Jump to content

Aerys II and Rhaegar’s fate was largely self-inflicted and completely deserved


Lady Stonehearts Simp

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

So, no, the deposition of the Targaryens is most likely the worst thing that ever happened to Westeros. Just as the Conquest may have been the best thing.

It started fairly well and I was even thinking, oh my I may agree w/ LV here for once, and then this. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I think they did do some things, they had marriages to keep things stable and they tried to placate the Dornish. I don't think Robert and Aerys are really that comparable as Aerys was actively plotting the mass murderer of half a million innocents that he's supposed to protect.

At the very end of his reign when the rebels had effectively won already. Aerys II was a lunatic, to be sure, but (for most of his reign) he wasn't a mass murderer running around killing people. And him burning some courtiers and traitors, real or imagined, from the relative small circle of people he knows personally is completely irrelevant if you think about the well-being of an entire continent. Aerys II was a recluse after Duskendale - which means most if not all of the victims of his madness were self-serving lickspittles and other ambitious people who tried to gain the king's favor. But nobody is forced to suck up to Aerys II in the Red Keep. They can live/work elsewhere.

(That's also the reason why there is actually little to no reason to have pity with all the noble senators and knights and other rich people Caligula or Nero killed - they were self-serving pricks, too. The very elite of Rome, people these two Emperors knew personally and had reason to fear, loathe, hate, etc.)

They didn't really placate the Dornish nor bring the other Targaryen loyalists into the fold. They were just biding their time. How stable their rule was you can see with the Greyjoy Rebellion - which was completely unprovoked, with no pretext besides Balon thinking that if Robert can be king so can I.

6 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

We so far have no confirmation that Aegon's prophecy exists in the books and even if it did it wouldn't matter because the Targaryen ruling dynasty didn't care about it by that point either, and they weren't preparing for any war with the Others. Now Rhaegar may have been on to something but that was through independent reading not dear old dad.

Regardless what Aegon the Conqueror believed - although George did confirm he was 'a dreamer' so we now should treat that as a kind of fact which will eventually find its way into published canon - we do know that Jaehaerys II had Aerys and Rhaella marry because of the promised prince prophecy ... and the additional prophecy given by the dwarf woman that their union will eventually produce the promised prince. That means Aerys II and Rhaella were quite aware of that prophecy ... after all, it was the very reason why their father forced them to marry. If Yandel knows that, so would Aerys and Rhaella, that much is certain.

Now, we can pretend that some toddler/preteen prince just happens to stumble upon an obscure prophecy in the library of the Red Keep. Or we can assume that said prophecy was given to this princeling by his royal parents who then also told him that he, Rhaegar, was the promised prince the prophecy spoke of because of the Tragedy of Summerhall. Rhaegar himself is unlikely to have found the prophecy himself - and it is even less likely that he would connect it to his own person without having been provided with further context and information which only his elders could have given him.

Now, his grandfather Jaehaerys II died when the boy wasn't even three years old. Precocious or not, Rhaegar would have been too young then. His grandmother Shaera may have lived into her son's reign ... or not. We have no idea. So better not count on her in this regard.

That basically only leaves Aerys II and Rhaella as the people informing Rhaegar about the prophecy. They are also the only people that could reasonably push the boy to accept this 'fate' as his burden which led him to conclude that 'he must be a warrior'. That is Rhaegar trying to be a dutiful son meeting the expectation of his parents, not a mad calling that goes back to him reading some scroll.

In context, it is also very likely that Aerys/Rhaella's later desperate attempts to have more children - and Aerys' madness growing steadily worse as the children he fathers die like flies - are connected to their belief in the prophecy. After all, the dragon has three heads, right? So if Rhaegar is the one his parents would have to give him at least two siblings, the other two dragon heads. That's what they are obsessed about, not so much the mundane continuation of the royal line. If it had been that alone they would have given Rhaegar a wife as soon as he was capable of fathering heirs, not waiting with a betrothal until he was almost twenty.

But regardless how you view all that - it is quite obvious (now) that the Targaryens were obsessed with a prophecy about the Others and stuff ... while it is clear that Robert and his gang didn't care about this stuff at all. Which is literally the reason why Westeros is pretty much fucked at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

At the very end of his reign when the rebels had effectively won already. Aerys II was a lunatic, to be sure, but (for most of his reign) he wasn't a mass murderer running around killing people. And him burning some courtiers and traitors, real or imagined, from the relative small circle of people he knows personally is completely irrelevant if you think about the well-being of an entire continent. Aerys II was a recluse after Duskendale - which means most if not all of the victims of his madness were self-serving lickspittles and other ambitious people who tried to gain the king's favor. But nobody is forced to suck up to Aerys II in the Red Keep. They can live/work elsewhere.

(That's also the reason why there is actually little to no reason to have pity with all the noble senators and knights and other rich people Caligula or Nero killed - they were self-serving pricks, too. The very elite of Rome, people these two Emperors knew personally and had reason to fear, loathe, hate, etc.)

They didn't really placate the Dornish nor bring the other Targaryen loyalists into the fold. They were just biding their time. How stable their rule was you can see with the Greyjoy Rebellion - which was completely unprovoked, with no pretext besides Balon thinking that if Robert can be king so can I.

Regardless what Aegon the Conqueror believed - although George did confirm he was 'a dreamer' so we now should treat that as a kind of fact which will eventually find its way into published canon - we do know that Jaehaerys II had Aerys and Rhaella marry because of the promised prince prophecy ... and the additional prophecy given by the dwarf woman that their union will eventually produce the promised prince. That means Aerys II and Rhaella were quite aware of that prophecy ... after all, it was the very reason why their father forced them to marry. If Yandel knows that, so would Aerys and Rhaella, that much is certain.

Now, we can pretend that some toddler/preteen prince just happens to stumble upon an obscure prophecy in the library of the Red Keep. Or we can assume that said prophecy was given to this princeling by his royal parents who then also told him that he, Rhaegar, was the promised prince the prophecy spoke of because of the Tragedy of Summerhall. Rhaegar himself is unlikely to have found the prophecy himself - and it is even less likely that he would connect it to his own person without having been provided with further context and information which only his elders could have given him.

Now, his grandfather Jaehaerys II died when the boy wasn't even three years old. Precocious or not, Rhaegar would have been too young then. His grandmother Shaera may have lived into her son's reign ... or not. We have no idea. So better not count on her in this regard.

That basically only leaves Aerys II and Rhaella as the people informing Rhaegar about the prophecy. They are also the only people that could reasonably push the boy to accept this 'fate' as his burden which led him to conclude that 'he must be a warrior'. That is Rhaegar trying to be a dutiful son meeting the expectation of his parents, not a mad calling that goes back to him reading some scroll.

In context, it is also very likely that Aerys/Rhaella's later desperate attempts to have more children - and Aerys' madness growing steadily worse as the children he fathers die like flies - are connected to their belief in the prophecy. After all, the dragon has three heads, right? So if Rhaegar is the one his parents would have to give him at least two siblings, the other two dragon heads. That's what they are obsessed about, not so much the mundane continuation of the royal line. If it had been that alone they would have given Rhaegar a wife as soon as he was capable of fathering heirs, not waiting with a betrothal until he was almost twenty.

But regardless how you view all that - it is quite obvious (now) that the Targaryens were obsessed with a prophecy about the Others and stuff ... while it is clear that Robert and his gang didn't care about this stuff at all. Which is literally the reason why Westeros is pretty much fucked at this point.

The Ghost of High Heart could’ve informed him. Bloodraven could’ve used her to inform him as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, King Robb of Winterfell said:

The Ghost of High Heart could’ve informed him. Bloodraven could’ve used her to inform him as well.

Better yet, the GoHH could have set them all up. She could have known of this promised Prince that would come from Aerys & Rhaella and withheld the fact that this individual would bring about the end of the Targaryen dynasty. Wouldn’t that be a hoot and a half? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Better yet, the GoHH could have set them all up. She could have known of this promised Prince that would come from Aerys & Rhaella and withheld the fact that this individual would bring about the end of the Targaryen dynasty. Wouldn’t that be a hoot and a half? 

Yup. It’s also something I could see Bryndon doing. He was always the guy who would do anything for the greater good. Like stab his wife to gain magic power to save the world. And one of the themes I think GRRM is going for is that the ends don’t justify the means. You can’t be a hero to humanity by sacrificing your humanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, King Robb of Winterfell said:

Yup. It’s also something I could see Bryndon doing. He was always the guy who would do anything for the greater good. Like stab his wife to gain magic power to save the world. And one of the themes I think GRRM is going for is that the ends don’t justify the means. You can’t be a hero to humanity by sacrificing your humanity.

I’m confused, who are you talking about here? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kissdbyfire said:

I’m confused, who are you talking about here? 

Well I was trying reference the Azor Ahai myth. The fact that people think AA is a heroic figure but I think AA sacrifice of Nissa. Issa was I for act the blood betrayal of the Bloodstone Emperor. I think AA was the villain of the long night. 
 

and I think a point GRRM is trying to make is that sacrificing love and humanity to save humanity isn’t heroic. And that’s the kind of guy Brynden is. He was always willing to do great evil to do great good. And I think Bloodraven will be an antagonist before he is gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

It started fairly well and I was even thinking, oh my I may agree w/ LV here for once, and then this. :lol:

United they stand, divided they fall. That's basically the theme of this entire book series. Without Aegon and his dynasty these people would stand no chance at all. Even now they are trying tear each other apart despite the fact that the man forged them into one three hundred years ago ... and still there are morons dreaming of 'ruling themselves' and 'returning to the old way' and other such crap.

Without his vision of a united Westeros, these people would stand no chance at all.

2 minutes ago, King Robb of Winterfell said:

The Ghost of High Heart could’ve informed him. Bloodraven could’ve used her to inform him as well.

There is a good chance that Rhaegar talked to the former later in life - when he no longer believed that he himself was the promised prince. We also know he corresponded with Maester Aemon about the prophecy.

But neither of those can have been the people showing him the original prophecy, nor can they have been the people feeding him the notion he was this promised prince himself.

Not sure Bloodraven really have the ability to actually reach people with any other means but very cryptic dreams and portents. Neither should have been clear enough to convince Rhaegar was he himself was the promised prince.

It is actually pretty obvious and goes somewhat along like this:

1. [new information] The Targaryens always kind of knew/believed in promised prince thing and Aegon the Conqueror himself had some prophetic dream about this (possibly leading to his Conquest).

2. Jaehaerys II believed in the promised prince prophecy to the point that he cared enough about the dwarf woman telling him that she had prophetic knowledge that the union of Jaehaerys' children would bring forth the promised prince. That's the reason why Aerys and Rhaella are forced to marry.

3. Aerys and Rhaella's first child, Rhaegar, is born while Summerhall burns around her, causing House Targaryen and the Realm at large much grief. The surviving Targaryen conclude/want to believe that little Rhaegar is the promised prince (as per the prophecy of the dwarf woman that Aerys and Rhaella's union would produce him) because of the smoke of the burning palace and the salty tears of the grieving survivors.

4. Rhaegar, in turn, is informed about all this by his royal parents when he still a pretty young child. He reads the original prophecy and is given additional information by his parents (the dwarf woman's prophecy, the importance of the bloodline of Aerys and Rhaella). That's why Rhaegar thinks he is the promised prince ... and also why he thinks his son Aegon might be the promised prince after he himself no longer believes he is the guy. Presumably in part because his parents didn't produce 'more dragon heads'. I mean, this whole thing is pretty obvious if you take a moment to think it through. Aerys II is desperate to have more children ... just like Rhaegar later is when he has just two children by Elia. Right? I mean, that's just obvious as hell, since it is one of the most crucial mysteries in the entire series. Rhaegar and Aerys II aren't really at odds, they are consumed by the same thing. The father just cracks under the pressure whilst the son didn't ... but then, Rhaegar didn't live as long as his father and never wore a crown, so we don't know how stable he would have been as a forty-year-old. Especially if had been a childless monarch by then - or stuck with only one child of his body when he thought prophecy demanded that he had at least three.

3 minutes ago, King Robb of Winterfell said:

Yup. It’s also something I could see Bryndon doing. He was always the guy who would do anything for the greater good. Like stab his wife to gain magic power to save the world. And one of the themes I think GRRM is going for is that the ends don’t justify the means. You can’t be a hero to humanity by sacrificing your humanity.

The greater good wouldn't be served by toppling the Targaryens. I mean, the pricks themselves are meaningless as political entities. They only matter insofar as they bring world-saving magic to the table (which they might with the dragons and perhaps other stuff).

But even in the mundane political sphere the Targaryens seem to have been the only ones who had the whole 'we will produce a promised prince who might save the world' thing on the table. Robert and his gang do not. Their regime destablizes the Realm, causes it to fracture and devolve to the savagery we see unfold in the books.

Theirs is not the road that leads to victory. It could have been different. But unfortunately it isn't. Robert, Ned, Tywin, Renly, Stannis (until he is told about prophetic stuff by Mel and receives letters from the Wall via Davos), etc. don't care about the prophecy.

If a Targaryen king believing in the prophecy, etc. had sat the Iron Throne when the series began (Rhaegar, say) then everything would have been easier. You cannot possibly doubt this.

13 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Better yet, the GoHH could have set them all up. She could have known of this promised Prince that would come from Aerys & Rhaella and withheld the fact that this individual would bring about the end of the Targaryen dynasty. Wouldn’t that be a hoot and a half? 

Would be a rather shitty way to grieve for her poor Jenny and her in-laws if you think about it. But then - the promised prince didn't bring about Robert's Rebellion. Once the world is saved, etc. the Targaryen dynasty - or all noble houses for all I care - could certainly end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, King Robb of Winterfell said:

Well I was trying reference the Azor Ahai myth. The fact that people think AA is a heroic figure but I think AA sacrifice of Nissa. Issa was I for act the blood betrayal of the Bloodstone Emperor. I think AA was the villain of the long night. 

 

Agree completely, Azor Ahai was not a hero.

1 minute ago, King Robb of Winterfell said:

and I think a point GRRM is trying to make is that sacrificing love and humanity to save humanity isn’t heroic. And that’s the kind of guy Brynden is. He was always willing to do great evil to do great good. And I think Bloodraven will be an antagonist before he is gone.

Disagree wholeheartedly. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

United they stand, divided they fall. That's basically the theme of this entire book series.
 

I agree w/ this in general.

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

Without Aegon and his dynasty these people would stand no chance at all. Even now they are trying tear each other apart despite the fact that the man forged them into one three hundred years ago ... and still there are morons dreaming of 'ruling themselves' and 'returning to the old way' and other such crap.

Without his vision of a united Westeros, these people would stand no chance at all.

But not with this. Yes, humanity must stand together, but that doesn’t necessarily mean everyone under one white supremacist ruler who thinks their family are gods and everyone else must bow to them. 
The EU system works pretty well. Ask Putin. 
(and no, of course it’s not a proper comparison but the point remains)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

But not with this. Yes, humanity must stand together, but that doesn’t necessarily mean everyone under one white supremacist ruler who thinks their family are gods and everyone else must bow to them. 
The EU system works pretty well. Ask Putin. 
(and no, of course it’s not a proper comparison but the point remains)

LOL, please. The Targaryens aren't 'whiter' than any other silly family deeming themselves royal or lordly or princely. They are just pale-skinned albinos with Elizabeth Taylor's eyes because the author has always fancied those looks. And they also don't behave in a similar manner. If the appendix of AGoT didn't talk about Targaryen 'inhame beauty' and other such stuff you wouldn't have issue with that. Because considering the conduct of Dany and Viserys (and what we see of Aerys and Rhaegar in memories and flashbacks) isn't really different from the way the Lannisters behave. And the other nobles aren't far behind them, either.

The difference you see there is more in your head than on the page.

What you criticize is a problem of the setting, of the feudal monarchy that's the political system in Westeros. The author clearly wanted to unite Westeros by blood and fire as he had Aegon the Conqueror do it. I'd agree that going away from monarchy and feudalism would be the more progressive story (in fact, a story where there is no silly feudal monarchy at all might be the better story simply because of that fact). But that's not this story. And even if the final deliberations before the big finale include some kind of Great Council scenario - which I'd expect Dany and Jon and whoever else might be around by that time to convene to discuss what's to be done now that everybody has stopped killing each other - then whatever democratic elements they will have won't include transferring magical savior duties or abilities by vote or lot to the likes of Hot Pie or Penny or Satin (nor too some Manderly too fat to ride a horse).

Both in regards to the well-being of the people in normal times as well as in relation to the supernatural threat the deposition of the Targaryens was a mistake, a tragedy, a catastrophe. Because the current civil war - which is the direct result of Robert's Rebellion and Robert's subsequent reign - is, to our knowledge, the most devastating civil war Westeros has faced to this day. It is already worse than the Dance, especially if you consider what regions have been affected already, and what regions will soon see more slaughter (the Arbor, souther coast of the Reach).

And the Baratheons and their allies never even considered the supernatural threat.

The author wanted to this to be because the Baratheon dynasty is weaker than the Targaryens. Robert wielded less authority than Aerys, had less prestige to keep the likes of Balon Greyjoy in line ... and was thus more dependent on both his ambitious brothers as well as on marriage deals with overly ambitious (and treasonous) nobles like the Lannisters.

The Targaryens never sank to the level that they had to marry the fucking Lannisters to cling to power. Even Aerys had still prestige enough to spit in Tywin's face when the guy offered his daughter's hand to Rhaegar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

It is just a wet dream of some people in the fandom that there was a marriage alliance against the Targaryens. That just doesn't actually exist.

Aerys II sucked as king, to be sure, but Robert the Cuckold is nearly as bad. He and his buddies did nothing to stablize the Realm.

Worse, the entire new regime clearly doesn't believe in a prophecy revolving around the Others nor do they prepare for the War for the Dawn for some other reason. Not even Ned Stark.

So, no, the deposition of the Targaryens is most likely the worst thing that ever happened to Westeros. Just as the Conquest may have been the best thing.

Robert for all his many flaws was a very friendly guy and didn’t just kill people for shits and giggles the way Aerys did. That alone made him a better king. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, sifth said:

Robert for all his many flaws was a very friendly guy and didn’t just kill people for shits and giggles the way Aerys did. That alone made him a better king. 

That's why I said nearly as bad.

And I also said that I don't much care for Aerys' victims because nobody had to enter the king's inner circle or work at the court of a guy who is called 'the Mad King'.

What makes Robert bad is his weakness which led to unprovoked rebellion (which in turn killed lots of people) and which had him include overly powerful and overly ambitious people into his family and government which caused a most devastating civil war upon his death. Also, of course, nothing he and his buddies did prepared the Realm for the threat to come - which the Targaryens (especially Rhaegar and his granddad but apparently also Aerys II) had on their plate.

The old Riverlander who wants Aerys back isn't a moron - he understands that Targaryen rule is different from Baratheon rule because the former have more prestige. And that translates to more stability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

It started fairly well and I was even thinking, oh my I may agree w/ LV here for once, and then this. /cdn-cgi/mirage/6dc3d3eb1a38505cabd90fb7ffd43995f14702a0df4cf40d6136ae67a48e140e/1280/https://asoiaf.westeros.org/uploads/emoticons/default_lol.gif

I agree with this to an extent. It was entirely justified, but I think Rhaegar winning would’ve been best for Westeros as a whole. I think he was aware of the coming Long Night, and if he had won, he would’ve prepared for it. But he didn’t win. His prophecies were chalked up as madness, and he is wrongfully seen as mad by some, like his father. Aerys needed to be toppled from power, and Rhaegar and Lyanna running off without telling people put a target on his back.

I think if Rhaegar had won on the Trident, Robert would be dead no matter what, but Rhaegar would’ve spared the Baratheons. If Ned survived the battle, Rhaegar would’ve spared him and made him Lord of Winterfell. After, he would’ve marched south and removed his father from power. I don’t think he’d kill Aerys, he was his father, but I can see him being imprisoned for the rest of his days in a tower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The old Riverlander who wants Aerys back isn't a more - he understands that Targaryen rule is different from Baratheon rule because the former have more prestige. And that translates to more stability.

Honestly, I just think the old guy, is a desperate man, willing to say whatever he wants to keep himself sane. In a nut shell he's basically saying "back in the day, people were better than his", which is usually just BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think it’s controversial to assert that the overall consequences of Robert’s Rebellion were not good.

The Baratheons were a weak dynasty, who tore themselves and the country asunder, and made themselves dependent upon the most selfish of all the Great Houses, the Lannisters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I don’t think it’s controversial to assert that the overall consequences of Robert’s Rebellion were not good.

The Baratheons were a weak dynasty, who tore themselves and the country asunder, and made themselves dependent upon the most selfish of all the Great Houses, the Lannisters.

Agreed, but despite the outcome of Baratheon rule, the rebellion itself was justified. It makes me hate Aerys even more, because despite Rhaegar’s “kidnapping” of Lyanna, I think Rhaegar would’ve been a great king. But because of Aerys actions, and Rhaegar’s absconding with Lyanna, it justified a rebellion that ultimately damaged Westeros immensely. I also think Rhaegar would’ve prepared for the Others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree...

That said, I think that every single Lannister action that occurred at the end of the war was all parts brutal, inappropriately opportunistic and completely unnecessary.

Literally every single action. From Jaime killing Aerys, to Tywin's horrendous sack, to the wedding of Cersei and Robert, to Jaime's refusal to tell the truth. It was all unnecessary.

And yes, I do think it was completely unnecessary - and therefore wrong - for Jaime to have killed Aerys. He could have easily incapacitated him...or, given that Rossart and the other pyromancers were dead, he could've just let Aerys rant and rave about the Red Keep until the Lannister bannermen showed up.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cruelty is part of what is used for law and order in most of the seven kingdoms.  Dunk and Egg saw corpses hanging in cages during their travels.  Theon Stark did worse to his enemies.  The Boltons flay.  The Greatjon and Roose enjoy the privileges of the lord's right to bed the bride.  Tywin murders families.  The Arryns throw enemies out of their moon door where they fall to their deaths; after subjecting them to the tortures of their hideous jail cells.  A king or a lord being cruel is not enough justification in Westeros to remove them from power.  Think about the cruelty of the Arryns and the Boltons.  The answer to the OP is no.  Aerys II was no more cruel than many of his great lords and lords.  His administration was providing the people with what they needed: security, good economy, and stability.  

Rhaegar was an idiot in the way he managed himself.  He should have either killed Lyanna or used her as political leverage to stop the Baratheon-Stark from creating an alliance.  If she came to him already pregnant with Mance or Brandon's child doesn't matter.  If the Stark PR is telling it true, she was kidnapped, he should have used her for political leverage.  If one of the two deserved to die it was Rhaegar.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, James West said:

Cruelty is part of what is used for law and order in most of the seven kingdoms.  Dunk and Egg saw corpses hanging in cages during their travels.  Theon Stark did worse to his enemies.  The Boltons flay.  The Greatjon and Roose enjoy the privileges of the lord's right to bed the bride.  Tywin murders families.  The Arryns throw enemies out of their moon door where they fall to their deaths; after subjecting them to the tortures of their hideous jail cells.  A king or a lord being cruel is not enough justification in Westeros to remove them from power.  Think about the cruelty of the Arryns and the Boltons.  The answer to the OP is no.  Aerys II was no more cruel than many of his great lords and lords.  His administration was providing the people with what they needed: security, good economy, and stability.  

Rhaegar was an idiot in the way he managed himself.  He should have either killed Lyanna or used her as political leverage to stop the Baratheon-Stark from creating an alliance.  If she came to him already pregnant with Mance or Brandon's child doesn't matter.  If the Stark PR is telling it true, she was kidnapped, he should have used her for political leverage.  If one of the two deserved to die it was Rhaegar.  

 

Cruelty is a part of this world, but Aerys was capricious, in addition to being cruel.  Given that Aerys rolled back his grandfather’s reforms, we can’t say he was good for the smallfolk either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...