Is Daenerys justified in wiping out House Lannister/Baratheon since they tried to do the same to House Targaryen?

[Dracul's Daughter]

4 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Ten years is old enough to be on the battlefield, as a squire.  Upper class boys would start training at seven.  In medieval England, you were old enough to be hanged at that age.

I still don't get it why Randyll would put his heir in such danger.That's what I find dumb.He may marry but he definitely won't have children in a while.

[SeanF]

6 minutes ago, Dracul's Daughter said:

I still don't get it why Randyll would put his heir in such danger.That's what I find dumb.He may marry but he definitely won't have children in a while.

Randyll is a macho man, who would see it as toughening up his son.

[Dracul's Daughter]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

Randyll is a macho man, who would see it as toughening up his son.

Okay then???

[Langsax]

It was the age of "kill them all, let God sort it out later"

[Ser Lepus]

What is being "justified" depends on your moral and ethic context. Some cultures think "an eye for an eye" it totally justified, others do not. Some cultures think a criminal's family should share the punishment...

Our culture thinks Daenerys wiping the Baratheons and Lannister wouldn't be justified, but Westerosi culture probably would think it right (but Daenerys should give then the option of going to the Wall).

I think making an example of the Lannisters and the Baratheons would be the most pragmatic choice, if not the most moral one...

[Jaenara Belarys]

Personally, if I were in Dany's place....I'd probably have to order the main lines of the rebel houses to be executed. A Tywin-esque move would be to kill Tommen and Myrcella too, but I don't think Dany would do that (Tommen and Myrcella probably won't live to the end of the series anyway). 

[The Lord of the Crossing]

On 10/31/2020 at 2:32 AM, Mario Seddy said:

Is daenerys justified in seeking revenge against houses Lannister/ Baratheon for how brutally they killed her good sister, niece and nephew. And how they would've killed any targaryen they could have got their hands on? 

The Baratheons would have killed her and Viserys if Stannis had caught them on Dragonstone.  Tywin and Hoster would have done the same thing.  Daenerys is absolutely justified in executing Stannis and any remaining rebel.  She should choose to give Shireen and Tommen a chance to bend the knee though.  They are young enough to foster away. 

[The Lord of the Crossing]

3 hours ago, Ser Lepus said:

What is being "justified" depends on your moral and ethic context. Some cultures think "an eye for an eye" it totally justified, others do not. Some cultures think a criminal's family should share the punishment...

Our culture thinks Daenerys wiping the Baratheons and Lannister wouldn't be justified, but Westerosi culture probably would think it right (but Daenerys should give then the option of going to the Wall).

I think making an example of the Lannisters and the Baratheons would be the most pragmatic choice, if not the most moral one...

Stannis would have killed the Targaryens if he caught them years ago.  Executing Stannis and Jaime makes sense morally and practically. 

[SeanF]

14 hours ago, Ser Lepus said:

What is being "justified" depends on your moral and ethic context. Some cultures think "an eye for an eye" it totally justified, others do not. Some cultures think a criminal's family should share the punishment...

Our culture thinks Daenerys wiping the Baratheons and Lannister wouldn't be justified, but Westerosi culture probably would think it right (but Daenerys should give then the option of going to the Wall).

I think making an example of the Lannisters and the Baratheons would be the most pragmatic choice, if not the most moral one...

It would depend upon which Baratheons and Lannisters.  Stannis would never view Dany as anything other than an enemy, nor would Jaime, I think.  The best that either man could expect at her hands would be permission to take the Black.  The best that she could expect at the hands of either man would be lifelong imprisonment in a fortress.  And, all three might just opt for execution, as the safest course of action.

The curious case would be Cersei.  A Cersei who was driven from Kings Landing by fAegon might well wish to make her peace with Rhaegar’s sister.

Killing people like Tommen, Myrcella, Lancel, Gendry, Edric, Mya Stone would be unjust to me, and in the eyes of a lot of people in-universe (although, others would defend it).

[Willam Stark]

Stannis, Jaime and Cersei won't bend the knee to Dany, they will fight her so she won't have any other choice but to kill them. After that she should get rid of the main bloodline of House "Baratheon" and Lannister, but not with violence. Tommen and Tyrion should be send to the Wall, Myrcella to the Silent Sisters, this way they won't be a threat to her. Martyn Lannister would be the new lord of Casterly Rock and Shireen would be the lady of Storm's End in her own right and kept in KL as a hostage until she reaches adulthood. She would then be married to a Stormlord.

 

[frenin]

18 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

The Baratheons would have killed her and Viserys if Stannis had caught them on Dragonstone.

They let them live for 13 years in exile. Seems off.

 

18 hours ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Tywin and Hoster would have done the same thing. 

If Tywin really care about them, he would have sent an assassin to finish them off.

I don't know why Hoster comes up tho.

 

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

Killing people like Tommen, Myrcella, Lancel, Gendry, Edric, Mya Stone would be unjust to me, and in the eyes of a lot of people in-universe (although, others would defend it).

Killing bastards with absolutely no chance of inheritance is just peak Cersei of pettiness. No one would defend that. Although I do agree most would shrug it off.

 

Is Dany justified in ending those bloodlines?? Well, not really. But when talking about assuring her throne, that doesn't really matter.

[WhatAnArtist!]

In my opinion, Daenerys isn't even justified in her attempt to retake the throne, period. Her family was removed from power after they violated the feudal contract by several unjust acts against prominent noble families - the kidnapping of Lyanna Stark, the murder of Rickard Stark, the demand for Eddard Stark and Robert Baratheon to be handed over to the king. These were all completely unjustified acts, even by the standards of medieval Westeros. The Targaryens weren't 20th century totalitarian dictators - they couldn't just kidnap and execute whoever they wanted for whatever reason. The feudal system had rules, customs and norms that had to be respected by all parties, including kings. Aerys and Rhaegar did not respect these rules, and thus the rebellion against them was absolutely justified. It's the murder of Elia, Aegon and Rhaenys that is the true crime, but all of the people responsible for that are already dead. 

So no, Daenerys isn't justified in wiping out anyone. It was the rebels that were justified in killing her father and brother and overthrowing her house. The only crime she'd be justified in executing people over - the murder of the innocent Targaryen family members - has already been resolved because all of those men have been violently killed. Anything further is just base vengeance to satisfy a bloodlust, and Daenerys's closest and most loyal follower, Ser Barristan Selmy, would strongly urge her against that path, and frankly would not follow her if she did pursue it.

[Ser Lepus]

On 11/1/2021 at 7:05 AM, WhatAnArtist! said:

In my opinion, Daenerys isn't even justified in her attempt to retake the throne, period. Her family was removed from power after they violated the feudal contract by several unjust acts against prominent noble families - the kidnapping of Lyanna Stark, the murder of Rickard Stark, the demand for Eddard Stark and Robert Baratheon to be handed over to the king. These were all completely unjustified acts, even by the standards of medieval Westeros. The Targaryens weren't 20th century totalitarian dictators - they couldn't just kidnap and execute whoever they wanted for whatever reason. The feudal system had rules, customs and norms that had to be respected by all parties, including kings. Aerys and Rhaegar did not respect these rules, and thus the rebellion against them was absolutely justified. It's the murder of Elia, Aegon and Rhaenys that is the true crime, but all of the people responsible for that are already dead. 

So no, Daenerys isn't justified in wiping out anyone. It was the rebels that were justified in killing her father and brother and overthrowing her house. The only crime she'd be justified in executing people over - the murder of the innocent Targaryen family members - has already been resolved because all of those men have been violently killed. Anything further is just base vengeance to satisfy a bloodlust, and Daenerys's closest and most loyal follower, Ser Barristan Selmy, would strongly urge her against that path, and frankly would not follow her if she did pursue it.

The problem with the feudal contract is that, in the absence of Pope-like figure wielding power above kings who can act as an arbiter (and even Popes were often under the thumb or some monarch or another who dictated what they had to do, or they were interested part in the conflicts and dictated sentences that benefited their own interests as temporal princes) the ones who decide if the contract has been violated or not are the interested parties, the lord and his rebelling vassals...

So, were Robert, Ned, Hoster and Jon justified in removing the Mad King from the throne and replacing the Targaryen as ruling family? Or maybe they were justified only in removing Aerys, and his children should have inherited the throne? Robert and his allied decided they had to remove the Targaryen entirely, but other people didn't think so: Connington, Mace Tyrell (who only joined Robert's side after being captured), Doran Martell... even Stannis had doubts.

In the end, Robert and his allies took the more pragmatical decision, the one that ensured the safety of their houses and secured their power, regardless of how justified they were (because, where is the neutral arbiter who says if they are justified?). And Daenerys would be doing the same if she wiped their houses after retaking the throne...

[Willam Stark]

On 11/1/2021 at 2:52 PM, Ser Lepus said:

The problem with the feudal contract is that, in the absence of Pope-like figure

The High Septon is supposed to be the Pope-like figure, but the Targaryen have weakened this position since Jaehaerys I, that's all.

[SeanF]

On 11/1/2021 at 6:05 AM, WhatAnArtist! said:

In my opinion, Daenerys isn't even justified in her attempt to retake the throne, period. Her family was removed from power after they violated the feudal contract by several unjust acts against prominent noble families - the kidnapping of Lyanna Stark, the murder of Rickard Stark, the demand for Eddard Stark and Robert Baratheon to be handed over to the king. These were all completely unjustified acts, even by the standards of medieval Westeros. The Targaryens weren't 20th century totalitarian dictators - they couldn't just kidnap and execute whoever they wanted for whatever reason. The feudal system had rules, customs and norms that had to be respected by all parties, including kings. Aerys and Rhaegar did not respect these rules, and thus the rebellion against them was absolutely justified. It's the murder of Elia, Aegon and Rhaenys that is the true crime, but all of the people responsible for that are already dead. 

So no, Daenerys isn't justified in wiping out anyone. It was the rebels that were justified in killing her father and brother and overthrowing her house. The only crime she'd be justified in executing people over - the murder of the innocent Targaryen family members - has already been resolved because all of those men have been violently killed. Anything further is just base vengeance to satisfy a bloodlust, and Daenerys's closest and most loyal follower, Ser Barristan Selmy, would strongly urge her against that path, and frankly would not follow her if she did pursue it.

Aerys' behaviour justified the removal of Aerys.

I'm not convinced that it justified the removal of the entire dynasty, nor the killing of three of its members, nor driving the rest into exile. Various English kings (Aethelred, John, Edward II, James II)  have been deemed unfit to rule, without barring their heirs from succeeding in their place.  I imagine the lords paramount of Westeros would strongly object to the idea that if one of their number proved to be unfit, then his heirs were forever barred from succeeding to the rule of the Reach/Dorne/ Stormlands etc.

Robert's claim (in theory) was based upon his descent from Aegon V.  By the time Dany rolls up, I think the only other descendant  of Aegon V left alive will be Jon (I do expect that Stannis and Shireen will be dead by this point).  Any possible claim to the Iron Throne that is founded upon legitimacy, will have devolved to Dany and possibly Jon (depending whether a bigamous marriage is deemed legitimate),  The other claimants will just be pretenders.

 

[frenin]

On 11/1/2021 at 2:52 PM, Ser Lepus said:

So, were Robert, Ned, Hoster and Jon justified in removing the Mad King from the throne and replacing the Targaryen as ruling family? Or maybe they were justified only in removing Aerys, and his children should have inherited the throne? Robert and his allied decided they had to remove the Targaryen entirely, but other people didn't think so: Connington, Mace Tyrell (who only joined Robert's side after being captured), Doran Martell... even Stannis had doubts.

Mace Tyrell was never captured.

 

I'd argue however that you're making a dichotomy that it's never made in the books. 

Whereas Robert is called usurper, those who call him that believe that his whole rebellion altogether is illegitimate. The issue isn't just that he took the Throne but that he dared to rebel in the first place.

You mention Stannis, Stannis doesn't care about the wrongs of the Targaryens, he simply believe that rebelling against your King, no matter the wrongs been done against you, is just bad.

Else half the Realm wouldn't have fought to defend tyranny even before the rebels made clear that they were aiming to destroy the Targaryens altogether.

 

Regarding the discussion, it's immaterial whether she's justified or not. What matters is whether she can do it or not.

 

 

7 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I'm not convinced that it justified the removal of the entire dynasty,

I'm not convinced either. Yet, how justified it is for them to keep ruling over Lords who don't recognize their authority anymore?? Doesn't seem so fair and justified either. At the end of the day, Aerys and Rhaegar had severed every bond with the rebels and it was either that or secession... Which would in turn trigger more wars of conquests.

 

 

9 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Various English kings (Aethelred, John, Edward II, James II)  have been deemed unfit to rule, without barring their heirs from succeeding in their place. 

And many more dynasties were sidelined altogether. I'd argue anyway that in most of those case, it benefitted those who depose those kings to keep the new monarchs with them, especially in the case of William of Orange and the infant Edward III. It's not like Richard II, Henry VI and Richard III aren't a precedent either sad I'd argue that those Lords didn't see the dissonance either.

[SeanF]

15 minutes ago, frenin said:

Mace Tyrell was never captured.

 

I'd argue however that you're making a dichotomy that it's never made in the books. 

Whereas Robert is called usurper, those who call him that believe that his whole rebellion altogether is illegitimate. The issue isn't just that he took the Throne but that he dared to rebel in the first place.

You mention Stannis, Stannis doesn't care about the wrongs of the Targaryens, he simply believe that rebelling against your King, no matter the wrongs been done against you, is just bad.

Else half the Realm wouldn't have fought to defend tyranny even before the rebels made clear that they were aiming to destroy the Targaryens altogether.

 

Regarding the discussion, it's immaterial whether she's justified or not. What matters is whether she can do it or not.

 

 

I'm not convinced either. Yet, how justified it is for them to keep ruling over Lords who don't recognize their authority anymore?? Doesn't seem so fair and justified either. At the end of the day, Aerys and Rhaegar had severed every bond with the rebels and it was either that or secession... Which would in turn trigger more wars of conquests.

 

 

And many more dynasties were sidelined altogether. I'd argue anyway that in most of those case, it benefitted those who depose those kings to keep the new monarchs with them, especially in the case of William of Orange and the infant Edward III. It's not like Richard II, Henry VI and Richard III aren't a precedent either sad I'd argue that those Lords didn't see the dissonance either.

It's an interesting question whether, had Richard II or Henry VI or Richard III had infant children, they would have been allowed to live. Alfred spared Aethelwold, but he was a man of unusual virtue.  I think it's impossible that Prince Edward would have been allowed to live, had he not died in battle at Tewkesbury.

I think it will be a moot point anyway, as the Baratheons will likely be extinct by the time that Dany arrives.

[frenin]

13 minutes ago, SeanF said:

It's an interesting question whether, had Richard II or Henry VI or Richard III had infant children, they would have been allowed to live.

I don't think so, since they would be the focus of later rebellions anyways. 

 

14 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think it's impossible that Prince Edward would have been allowed to live, had he not died in battle at Tewkesbury.

Wasn't him killed after the battle was done by one of Edward's brothers?? 

 

15 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think it will be a moot point anyway, as the Baratheons will likely be extinct by the time that Dany arrives.

I too agree with this sentiment, the Baratheons are deader than dead. Seems like Dany will pick up on the family tradition too and have her house gone extinct too tho.

When arguing about Danny's justification tho, people often forget that the rebels did spare her and her brother's lives for thirteen years, so there's that.

[Ser Lepus]

3 hours ago, frenin said:

When arguing about Danny's justification tho, people often forget that the rebels did spare her and her brother's lives for thirteen years, so there's that.

And they tried to kill her as soon as she showed the potential to be a threat.

[frenin]

4 minutes ago, Ser Lepus said:

And they tried to kill her as soon as she showed the potential to be a threat.

No, they tried to kill her as soon as the siblings actually started plotting to take the Throne back.