The Rebels. Targets of divine retribution.

[Son of Man]

Divine retribution would mean gods exists.  They don't.  What happened to the rebels is due to cause and effect.  Robert and his friends lacked the competence to properly run Westeros.  Take the Starks.  They were capable local powers in their corner of the world.  Put them in a bigger pond and their competence is taxed.  What the Targaryens held for hundreds of years fell apart within fifteen years of Baratheon rule.  The Anti Targaryens can make all of the excuses they want but that is fact.  The Baratheons could not hold Westeros together for even twenty years. 

The killing and exiling of children is not rare in Westeros.  The popular youtube commentator, Preston Jacobs, has a good theory on what the north was doing with their bastard babies.  I hate what happened to Rhaegar's family.  I hate even more what happened to Queen Rhaella and her children.  But cruelty like that happens in Westeros.  Tywin murdered families in his day.  War killed children by the thousands.  The gods would not frown even if they existed. 

Southron Ambitions is a nice theory.  We may get proof in the Winds of Winter.  The houses who rebelled would deserve condemnation if the conspiracy existed.  But we need to take a deep breath and remember a line from Ellaria Sand.  All of the people involved in the SA conspiracy as well as Aerys are all dead.  Revenge is not needed.  We can discuss and debate.  As always we will root for our favorite houses and wish hell and damnation on those we don't for the sake of talking. 

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

3 hours ago, El Guapo said:

You mean like ruling over a prosperous and relatively peaceful realm?

Peaceful? I have to disagree. For a dynasty that ruled for such a small amount of time they have created more than enough wars. The majority of them were created because of their own mistakes in their family and yet, it was Westeros and the Westerosi who had to pay the price because of the Targaryens thought that they didn’t had to answer to anyone and they had a right to rule because they had blood of the dragon.  There were wars before them but not the entire of Westeros had paid the price because of one family.

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

3 minutes ago, Son of Man said:

The popular youtube commentator, Preston Jacobs, has a good theory on what the north was doing with their bastard babies.

Preston Jacobs is hardly a proof or a theorist for that matter. His theories are baseless and they lack any logical proof from the text.

5 minutes ago, Son of Man said:

But cruelty like that happens in Westeros. 

You are right. For less than 300 years Westeros had to suffer from the folly and the cruelty that the Targaryens created.

 

[Son of Man]

Just now, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

Peaceful? I have to disagree. For a dynasty that ruled for such a small amount of time they have created more than enough wars. The majority of them were created because of their own mistakes in their family and yet, it was Westeros and the Westerosi who had to pay the price because of the Targaryens thought that they didn’t had to answer to anyone and they had a right to rule because they had blood of the dragon.  There were wars before them but not the entire of Westeros had paid the price because of one family.

Three hundred years is not a short amount of time.  The Targaryens brought order to an unruly Westeros.  They even tried to end the horrific northern practice of the lord's right to the first night.  The Baratheons were in power for about fifteen years and two wars broke out.  The Greyjoy Rebellion happened on their watch.  The worst conflict in Westeros to have ever happened, the War of the Five Kings, started during their watch.  Stannis and Renly were part of that war.  So the Targaryens have the clear advantage over the Baratheons when it comes to ruling over a peaceful kingdom. 

[Son of Man]

Just now, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

Preston Jacobs is hardly a proof or a theorist for that matter. His theories are baseless and they lack any logical proof from the text.

You are right. For less than 300 years Westeros had to suffer from the folly and the cruelty that the Targaryens created.

 

Ummm, well Black Harren enslaved the people of the Riverlands.  The Starks were butchering people to pamper their trees.  The Targaryens were a definite improvement over Harren and the Starks.  At least they tried to put the brakes on the north's horrific practice of the lord's right to the first night. 

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

4 minutes ago, Son of Man said:

Three hundred years is not a short amount of time.  The Targaryens brought order to an unruly Westeros.  They even tried to end the horrific northern practice of the lord's right to the first night.  The Baratheons were in power for about fifteen years and two wars broke out.  The Greyjoy Rebellion happened on their watch.  The worst conflict in Westeros to have ever happened, the War of the Five Kings, started during their watch.  Stannis and Renly were part of that war.  So the Targaryens have the clear advantage over the Baratheons when it comes to ruling over a peaceful kingdom. 

Great Houses like Starks, Arryns and Martell were in power for thousands of years. The less than 300 is a very short time.  The Targaryens created numerous wars, if not all of them, from feuds in their own family. Both the Greyjoy Rebellion and the War of Five kings were not caused because of a family feud. That said I have to disagree, not even compared to the Baratheons they didn't had a peaceful reign.

3 minutes ago, Son of Man said:

The Starks were butchering people to pamper their trees. 

And the Targaryens were feeding people to their dragons. Even their own family members. How is that any better?

[Son of Man]

Just now, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

Great Houses like Starks, Arryns and Martell were in power for thousands of years. The less than 300 is a very short time.  The Targaryens created numerous wars, if not all of them, from feuds in their own family. Both the Greyjoy Rebellion and the War of Five kings were not caused because of a family feud. That said I have to disagree, not even compared to the Baratheons they didn't had a peaceful reign.

Sure those "great" houses were in power for a long time.  And wars were constant during that time.  Those houses were small time compared to the Targaryens.  They were petty.  While there were conflicts during the Targaryen years, peace was the dominant status.  You can't say that for the preconquest period.  The post Targaryen period is nothing but conflict.  The Targaryens were good rulers overall. 

Just now, Lilac & Gooseberries said:

And the Targaryens were feeding people to their dragons. Even their own family members. How is that any better?

That's a fair criticism.  Although Craster, who is a Stark, tossing his babies to the white walkers is worse.  Stannis killing his brother with a shadow baby is awful too.  He might just send his own daughter to the flames but we will see.   

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

2 minutes ago, Son of Man said:

Although Craster, who is a Stark,

Prove it.

[TheLastWolf]

16 minutes ago, Son of Man said:

The Starks were butchering people to pamper their trees

I. A. M.    R. E. S. T. R. A. I. N. I. N. G.    M. Y. S. E. L. F

1 minute ago, Son of Man said:

Although Craster, who is a Stark, tossing his babies to the white walkers is worse. 

Phew 

. 

. 

. Deep Breaths

....

Count from one to gazillion 

. 

. 

Sigh

Well, fck it 

PROVE YOUR CLAIMS OR THEY'RE JUST BULLSHIT! 

 

Thank you 

[Lilac & Gooseberries]

18 minutes ago, Son of Man said:

The post Targaryen period is nothing but conflict. 

I agree after the Targaryen arrived in Westeros there was nothing but war caused by their own family. That's the reason why no one was loyal to them, other than maybe the extinct Darrys, and they abandoned them in exile. Unlike the Starks, who have loyal bannermen who endanger themselves to restore them.  Even the Freys seem to inspire more loyalty than the Targaryens.

 

[CamiloRP]

52 minutes ago, Son of Man said:

Divine retribution would mean gods exists.  They don't.  What happened to the rebels is due to cause and effect.  Robert and his friends lacked the competence to properly run Westeros.  Take the Starks.  They were capable local powers in their corner of the world.  Put them in a bigger pond and their competence is taxed.  What the Targaryens held for hundreds of years fell apart within fifteen years of Baratheon rule.  The Anti Targaryens can make all of the excuses they want but that is fact.  The Baratheons could not hold Westeros together for even twenty years. 

The killing and exiling of children is not rare in Westeros.  The popular youtube commentator, Preston Jacobs, has a good theory on what the north was doing with their bastard babies.  I hate what happened to Rhaegar's family.  I hate even more what happened to Queen Rhaella and her children.  But cruelty like that happens in Westeros.  Tywin murdered families in his day.  War killed children by the thousands.  The gods would not frown even if they existed. 

Southron Ambitions is a nice theory.  We may get proof in the Winds of Winter.  The houses who rebelled would deserve condemnation if the conspiracy existed.  But we need to take a deep breath and remember a line from Ellaria Sand.  All of the people involved in the SA conspiracy as well as Aerys are all dead.  Revenge is not needed.  We can discuss and debate.  As always we will root for our favorite houses and wish hell and damnation on those we don't for the sake of talking. 

 

42 minutes ago, Son of Man said:

Three hundred years is not a short amount of time.  The Targaryens brought order to an unruly Westeros.  They even tried to end the horrific northern practice of the lord's right to the first night.  The Baratheons were in power for about fifteen years and two wars broke out.  The Greyjoy Rebellion happened on their watch.  The worst conflict in Westeros to have ever happened, the War of the Five Kings, started during their watch.  Stannis and Renly were part of that war.  So the Targaryens have the clear advantage over the Baratheons when it comes to ruling over a peaceful kingdom. 

 

The Targaryens entered a world in which the most advance weaponry was sharp sticks, and they took it with portable nukes. They kept 'peace' for all that time (I mean, they didn't, but let's say they did) because it's hard to find a willing enemy to fight you in those terms. The dragons died out tho, and while the Targaryens were able to keep ruling for another hundred years because of inertia, but their fatal flaw is that they did nothing to remain powerful after the dragons died out. They held the least powerful kingdom with one of the smallest armies and close to no natural defenses, the other kingdoms had no real reason to stay loyal, if RR wouldn't have happened, someone else would've rebelled a few years later. Egg saw this and tried to keep the peace by marriage alliances. He failed.

Once Robert took the throne, he made the same mistakes, he was loveable enough that people wouldn't dare oppose him, and he had power based on a six out of mine kingdoms alliance. But he did nothing to keep it so, so once he died, the troubles started over again, now powered because people saw how easy it was to take a kingdom. This will keep happening until someone addresses the real issue. 

[SeanF]

Not necessarily Divine retribution, but the murder of women and children does fuel a cycle of revenge and retribution.  Both the Baratheons and Lannisters will suffer horribly, as a result of the feuds that the rebellion generated.

The other point about killing women and children is that it raises the stakes for everyone who goes to war.

[Alexis-something-Rose]

11 hours ago, Nathan Stark said:

Most of the Lords paramount traditionally married into the families of their bannermen, which makes the sudden determination of the Starks and Barratheonss to form marriage alliances with each other rather unusual. Plus, Hoster had Catelyn betrothed to the heir of House Stark well before the rebellion began. I say the actions taken to build alliances among the lords paramount points to a larger intent to form an anti-Targaryen block in Westeros. Hoster Tully insisting that Ned marry Cat isn't sufficient evidence to suggest that this political arrangement didn't happen.

Traditionally, I guess, but we don't even know what the family trees of most families look like. House Stark married outside of the north and into fairly powerful Houses.

I think the idea that there was an alliance being formed against the Targaryens doesn't hold much water. The realm was at peace and prosperous when Rickard Stark sent Ned to the Eyrie for fostering. Robert was the one who proposed marriage to Lyanna.

Jon Arryn didn't lift a finger or tried to rebel against Aerys even after his nephew and heir was murdered. It took threats to Ned and Robert's lives for him to get off his ass and call his banners. And Hoster Tully got himself a marriage alliance in exchange for swords and spears.

The idea falls apart, imo, when we start looking at the actions of these so-called allies. It doesn't seem to be the sort of alliance the people in it feel beholden to.

[Muffin King]

The only incorrect thing Robert did was not actively trying to kill Viserys and Daenerys when they were young. That would have saved a lot of lives down the line.

[The Commentator]

Comeuppance and retribution come from consequences of actions.  Westeros is much worse off today when we compare it  to the centuries of Targaryen rule.  The Baratheons were not as good as the Targaryens at ruling.  Westeros would have been better off if the Targaryens had won the war and sent Robert to the wall.  
 

George Martin is letting the fans decide for themselves whether the rebellion was justified.  He said it was motivated by personal politics.  
 

The Starks, Baratheons, Tullys, and Arryns are getting punished.  That’s not up for debate.  Their bad decisions as well as their lack of competence are partly to blame.  But the plot is flogging them.  They took a prospering kingdom and reduced it to what it is today.  Robert let Jaime cuckold him under his nose.  Cat dragged her family to war over a son.  Robb tried to break the kingdom apart.  Stannis and Renly fought for the throne.  Jon betrayed the Watch.   Is it any wonder how Westeros got this bad?  It never got close to being this bad under the Targaryens.  

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Muffin King said:

The only incorrect thing Robert did was not actively trying to kill Viserys and Daenerys when they were young. That would have saved a lot of lives down the line.

It would not.  He would still face the enmity of the Martells, Varys, Jon Connington, Illyrio etc. as well as sinking his reputation even further.

[Nathan Stark]

42 minutes ago, SeanF said:

It would not.  He would still face the enmity of the Martells, Varys, Jon Connington, Illyrio etc. as well as sinking his reputation even further.

Robert murdering the Targ children while ignoring the cuckolding going on in his own bedroom would have saved nobody, exept maybe the poor Wise Masters. The War of the Five Kings would likely have happened as a result of Cersei and Jaime's incest regardless of the Targaryen children being alive or not.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

It would not.  He would still face the enmity of the Martells, Varys, Jon Connington, Illyrio etc. as well as sinking his reputation even further.

As an original sin the whole Targaryen murder thing (Aerys II included, who was an anointed monarch which is apparently a pretty big deal for the Westerosi) isn't just fueling things when a Targaryen restoration is a realistic option on the table, but it is also the big motivator for the Dornish revenge plot and, what people seem to be overlooking, the main reason for the animosity between the Starks and the Lannisters.

Eddard Stark loathes Tywin and Jaime because of what they pulled during the Sack, and he loathes Robert himself for the fact that he did not punish them.

It is basically a main motivating factor of the War of the Five Kings. And Ned is in a very real sense destroyed by this murder because Robert not punishing the Lannisters for their crimes is what causes him to fear that Robert might also murder Cersei's children - and that's what triggers his decision to tell Cersei about the twincest.

Robert would still be lazy, shitty king had he punished the murderers ... but his reign wouldn't have been as rotten as it was. The Martells wouldn't sharpen their knives and prepare for a war, the Baratheon regime wouldn't have to fear that the Reach and the Riverlords and whoever else might side with an invading Viserys III. The Lannisters wouldn't be as loathed in the Realm as they are at the time of Robert's death - which means the potential for civil war among various Baratheon pretenders and certain great houses would be very much diminished.

4 hours ago, Muffin King said:

The only incorrect thing Robert did was not actively trying to kill Viserys and Daenerys when they were young. That would have saved a lot of lives down the line.

If Robert had done that, he may have been cast down. If you look at things what causes people to turn against tyrannical monarchs in this world it is most often if they are seen to be moving against innocent women and children. Maegor's reputation got really bad after he had his wife Ceryse alleged murdered, Queen Rhaenyra was hounded out of KL after she allegedly had Queen Helaena murdered.

If somebody had delivered the heads of Viserys III and Daenerys to Robert, people would have been abhorred.

Think how a tough girl like Asha views Theon after he apparently murdered Bran and Rickon Stark. She is disgusted by that, despite the fact that she also killed a lot of Northmen and they were their enemies.

[SeanF]

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

As an original sin the whole Targaryen murder thing (Aerys II included, who was an anointed monarch which is apparently a pretty big deal for the Westerosi) isn't just fueling things when a Targaryen restoration is a realistic option on the table, but it is also the big motivator for the Dornish revenge plot and, what people seem to be overlooking, the main reason for the animosity between the Starks and the Lannisters.

Eddard Stark loathes Tywin and Jaime because of what they pulled during the Sack, and he loathes Robert himself for the fact that he did not punish them.

It is basically a main motivating factor of the War of the Five Kings. And Ned is in a very real sense destroyed by this murder because Robert not punishing the Lannisters for their crimes is what causes him to fear that Robert might also murder Cersei's children - and that's what triggers his decision to tell Cersei about the twincest.

Robert would still be lazy, shitty king had he punished the murderers ... but his reign wouldn't have been as rotten as it was. The Martells wouldn't sharpen their knives and prepare for a war, the Baratheon regime wouldn't have to fear that the Reach and the Riverlords and whoever else might side with an invading Viserys III. The Lannisters wouldn't be as loathed in the Realm as they are at the time of Robert's death - which means the potential for civil war among various Baratheon pretenders and certain great houses would be very much diminished.

If Robert had done that, he may have been cast down. If you look at things what causes people to turn against tyrannical monarchs in this world it is most often if they are seen to be moving against innocent women and children. Maegor's reputation got really bad after he had his wife Ceryse alleged murdered, Queen Rhaenyra was hounded out of KL after she allegedly had Queen Helaena murdered.

If somebody had delivered the heads of Viserys III and Daenerys to Robert, people would have been abhorred.

Think how a tough girl like Asha views Theon after he apparently murdered Bran and Rickon Stark. She is disgusted by that, despite the fact that she also killed a lot of Northmen and they were their enemies.

There’s a clear understanding among most contenders for power that adult males are risking their heads - but women and infants are off-limits.  It’s like the old school mafia.  Adhering to this rule protects your dependants, as well as those of your enemies.  Breach it, and your own bloodline faces extermination.

[Lord Varys]

4 minutes ago, SeanF said:

There’s a clear understanding among most contenders for power that adult males are risking their heads - but women and infants are off-limits.  It’s like the old school mafia.  Adhering to this rule protects your dependants, as well as those of your enemies.  Breach it, and your own bloodline faces extermination.

Yes, of course. But I think it goes further in the sense that royal women and children are viewed as especially protected, especially if they are popular with the people.

Which is why I suggested that Aegon might very much hang himself if his administration were to ever harm or kill Margaery Tyrell. She is very, very popular with the people. Whoever kills her will pay for it very dearly.

And, yes, murdering women isn't something you do. George established that kind of thing with Maegor marrying Rhaena, with Rhaenyra (and later Aegon III's government) imprisoning rather than executing Alicent and Helaena.

The murder of Elia and the children is horrible, as is the apparent murder of the Stark children. Cat's murder is also very bad, but the Freys apparently viewed that as a mercy killing because she had gone mad (or so they thought) - they didn't plan to murder her, too.

I light of all that Robert's plan to murder Viserys III and, especially, Daenerys is a very disgusting thing. And it shows how corrupt Robert's court is that basically only Ned and Barristan dare to point that out.