.

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I know you say it's false.  That's not a point I've ever conceded.

I know that, you have always failed to defend your points tho. 

 

16 minutes ago, SeanF said:

There were always potential  alternatives to killing the children, but it was the most pragmatic course of action,

Then we're back again to Dany and Viserys, if killing all the Targs was the most pragmatic course of action, those two would've died long time ago. It only takes a faceless man to do the job and you can forget about it, that's indeed the most pragmatic decision.

 

16 minutes ago, SeanF said:

, as well as a way of exacting revenge on Rhaegar.

Castration, the Wall, the Silent sisters yadda yadda yadda, alll of that exacts revenge on Rhaegar,  the very  fact that Rhaegar dies and the rebels win already means that their lives are going to be much much worse.

 

16 minutes ago, SeanF said:

 Killing unwanted children is not unprecedented in this world.

Violation of guest right is not unprecedent in this world, that does not mean that Red Weddings are staged on daily basis.

 

16 minutes ago, SeanF said:

 Tywin would never have done what he did, had he thought it would be badly received.  

Tywin always takes calculated risks,  that can go very bad or incredibly well. without any other party consent or even acquiescence, that's the thing about calculated risks.

Tywin did not know how it would sit to his father or the crown those rather extra judicial murders with the Reynes and Tarbecks, yet he did all the way, he rolled the dice several times during the War of the 5 kings, it's not something he's unfamiliar with.

Edited by frenin

Share this post


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

I know that, you have always failed to defend your points tho. 

 

Then we're back again to Dany and Viserys, if killing all the Targs was the most pragmatic course of action, those two would've died long time ago. It only takes a faceless man to do the job and you can forget about it, that's indeed the most pragmatic decision.

 

Castration, the Wall, the Silent sisters yadda yadda yadda, alll of that exacts revenge on Rhaegar,  the very  fact that Rhaegar dies and the rebels win already means that their lives are going to be much much worse.

 

Violation of guest right is not unprecedent in this world, that does not mean that Red Weddings are staged on daily basis.

 

Tywin always takes calculated risks,  that can go very bad or incredibly well. without any other party consent or even acquiescence, that's the thing about calculated risks.

 

Others can be the judge of the first.

As to the second, do you know how much a Faceless Man costs to hire?  For a rich man, almost everything he possesses, for a poor man, a lifetime of service.  That's a huge amount to pay for an act of revenge, however pragmatic.

The mere fact that a person who flees abroad is not successfully assassinated, does not prove that he is safe from the government at home, as the history of any number of exiles in real life demonstrates. Governments have to multi-task, as all sorts of other problems come up, and Robert was hardly a hands-on king.  Even then, as you say, not sending assassins after the two of them was something he had to be talked out of.

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


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

Others can be the judge of the first.

Fair enough.

 

15 minutes ago, SeanF said:

As to the second, do you know how much a Faceless Man costs to hire?  For a rich man, almost everything he possesses, for a poor man, a lifetime of service.  That's a huge amount to pay for an act of revenge.

No one knows how much a faceless man costs.

 

Quote

So, if Robert did not like the price, he could just walk off, but he could've asked for it,  it's not like the lives of two kids that were barely protected would have cost all the gold of Casterly Rock, the only thing that would alter the price would the fact that those were Targaryens, but even then, we can't be sure how much. 

Robert asking them to kill Dany in the middle of her khalassar is another matter entirely.

 

 

20 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The mere fact that a person who flees abroad is not successfully assassinated, does not prove that he is safe from the government at home, as the history of any number of exiles in real life demonstrates.

Very true, but this government made no move on them, is not that they were not assasinated, but that they were not targetted even.

 

22 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Governments have all sorts of other problems to deal with, and Robert was hardly a hands-on king.

Sure, yet one would think that Viserys and Dany were one of them, since "what do we do with these kids" problem was addressed at least once.

And Robert was certainly involved when it came to Targaryens anyway.

 

24 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Even then, as you say, not sending assassins after the two of them was something he had to be talked out of.

Sure, as you say, killing your rivals is a pragmatic decision.  I've said at the begining, i don't believe that Robert would lose his sleep whether they died or lived as long as they were not bothering him, he would also had no qualms to kill them if they became in increasing threat.  

I don't think that any of the other rebels were eager to kill the kids regardless.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frenin said:

 

 

No one knows how much a faceless man costs.

 

But, we know through Arya's story that it's a hell of a lot.  Two thirds of a rich man's wealth, according to what she learned.  Robert has supporters to reward, soldiers and merchants to be paid, and a sacked capital city to be rebuilt.

I don't think that any of the other rebels were eager to kill the kids regardless.

I think if Ned had been the one claiming the Iron Throne, or if he had captured Elia and her children, then things would have turned out very differently.  Ned is sufficiently morally aware to take a stand, even if it costs him.

Edited by SeanF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  1. Aerys, Rhaegar, and Viserys are going to die in order to secure Robert on the throne. 
  2. Queen Rhaella - exile. 
  3. They will force Elia to remarry a weak lord. 
  4. Rhaenys becomes a marriage pawn, slash hostage to keep the Targ loyals in line. 
  5. Aegon - to the wall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SeanF said:

But, we know through Arya's story that it's a hell of a lot.  Two thirds of a rich man's wealth, according to what she learned.  Robert has supporters to reward, soldiers and merchants to be paid, and a sacked capital city to be rebuilt.

That's the price set to him, the price set to the crown is completely unknown, it could be much lower it could be much higher.

The prices are not set. We only known they are high, and with Dany and Viserys dead, his dynasty would have been set, until they themselves implode ofc.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might not have been the stated goal, but as we've seen it only takes 1 pretender to lead a rebellion and the lords of Westeros aren't fools.  Murdering every last heir is distasteful work, but I don't think anyone (south of the neck, let's say) should have had illusions about the job being done while Targs still lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Aerys and Rhaegar were definitely the targets of the rebels. Though that's basically the core of the dynasty. Though it was Tywin who slaughtered Rhaegar's children as a declaration of loyalty once he saw which way the wind was blowing. Robert seemed to be completely fine with it, even before news of Lyanna's death. I don't doubt for a moment if Stannis had captured Viserys and Dany at Dragonstone that Robert would've had them murdered as well. It seemed mostly his half assed approach at ruling that let them grow up in exile. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll qualify my argument somewhat.  Had the rebels chosen Ned as king, or had Ned’s men reached Kings Landing first, things would have been different.  Ned would not  have killed women and children, even if it were in his interest.  And, he would make a stand, had he taken Elia and her children into custody.  He would not have released them to be killed. 

Had they fallen into the hands of anyone else, I think they were done for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...