Jump to content

Why didn't the Baratheons offer mercy to the Targaryens?


Mario Seddy

Recommended Posts

After Robert had killed Rhaegar and after the Sack of King's Landing, Why didn't the Stags offer mercy to the Dragons and offer them Dragonstone? Since the Targaryens offer the Baratheons mercy multiple times in the past (Ex. Rogar Baratheon, Borros Baratheon and Lyonel Baratheon) and were very lenient with them? Where the Baratheons ungrateful to the Targaryens and made undue advantage of the Targaryen leniency? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they could never be secure in their throne as long as Targaryen claimants still lived. There is a difference between offering pardon to one of your vassals after their defeat, and a new dynasty offering the defeated members of the previous dynasty pardon. One is more politically disadvantageous than the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because Robert didn't want to, in his eyes he would be being generous enough by letting them breathe,  i wouldn't call the Targs lenient, in either case they were "lenient" they gained something by being doing it, 

-Jaeharys regained a powerful ally in Rogar and he knew that he'd need powerful allies if push  came to shove with his marriage.

- Borros wasn't pardoned, he died in battle, his house was however but that's because no Black bar Cregan was up tokeep fighting, a general pardon secured Aegon's 3 throne.

- Lyonel had Aegon V by the balls given the unfair deal he got.

 

Robert already had the legitimacy the Targs could offer,  he gained nothing by letting them remain with some power and people could and would question the his rule if they had the previous dynasty in front of them.  Plus he hated their guts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Thing is Robert was not a paranoid, megalomaniacal, schizoid madman

No, but Viserys was. He wouldn’t have forgiven Robert. Daenerys didn’t either, she’s plotting her return to Westeros as well.

And Robert wasn’t a completely rational guy either. He was sexist, emotionally stunted, and a complete hedonist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, James Steller said:
2 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Thing is Robert was not a paranoid, megalomaniacal, schizoid madman

No, but Viserys was. He wouldn’t have forgiven Robert. Daenerys didn’t either, she’s plotting her return to Westeros as well.

Still don't see how that pertains to the question at hand. This is not about what Aerys, Viserys or Dany would have done, it's about what Robert did and why

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Still don't see how that pertains to the question at hand. This is not about what Aerys, Viserys or Dany would have done, it's about what Robert did and why

I amended my post to include Robert’s flaws. He was not fit for kingship, he nursed grievances against House Targaryen, and he shirked responsibilities to indulge himself to keep the pain away. He needed psychological help, and because he didn’t live in our reality, he never got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Moiraine Sedai said:

No he was not.  Robert was just an incompetent ruler who could not run the kingdom properly.  But Rhaenys, Elia, and Aegon should have been allowed to live.

Not his choice really. I know he was relieved by their deaths, which is a veery fucked up thing to do, but wanting something and actually doing it are veeery different. I'm not sure Robert would have actually done it, though given Dany and his hatred of Targaryens it certainly is a possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

But Rhaenys, Elia, and Aegon should have been allowed to live.

We agree that they should never have been killed in the first place. But having aegon and rhaenys killed was a necessity. Robert can’t rule whilst he has the son and daughter of rhaegar alive. Kill all the targaryens and your rule is solidified. Leave some alive and your heirs and grandsons will be fighting endless wars against Targaryen claimants (kinda like the blackfyre wars). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

We agree that they should never have been killed in the first place. But having aegon and rhaenys killed was a necessity. Robert can’t rule whilst he has the son and daughter of rhaegar alive. Kill all the targaryens and your rule is solidified. Leave some alive and your heirs and grandsons will be fighting endless wars against Targaryen claimants (kinda like the blackfyre wars). 

Having Aegon killed was necessary for Robert. Having Rhaenys killed was not. Indeed, Rhaenys as a live captive and Robert´s ward would have undermined Viserys´ claim. The few years age difference should not have stopped Robert from eventually marrying Rhaenys to Joffrey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Having Aegon killed was necessary for Robert. Having Rhaenys killed was not. Indeed, Rhaenys as a live captive and Robert´s ward would have undermined Viserys´ claim. The few years age difference should not have stopped Robert from eventually marrying Rhaenys to Joffrey.

Actually your right there. Keep rhaenys alive and wed her to your heir. Their children will be the only descendants of rhaegar. And might sway many of the Targaryen loyalist towards the Baratheon cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Still don't see how that pertains to the question at hand. This is not about what Aerys, Viserys or Dany would have done, it's about what Robert did and why

 

52 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Having Aegon killed was necessary for Robert. Having Rhaenys killed was not. Indeed, Rhaenys as a live captive and Robert´s ward would have undermined Viserys´ claim. The few years age difference should not have stopped Robert from eventually marrying Rhaenys to Joffrey.

Robert did not, could not, make the decision to kill Aegon and Rhaenys, because Tywin took that decision away from him.

It's unlikely that Robert would have done it. This is Ned's best friend we're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Trigger Warning said:

Why would you legitimatise the people you just usurped by giving them a powerbase and the traditional seat of the crown prince. Offering mercy to rebelling vassals and offering mercy to the family you just took the throne from are completely different. 

The best option I think would have been Viserys packed off to the watch and Dany married to the heir, solidifying the claim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...