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

[Craving Peaches]

55 minutes ago, James West said:

Rhaegar was an idiot in the way he managed himself.  He should have either killed Lyanna

That would have made things even worse. Rhaegar would look like Aerys 2.0 if he did that. He has no justification whatsoever.

57 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.

Burning alive is one of the most painful ways to die. The Boltons are clearly an outlier here given they had to agree to stop flaying their enemies a thousand years ago, people find their conduct reprehensible. The difference between Aerys and almost everyone else you listed is that they only inflicted the punishment when someone is guilty (excluding times of war). Aerys killed Rickon for no reason and tried to kill Robert and Ned for no reason. Tyrion doesn't get chucked out the moon door because he's innocent. There's no proof that the Greatjon partakes in the privilege of the first night. Aerys was excessively cruel without reason. It was justified to remove him. Aerys is cruel within in-word standards.

[Willam Stark]

3 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

And yes, I do think it was completely unnecessary - and therefore wrong - for Jaime to have killed Aerys.

On the contrary, it is one of the most heroic acts that Jaime has done. Aerys had to die for all the horrible things he did and was about to do. He's acted as a true knight.

3 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

or, given that Rossart and the other pyromancers were dead

They weren't all dead when Jaime slit Aerys' throat, he took care of the others after killing Aerys. The only thing he did wrong was not explaining why he did what he did.

[Shierak Qiya]

@BlackLightning is very correct.  Jaime should not have killed King Aerys.  That is a sin whose malicious echoes have haunted the Seven Kingdoms ever since.  The pyromancers were already dead.  Jaime had a duty to protect King Aerys with his own life even to the extent where he must protect the king from his royal self. 

King Aerys did not do anything another lord would not do in the threat of the challenge from Rickard and Robert.  I know R and R were not the smartest of men but it doesn't take a Varys to know how those betrothals would shift the power in Westeros.  No king and no lord would ever allow vassals to do that.  Hoster and Tywin never allowed a vassal to challenge their power.  Aerys has rights to stop any marriage engagement which would threaten his power to rule.  So even if we give the kindness of doubt to Rickard Stark and Robert Baratheon where they have no ill intent towards the Targaryens the king can still not allow them to become more powerful.  What they were building is a threat which no king could allow to gain ground. 

We know King Aerys made decisions based on advice.  He followed Barristan's advice to let Dontos live.  Tywin, Doran, and Stannis would never give that mercy to a family who had done to them what the Darklyns did to Aerys.  Stannis would have slaughtered all the Darklyns and Dontos clans.  Aerys granted mercy.  Aerys also granted mercy to Brandon Stark's little serving boy.  People on that small council told Aerys to execute Brandon and Rickard.  Brandon admitted to something which gave Aerys and his council reason to believe the Starks were traitors. 

 

[frenin]

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

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.

Isn't that the endgame of Aerys's reign anyway?

The Targaryen were just as weak and whatever power tradition gave them was certainly not enough to deter their banishment. Even if the rebels decided to leave a Targ in power, the precedent that a rebel leader can effectively wage a war against his king, killing him and then installing a puppet would be created. Won't be long before the Targs went out the same way the Merovingian kings did.

At that point you're just choosing which weak dynasty rules you.

But yes, Aerys and Rhaegar had to go, they had fucked up and compromise would never be reached with either of them in charge.

I don't think that Robert's grip of power was particularly tenuous after the Greyjoy Rebellion, most loyalist houses had effectively abandoned the Targlings and Robert commanded an unparalleled coalition which effectively meant his end could only come from within, as it happened.

At the end of the day, Baratheon or Targaryen, Westeros was doomed. Which is why these arguments of which (my preferred superior house or your silly barbaric one) house was better are always kinda silly. It'd take the miracle of Dany hatching dragons to change Westeros for the better.

19 minutes ago, Willam Stark said:

On the contrary, it is one of the most heroic acts that Jaime has done. Aerys had to die for all the horrible things he did and was about to do. He's acted as a true knight.

Nothing screams true knight like killing a man when his downfall is inmediate anyway.

[Craving Peaches]

45 minutes ago, Shierak Qiya said:

He followed Barristan's advice to let Dontos live.

This is a misrepresentation of what happened. What happened was that Aerys was going to kill them all, but as a reward for rescuing him he let Barristan ask one thing of him and Barristan asked for Dontos to be spared.

47 minutes ago, Shierak Qiya said:

Brandon admitted to something which gave Aerys and his council reason to believe the Starks were traitors. 

Where does the text say this or even imply this?

[kissdbyfire]

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

LOL indeed. It's not about the colour of their skin, it's about their belief that they are superior b/c they are who they are. You're just interpreting what I said literally, which is something you often do. And it's not about how beautiful they are either. It's plainly and clearly stated in the text, Valyrians liked to keep it in the family to keep the bloodline pure. In other words, they avoided mixing their precious special blood w/ that of 'lesser' races, even if that meant they had to fuck their own siblings. 

I don't recall ever reading anything about Martin really fancying those looks specifically. Yes, Elizabeth Taylor had stunningly gorgeous eyes, we can all agree to that. But the only time I recall Martin talking about that was when he was asked about Ashara's purple or violet or whatever eyes and said something along the lines of, 'Elizabeth Taylor has purple eyes  and she's not Valyrian'.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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

No,  it isn't.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

What you criticize is a problem of the setting, of the feudal monarchy that's the political system in Westeros.

Again, no, it isn't. Although I can agree that I do have a problem with feudal monarchies in general.

 

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The author clearly wanted to unite Westeros by blood and fire as he had Aegon the Conqueror do it.

Did he? I mean, he obviously did b/c that's what happened. I'm just not sure he wanted that for the same reasons you seem to think he did.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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).

I imagine Planetos or even Westeros can't realistically go from a backward feudal monarchy to a progressive social democracy, it wouldn't be believable at all. 

But that doesn't mean they can't evolve towards a less nasty, less violent, less unjust feudal monarchy. 

Much like real life today, where we can decide whether we want a Star Trek future or a Mad Max future. 

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

No, it's basically the same shit w/ different shitty overlords. Some Targ kings were better than others, yes. But claiming the overthrowing of the Targaryens was 'a mistake, a tragedy, a catastrophe' is laughable and ridiculous.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Because the current civil war - which is the direct result of Robert's Rebellion and Robert's subsequent reign

So, the current civil war is a direct consequence of a batshit insane king breaking his contract w/ his vassal lords in the most egregious way and the factt that this king's heir pondered 'should I do something about my crazy papa or shouldn't I' for far too long. Gotcha.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

- 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).

I don't know that I agree with this. What metric are you employing here? Regardless, even if true, this ties back to Aerys as well. 

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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

Nor did the Targs. When have we ever heard of any of them trying to do something about any supernatural threats for real? The fact that maybe a couple of them had some vague inkling originating in prophetic dreams to a possible supernatural threat means fuck all because they never did anything about it. They didn't share this 'knowledge', not even among themselves.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

Says you, and I'm not taking your interpretation as canon. Yes, Robert turned out to be a shit king. That doesn't mean Aerys was better, he wasn't. And while Aerys had several years of prosperity and peace, we know that only happened b/c it was Tywin who was running the show. 

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Targaryens never sank to the level that they had to marry the fucking Lannisters to cling to power.

Right. They instead sank to the level of having to fuck their own siblings to keep the bloodline pure. And that's a lower the lowest level to sink to in my book. 

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Even Aerys had still prestige enough to spit in Tywin's face when the guy offered his daughter's hand to Rhaegar.

This is a ridiculous and absurd claim. Aerys didn't refuse Tywin's offer b/c he had so much prestige, he did it out of spite. But I'm not at all surprised that you're looking at this from the most literal point of view possible by accepting what Aerys said when he refused Tywin's offer as the truth. 

[The Lord of the Crossing]

Quote

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

Maybe but Prince Viserys, Queen Rhaella, and Princess Daenerys were innocent.  Westeros belonged to them. 

[Craving Peaches]

7 minutes ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Westeros belonged to them. 

No it didn't. Westeros doesn't really 'belong' to anyone, and if they want it they have to fight for it like everyone else.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Shierak Qiya said:

@BlackLightning is very correct.  Jaime should not have killed King Aerys.  That is a sin whose malicious echoes have haunted the Seven Kingdoms ever since.  The pyromancers were already dead.  Jaime had a duty to protect King Aerys with his own life even to the extent where he must protect the king from his royal self. 

King Aerys did not do anything another lord would not do in the threat of the challenge from Rickard and Robert.  I know R and R were not the smartest of men but it doesn't take a Varys to know how those betrothals would shift the power in Westeros.  No king and no lord would ever allow vassals to do that.  Hoster and Tywin never allowed a vassal to challenge their power.  Aerys has rights to stop any marriage engagement which would threaten his power to rule.  So even if we give the kindness of doubt to Rickard Stark and Robert Baratheon where they have no ill intent towards the Targaryens the king can still not allow them to become more powerful.  What they were building is a threat which no king could allow to gain ground. 

We know King Aerys made decisions based on advice.  He followed Barristan's advice to let Dontos live.  Tywin, Doran, and Stannis would never give that mercy to a family who had done to them what the Darklyns did to Aerys.  Stannis would have slaughtered all the Darklyns and Dontos clans.  Aerys granted mercy.  Aerys also granted mercy to Brandon Stark's little serving boy.  People on that small council told Aerys to execute Brandon and Rickard.  Brandon admitted to something which gave Aerys and his council reason to believe the Starks were traitors. 

 

Aerys was a jerk, even before he went mad.  He and Tywin suited each other, because he went for overkill.  He ripped out Ilyn Payne’s tongue for making a witticism at his expense.  He murdered a wet nurse, and ripped out Lady Serala’s private parts, before he burnt her.

Note, it’s rulers like Joffrey, Cersei, Aerys, Tywin who respond to insults with torture, ripping out tongues, or killing.  By contrast, Dany either shrugs off insults, or replies in kind, or (at worst) singes a man’s tokar.

I think the narrative favours the approach of Dany, rather than the other four.

[kissdbyfire]

1 minute ago, Craving Peaches said:

No it didn't. Westeros doesn't really 'belong' to anyone, and if they want it they have to fight for it like everyone else.

Cheers. I was about to type exactly that. 

[StarkTullies]

2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

It's not about the colour of their skin, it's about their belief that they are superior b/c they are who they are. You're just interpreting what I said literally, which is something you often do. And it's not about how beautiful they are either. It's plainly and clearly stated in the text, Valyrians liked to keep it in the family to keep the bloodline pure. In other words, they avoided mixing their precious special blood w/ that of 'lesser' races, even if that meant they had to fuck their own siblings. 

I don't have the energy to respond to all of the recent postings in this thread that I disagree with (I disagree with plenty), so I'll respond by saying that I agree with everything you've said on this topic.  Not just this selected quote but everything else; I chose this quote in particular because the whole "Valyrian supremacy" thing is certainly my top reason for my dislike of the Targaryens (and the incest, which is a direct result).

2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Nor did the Targs. When have we ever heard of any of them trying to do something about any supernatural threats for real? The fact that maybe a couple of them had some vague inkling originating in prophetic dreams to a possible supernatural threat means fuck all because they never did anything about it. They didn't share this 'knowledge', not even among themselves.

And also this.  Even if there is "new canon" about Aegon's prophecy (and I certainly don't accept alternate storytelling as canon until it appears in the book), the Targaryens didn't seem to do a single thing to prepare for this supposedly dream-foretold Long Night.  The Watch became weaker under a "united realm" than it had been during separate Seven Kingdoms... which I don't even think makes sense, but it seems like quite an intentional proof that the Targaryens did not prepare Westeros for this coming apocalyptic travesty.

Marwyn's "bite your prick off every time" quote about prophecy made a recent appearance in these threads, and I think that quote is George Martin's interpretation of these characters' interpretation of prophecy.  Even if Aegon or whichever other Targaryen thought they were trying to save the world by following this prophecy (that they refused to share with anyone else), trying to keep prophecies under control never seems to work out well for anybody in this story.

[Willam Stark]

1 hour ago, Shierak Qiya said:

King Aerys did not do anything another lord would not do in the threat of the challenge from Rickard and Robert.  I know R and R were not the smartest of men but it doesn't take a Varys to know how those betrothals would shift the power in Westeros.

Let me guess...hmm...Southron ambitions thing?

Arranging betrothals between houses of equal status is not a crime in Westeros, moreover Rickard and Robert are not the first lords paramount to do so. Some of the Baratheon lords prior to Robert married with Lannisters and Aerys' ancestors didn't mind, even at that time weren't the only one to try it: Oberyn's mother wanted to betroth Oberyn to Cersei, Elia to Jaime or both but I didn't see any Targ worshiper mentioning it. The shift in power would depend solely on Aerys' policy, if he doesn't screw up he has nothing to be afraid of since they didn't openly defied him before Lyanna's abduction. 

2 hours ago, Shierak Qiya said:

No king and no lord would ever allow vassals to do that.

Previous Kings allowed Baratheons to marry Lannisters, nothing wrong here.

2 hours ago, Shierak Qiya said:

Hoster and Tywin never allowed a vassal to challenge their power.

I agree with this statement, but Robert and Rickard never tried to challenge Aerys' power before he broke the feudal contract. 

2 hours ago, Shierak Qiya said:

Aerys has rights to stop any marriage engagement which would threaten his power to rule.

Nope he doesn't, the Realm of the Seven Kingdom is not an absolute monarchy, lots of people even outside the Targ worship tend to forget that.

2 hours ago, Shierak Qiya said:

He followed Barristan's advice to let Dontos live.  Tywin, Doran, and Stannis would never give that mercy to a family who had done to them what the Darklyns did to Aerys. 

For Tywin I can understand his presence in the list, but when did Stannis and Doran slaughter entire Houses for the sole reason of being linked by blood to some Darklyns equivalents who traumatized them? How can one call the slaughter of innocents for what they are "mercy"? 

2 hours ago, Shierak Qiya said:

Stannis would have slaughtered all the Darklyns and Dontos clans.

Tywin mayhaps, definitely not Stannis. Wishful thinking.

2 hours ago, Shierak Qiya said:

People on that small council told Aerys to execute Brandon and Rickard. 

That's what he did, in one of the most despicable ways, even by the standards in-universe.

3 hours ago, Shierak Qiya said:

Brandon admitted to something which gave Aerys and his council reason to believe the Starks were traitors. 

Interesting, what did he admit then? 

[Craving Peaches]

11 minutes ago, StarkTullies said:

I chose this quote in particular because the whole "Valyrian supremacy" thing is certainly my top reason for my dislike of the Targaryens (and the incest, which is a direct result).

Yes. I actually used to like the Targaryens but reading Fire and Blood made me less keen and now I don't like them so much for this reason. Even the relatively good-natured Daenerys is not immune, believing she cannot get sick sue to her superior blood (despite historical evidence to the contrary), though it is likely Viserys is the source of these beliefs so I hope there is room for them to be challenged. The incest is bad but what makes it the worst is their justification for it is that they are superior to others. The whole 'Doctrine of Exceptionalism' really puts me off them (I also think the name choice was poor as it sounds quite fascist).

[kissdbyfire]

7 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I also think the name choice was poor as it sounds quite fascist).

Is it a poor choice or is it a deliberate one? 

[StarkTullies]

9 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

The whole 'Doctrine of Exceptionalism' really puts me off them (I also think the name choice was poor as it sounds quite fascist).

Poor on King Jaeherys's part, great on George Martin's part, because I think it was quite intentional.  Also interesting that it was "the best Targaryen king" who came up with the very racist terminology, which is one reason why I think the "best king" was greatly overrated (though in the scope of Westerosi kings, still one of the best).

I used to find it annoying when people used the term "TargAryen" to make a point, but now I'm wondering if the name choice for the self-proclaimed "god-like" family who thought they were entitled to rule over Westeros actually was intentional on George Martin's part too.

[SeanF]

21 minutes ago, StarkTullies said:

Poor on King Jaeherys's part, great on George Martin's part, because I think it was quite intentional.  Also interesting that it was "the best Targaryen king" who came up with the very racist terminology, which is one reason why I think the "best king" was greatly overrated (though in the scope of Westerosi kings, still one of the best).

I used to find it annoying when people used the term "TargAryen" to make a point, but now I'm wondering if the name choice for the self-proclaimed "god-like" family who thought they were entitled to rule over Westeros actually was intentional on George Martin's part too.

If the other aristocratic POV’s thought of non-noble lives as being as valuable as their own, I might agree.  But, they clearly do not.

Aegon and his sisters were not putting an end to liberal democracy in Westeros.

Every single one of these people believes their bloodline makes them better than 99% of the people.

[Craving Peaches]

36 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Is it a poor choice or is it a deliberate one? 

36 minutes ago, StarkTullies said:

Poor on King Jaeherys's part, great on George Martin's part, because I think it was quite intentional.  Also interesting that it was "the best Targaryen king" who came up with the very racist terminology, which is one reason why I think the "best king" was greatly overrated (though in the scope of Westerosi kings, still one of the best).

I used to find it annoying when people used the term "TargAryen" to make a point, but now I'm wondering if the name choice for the self-proclaimed "god-like" family who thought they were entitled to rule over Westeros actually was intentional on George Martin's part too.

Good point.

15 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Every single one of these people believes their bloodline makes them better than 99% of the people.

Yes, they argue that as nobles they are better than the lower classes, not that they are superior to everyone else including other nobles due to their race. For me the Targaryen argument has a racial component that the others are lacking in. The other nobles just think they are better bred, the Targaryens think the are better because they are Valyrian.

[SeanF]

15 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Good point.

Yes, they argue that as nobles they are better than the lower classes, not that they are superior to everyone else including other nobles due to their race. For me the Targaryen argument has a racial component that the others are lacking in. The other nobles just think they are better bred, the Targaryens think the are better because they are Valyrian.

People generally, look up to Valyria as the heart of civilisation, as the medievals did to Rome.

And, even among the nobles, there is a pecking order.  Tywin is actually indignant that Robb married the granddaughter of a spice merchant.

[StarkTullies]

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

If the other aristocratic POV’s thought of non-noble lives as being as valuable as their own, I might agree.

I agree with that statement as far as the general aristocracy goes, but I don't think that's true regarding the specific POVs in ASOIAF.  The Lannister and the Greyjoy POVs certainly all think they are better than their underlings, and the Martells as well although not quite as abrasively (at least Arianne, Quentyn just seems concerned about pleasing his father).  Catelyn, though I love her, did not approve of her brother Edmure's unusual compassion for the smallfolk (thinking of them as "useless mouths").  Brienne and Sam are both outcasts from their aristocratic roots, but neither of them think of commoners that way (though Sam is theoretically no longer an aristocrat by the time he joins the Watch).  We never saw Ned's thoughts on the matter but he was certainly a status quo kind of guy, yet he dined all people of Winterfell in an attempt to treat them all as equals (or as "equal" as they can be in this society).  Of the Stark children, only Sansa looked down on the commoners... but her story is about growth and she seems to be shedding her least desirable traits while learning what it is like to live as a bastard.  Arya specifically prefers commoners and seemed embarrassed when Gendry found out she was a "lady", and not just because it blew her cover.

17 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Aegon and his sisters were not putting an end to liberal democracy in Westeros.

Every single one of these people believes their bloodline makes them better than 99% of the people.

The Targaryens claimed they are god-like and hijacked a religion to force them to declare them as "exceptional".  No other family has done that (excluding some ancient IronBorn families favored by the Drowned God, probably).  Nor do other families commit incest because they refuse to "lower themselves" by procreating with "lesser men".  There is a recent abundance of threads saying how evil the Starks are for trying to marry non-Northern, non-First Men families... which is the exact opposite of keeping their blood "pure".

I don't hate Aegon and Visenya because they ended the great utopia that Westeros was before they arrived.  The conquest-era Targaryens were better than the Hoares or the Durrandons, and probably not worse than many of the other ruling houses, and Westeros was a mess.  I hate Aegon and Visenya because they conquered and mass-murdered because they could (and until there is canon evidence that Aegon had another reason, I'm not buying it, because his actions don't support he was preparing against the Others).  Trying to annihilate all of Dorne because they refused to be "united" is not a means of unification.

Many of these arguments (not yours) don't simply claim that the Targaryens are no worse than the other houses.  If that was the case, I probably wouldn't even comment on these topics.  The claim that the Targaryens are superior, god-like, the saviors of the world, humanity's only chance of survival, all through the use of fire-and-blood weapons of mass destruction, is what I'm reacting to.

[StarkTullies]

10 minutes ago, SeanF said:

And, even among the nobles, there is a pecking order.  Tywin is actually indignant that Robb married the granddaughter of a spice merchant.

But Tywin was the most reprehensible character in the first three books.  Saying Tywin did it too is no defense of the Targaryens.  I like the worst Targaryen far more than Tywin Lannister.  If Tywin had dragons, the Riverlands would have been 100% gone.

King Robb, on the other hand, was willing to marry this "lesser girl"... so again, not all of the noble families are equally elitist.

  

10 minutes ago, SeanF said:

People generally, look up to Valyria as the heart of civilisation, as the medievals did to Rome.

Yep, but hundreds of years after the fall of Rome, did Italians who migrated to France or England or wherever say "I'm better than you because I'm the blood of Rome!", and the native citizens actually revere them for it?