CamiloRP Posted August 31, 2021 Share Posted August 31, 2021 On 8/30/2021 at 12:36 PM, Moiraine Sedai said: The right to rule was his. And who gave him that right? Quote To rebel against his rule and against the Targaryen is illegal So is to rebel against Joffrey or Stannis. Quote and much more serious. How come? Also, you keep ignoring me and I don't know why, I'm genuinely curious about this things. What are your feelings on the french revolution, for example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel Eyes Posted August 31, 2021 Share Posted August 31, 2021 On 8/30/2021 at 11:36 AM, Moiraine Sedai said: Choosing Renly over Stannis is not the same as rebelling against Aerys Targaryen. Aerys inherited the throne and he came from an unbroken dynasty which lasted 300 years. He was crowned and had ruled for over 20 years. The right to rule was his. To rebel against his rule and against the Targaryen is illegal and much more serious. Burning Rickard Stark showed that even the highest of the lords could be subjected to a mockery of trial by combat, then called for Robert and Ned's heads on scant evidence. Nobody could trust Aerys at that point and they rebelled out of self-preservation and because Jon Arryn was unwilling to subject his foster sons to such a fate and that there was nothing to show that Arryn would not be subjected to the same fate. And if there was evidence that Rickard, Robert, Jon, and Ned were plotting against Aerys, prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsjj251 Posted September 5, 2021 Share Posted September 5, 2021 On 8/26/2021 at 8:20 AM, Canon Claude said: That didn’t stop the Florents from siding with Stannis during the War of the Five Kings, nor did it stop Randyll from slaughtering Florent bannermen (and presumably a Florent kinsman or two). You are leaving out key context. No one in House Florent was in Robert's pre war court, where as Stannis is married to Selyse Florent, and their daughter is technically heir to the iron throne. The Florents siding with Stannis is logical, them siding with Robert was not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoth the raven, Posted September 5, 2021 Share Posted September 5, 2021 On 8/26/2021 at 3:18 AM, Canon Claude said: During the Dance of the Dragons and at least one of the Blackfyre Rebellions, the Reach was famously divided. Sometimes Reach houses were on either side, or else they were neutral. And yet, even though the Stormlands and Vale and Riverlands were divided down the middle, the Reach of all decide to follow House Tyrell in defence of House Targaryen. One thing we learn about the Reach is that they have a lot of ambitious lords in charge, and some of them might defy House Tyrell. Why not usurp those stewards’ big seat and set them up as loyal to Robert? The same thing happened to House Lannister back when they were dealing with Aerys. but nobody saw a chance? No Hightowers? No Tarly? No Florent? It wasn't so much about hating Robert. It's their loyalty to House Targaryen and Aerys. Ned and Robert were not worth a war. Getting ahead is part of the desires of most families but they are not willing to depose the Targaryens just to move ahead of the Tyrells. And nothing guarantees that the Baratheons will be better. They were proven correct decades later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted September 12, 2021 Share Posted September 12, 2021 On 8/26/2021 at 8:20 AM, Canon Claude said: That didn’t stop the Florents from siding with Stannis during the War of the Five Kings, nor did it stop Randyll from slaughtering Florent bannermen (and presumably a Florent kinsman or two). The Florents still initially side with Renly. Moreover, the difference is Stannis is married to a Florent while Robert isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.